outside the box

We commonly hear, it can't be done, it won't be done, and all types of fear uncertainty and doubt, when looking at CDR and 100% REs.

When I was a child there was one way to make pasta. Boil water on a stove, and anything less than al dente was sacrilegious. Today I know that if I use different pasta, (but still calorically the same) angel hair instead of penne, add boiling water from an electric kettle, then microwave it, it's done in less than 5 minutes and al dente. If I'm plugged into an electric grid, it's entirely fossil free. (Yes, induction and radiant work too, but do take some time to boil.) So, it's not the traditional pasta unless you wanted angel hair, but it's less energy intensive, even though it's now has two heat process steps.

This is the kind of thinking we'll be doing to find ways to engineer more ways to reduce the energy demands of our lifestyle and our carbon removal efforts. Couple this with the falling price in Solar PV, and batteries, and we hopefully will meet before reaching 1.5ºC & using up the remaining carbon budget.

This is the exciting frontier of re-imaging and engineering to lower energy costs. And I haven't even touched on the cool stuff that's incubated from Activate & Cyclotron Road.

And remember, just because the fo**il fu*l industrial complex can pull oil from Alaska and refine it in the lower 48 then ship it to a Walmart or gas pump in Florida, doesn't mean that process needs to continue if EVs take over transportation.

The cost of that entire process I just described was offset by fossil fuel subsidies, shareholders, corporation value, existing supply chains, etc ... 

How much ceases to exist or gets replaced by REs and CDR? How much more efficient would it be to just use Solar PV deployed within 50 mi radius of the vehicle that uses electricity instead of oil? How many more new jobs when PV is installed, and the grid transmission upgraded, and the machinists and heavy industry workers are hired to maintain the grid, and new CDR technology? What happens when this is deployed in a city's existing industrial area? But it's totally electric and the new biz owners are fully 3x bottom line so they operate a zero emissions site?

Just imagine!

Open NanoCarbon Annual New Year's Letter

Hello.

Last year was one hell of a year. Never before have I seen so much widespread grief, soul-crushing misery, and response from people. We lost so many. We examined ourselves and started work to recognize and open access and opportunities for Black lives and in turn, will help all minorities. Even today, much of the world, our healthcare, and essential workers are still in the trenches. And we still have an unequal society.

I put my long-shot quest of building an energy storage device on hold while I battled my own depression. I was thankful for the kindness of strangers and friends.

I'm continuing ONC for January. I am seeking a stipend or paying work. I have not been revenue positive since '15. Instead, I've invested in learning, and experimenting, including creating ONC, a poster session at the 2018 International Negative Emissions Conference in Sweden, a preprint, met Christiana Figueres at the end of the GCAS '18 at College of Marin in California, DD BASF, Maker Faire, and for Autofracture built rGO in a bedroom and then a garage, and created the new logo for ONC. In early fall I reached out to the UN as our sky turned orange, an annual sight in Napa and Sonoma Counties but unfamilar to those more south.

While researching Carbon Removal scalability, I found the projected market demand for carbonates and basalt projects is larger than direct conversion to solid carbon. As such, ONC is changing its goal of 'removing hundreds of gigatonnes in less than two decades' to 'the fastest large scale conversion' to solid carbon. The choice is twofold; we still need solid carbons to produce goods like polymers and bitumen and ought to democratize 3D printing.

ONC Climate Modeling Research

ONC is still researching climate modeling to get to zero degrees warming over the start of industry (mean temperature from 1720-1800). And will be continuing to build off the pymagicc team's work in python workbooks at https://github.com/hsbay/cdrmex. I'm looking for sponsors of this project https://bit.ly/cdrmexprj as well as volunteer coders. I've opened an ONC issue to calibrate MAGICC 6 for negative emissions, as MAGICC 7 won't be available till the fall of 2021. Other issues will be opened, soon. Ideally, I intend to get this done in Jan.

To better understand how to achieve and what happens at zero cumulative anthropogenic emissions, we need climate modeling outlining Earth's dynamic response. CDRMIP has not adopted baseline calibration carbon removal tests to absolute zero to complete in less than a century. The Zero Emissions Commitment paper outlines what happens for removal to 1.5ºC, not cumulative zero anthropogenic emissions. Cao and Calderia's 2009 paper starts removal after reaching 511 ppm in 2049. Hopefully, our efforts will inspire others to look at pushing beyond Paris. Early modeling to cumulative anthropogenic zero shows we must achieve 1.5ºC (Paris) and head much lower before 2100. Early modeling also shows we need to move off all fossil gasses to eliminate Montreal/Kigali controlled SFGHGs. For continuing research http://bit.ly/cdrmexprj

Many of my in situ reports are in tweets, please do visit, read and share my pinned thread that shows supporting reasoning as to why we must reach at least 92% of net zero by 2030. (https://twitter.com/safiume/status/1307053939901313026)

ONC Physical Sci Research

There are a few recent CO₂ to solid carbon/liquid hydrocarbons in the past few years. As ONC's charter is open science, only those open science candidates can be adopted and adapted by ONC. Depending on how much runway I have, how ONC grows, what labs are open, and vaccine availability, I'll either manage or be the PI for electrochemical CDR experiment(s) in the fall of 2021. As I have no physical lab, nor have I've been vaccinated; this is very speculative.

I've moved to San Francisco for health and a shorter commute to the bay's labs. It has raised my rent. I will have to take a break from ONC at the end of Jan until I replenish my runway. I hope to start ONC physical science research in the fall unless ONC receives donations. SLAC/LBNL labs are free, assuming ONC wins the grant/PI process to be accepted to perform open science. The donations would support any materials the labs may not have and a living stipend.

The fact that I'm asking for money is likely a failing on my part as a founder. However, I've started things that no one has attempted: ONC, and green catalysis of rGO in a garage.

The year 2020 was an exceedingly difficult time. If you would like to restart your participation in open science, contact Shannon. I look forward to hearing from you.

Wishing you good health, stay safe, and quick access to vaccines.

Yours in service to a better climate,

≈sa

----------

Shannon A. Fiume

shannon at autofracture dot com | https://twitter.com/safiume | https://linkedin.com/in/safiume | http://www.autofracture.com/research | Go Carbon Negative!

Seeking Cooler Than 1.5

Why 1.5ºC?

The Paris Agreement goal is to reach less than 1.5º C. It completes by the year 2100. The goal's target is to allow Earth to warm to about 1.5ºC (2.7ºF) above the average temperature from 1850-1900. Also note, 1.5ºC  is the global average: locally your town or city could warm greater than 1.5º C; it could warm more than of 10º C (or 18º F, like during the summer of 2010: "[...] anomalies were particularly pronounced, exceeding the 1970–1999 mean (18) by 10°C [... ]".) And lastly, the goal follows (economically) viable trajectory to 1.5 that includes exceeding 1.5ºC before returning to below 1.5ºC at the end of the century.

The section of my previous post, Climate Action to Carbon Removal Q&A: "Why is the amount of Carbon so much larger ..." is incorrect. The climate modeling publicly available referenced in the  Nature Article: 'Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C' shows the climate returns to that of the mid-2020s or the 2000s in another graph. Because of this difference, I can't use the historical projection of radiative forcing to project the target climate. The climate of 2100 from SSPn-1.9 is more likely comparable to a climate similar to mid-2000 or mid-2020s and includes all climate extremes for those decades. Not to mention that the temperature will still rise from industrial use mid-century before finally descending to about 1.5ºC-1.4ºC. And it's worth underscoring, 1.5º C is relative to the starting timeframe of 1850-1900, per Special Report 1.5.

Figure 1. Climate Models of SSP1 1.9 IMAGE modeled by MAGICC in Green and FAIR in Purple by the IAMC Scenario Explorer hosted by IIASA

So why is the amount still so much more vast to reach 280 ppm in the atmosphere and oceans compared to only reaching a little below 1.5º C?

Think back to the original problem, we emitted Carbon Dioxide, which has accumulated in the atmosphere and oceans since the start of industry (1750). The accumulation of Carbon is roughly 460 gigatonnes of Carbon (1.8 trillion tonnes CO₂) or 80 thousand Great Pyramids of Giza, or 1.5M Empire State buildings, spread between the atmosphere and oceans. To restore the climate to a desired Carbon Dioxide concentration, we need to remove Carbon Dioxide we added that now resides in the atmosphere and oceans. We emitted about 360 gigatonnes of Carbon (1.3 trillion tonnes of CO₂) from 1750 to 2010. The target scenarios would remove on average 100 gigatonnes of Carbon (366 gigatonnes of CO₂) which has the potential to return to a climate roughly similar to 2010. Given the changes to the other greenhouse gases, the MAGICC model in Figure 1. shows a temperature more similar to what's projected for the mid-2020s. The amount to return to pre-industrial times would be the entire amount of Carbon we've emitted, all 460 gigatonnes of Carbon. This difference is perceived as politically untenable as it's perceived to be too expensive (with today's pricing of renewables and need for fossil fuels). If we wish to have the climate of say 300 ppm, we'd have to remove another 300 gigatonnes (≈1 trillion tonnes CO₂) beyond what it would take to reach 1.5ºC. To restore to a desired temperature in addition to removing CO₂, we would also need to draw down much of the short forming greenhouse gasses.

Figure 2. Cumulative Emissions are a super-exponential inducing changes to the natural sinks. SSP1 1.9 IMAGE, as well as SSP1 RCP2.6 IMAGE, are modeled for comparison. The X's listed in red are the amount of CO₂ it would take for the Atmosphere to reach 450 ppm and extrapolated to the Cumulative Emissions line. We are likely to deglaciate Antarctica when we hit 450 ppm. The SSPs splines were generated from a linear extrapolation of the SSP Database data.

No doctor would ever say to a cancer patient, 'We might be able to treat your cancer by providing the least amount of care and intervention.' That's exactly the target goal 1.5ºC primarily due to political will based on public support. It's from the support my government has historically supplied. And for that, I apologize to the world.

The UN Climate Action Summit 2019 theme referring to the climate emergency, was: 'A Race We Can Win. A Race We Must Win.' We should seek much lower than 1.5ºC should we want to secure an environment that fairly provides economic justice to all life on Earth. We didn't save the condors, bald eagles, Asian elephants, black-footed ferrets, kakapos, manatees, orangutans, the spotted owls, giant pandas, tigers, the leatherback sea turtles, the great blue whales, the humpback whales, and the redwoods, thousands square meters of rain forests, only to be lost again in another 60-100 years. We didn't decide we wanted to have Sustainable Development Goals only for the G7. A world on the brink of peril, say one created from vast amounts of CO₂; about 360 gigatonnes of Carbon (and 1.3 trillion tonnes of CO₂) similar to 2010 or that of the mid-2020s, isn't one social-ecological and economic justice.

And why? Because we're too lazy to change an existing infrastructure that delivers fossil fuels that creates wealth, and renewables are too expensive today? Those reasons aren't good enough to risk Earth for centuries to come.

Open Questions

What's the total amount of cumulative CO₂ since 1750 that equates to 450 ppm, and other tipping points? What scenarios get us away from these tipping points the fastest? What temperature relative to 1850, is safe and acceptable warming, that provides environmental justice for all plant, animal life on Earth? Note this allowable warming is relative to a point in time that was changed by human emissions, therefore this number could be negative. What's the fastest, safest rate we can remove Carbon from the atmosphere to restore the climate the fastest?

Climate Action to CDR Q&A

Image Credit: CC-BY 4.0 Shannon Fiume, 2018 https://bit.ly/2V3qP80


How much Carbon do we need to pull out of the air (and oceans) to get to a Carbon Dioxide concentration of 281 ppm, as it was in the pre-Anthropocene?
   As of late last year by the latest emissions figures reported by the Global Carbon Budget Project, we need to pull about 460 gigatonnes of Carbon or remove 1.6 trillion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere.

And what’s the fastest rate could we pull this out of the atmosphere?
   This question isn’t simple, as we don’t know what’s the optimal rate to pull Carbon out of the atmosphere. Here are some hypotheticals. If were to remove all Carbon from human emissions, in the next twenty-five years, we’d need a fast rate of removal, say slightly over 18 gigatonnes of Carbon (or about 67 gigatonnes of CO₂) per year. If we expect to reach restoration in a somewhat longer time, say 30 to 40 years, then that number could lower. If we want to finish by 2100, when many of us have died, then we can reduce that number even further. If we lose the carbon sequestration capacity of the land sink, meaning the Carbon trapped underground or in plants goes into the atmosphere and subsequently pushed into the ocean, then the total goes up. We actually should plan on the amount being high initially such to steer us clear of tipping points.

Why are tipping points bad?
   There are large deposits of Carbon locked up in frozen methane, ice, and permafrost. Should these large quantities of Carbon get released quickly in a matter of years, or less, it will radically increase global warming. There are other tipping points, such as removing large amounts of ice cover, which would also quickly increase global warming. This radical increase in warming presents a much more difficult path where Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is theoretically not able to keep pace with warming. For CDR to be successful, we need to get to emission neutral and practice removal to stop the planet from warming enough to set off the tipping points.

Why is the amount of Carbon so much larger than the figure quoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and popular press?
   The way to lower Earth's temperature is estimated by the UN IPCC in climate models that break down many hypotheticals ways into scenarios, and some of them target to not exceed 1.5º C. Their reports use a measure of heat named Radiative Forcing, which is Watts per area of gas or body such as Earth. The lowest amount of allowable warming to not exceed 1.5º C is RF 1.9 W/m². (Outlined in the technical science reports global modeling teams use different software to model how to achieve RF 1.9 W/m². The data from these team's scenarios are used to generate the probability of attaining below 1.5º C.) Reaching 281 ppm would be a Radiative Forcing of 0 W/m² and 0º C of allowed warming. Reaching a Radiative Forcing of 1.9 W/m² would be akin to reaching the climate of 1984, whereas a Radiative Forcing of 0 would be a climate just after the mini-ice age/global cooling in the 1790s.¹ (Search for 1984 in the previously linked NOAA reference page.) (This section is incorrect, and is corrected in this blog post: Seeking Cooler than 1.5ºC.)


How do we get to the climate of the 1790s and why 281 ppm?
   We need everyone to do everything in Project Drawdown to get us nearly emission neutral and get involved in CDR and carbon tech. 281 ppm was the global average Carbon Dioxide concentration from 600 BCE to 1750. We need scientists to identify if 281 ppm is the optimum Carbon Dioxide concentration. We don't know what the optimum Carbon Dioxide concentration is.

Scatter plot of Antarctic Ice Core CO₂ concentration data from multiple ice cores: Law Dome, Dome C, Maud, Taylor Dome, WAIS Divide, Vostok, and the 

South Pole from the time of 200,000 BCE to 2004 CE. The pale green line is the mean of 280.9 from 600 BCE to 1750 CE.

By when do we need to hit Carbon neutral or emission neutral?
   We need to hit emission neutral ASAP, not by 2030, or later, but as fast as humanly possible. We need to start carbon removal as soon as humanly possible to steer Earth’s climate clear of tipping points. We ought to hit double-digit gigatonnes of Carbon removed in the next couple of years. We have to scale an industry that doesn’t exist.

Go back to the safety of this much removal, how safe is it?

   At this point, we don’t know. We need scientific labs to find the upper limit of how fast we can remove Carbon and not cause the climate to fall into a mini ice-age. We need labs to identify what’s the slowest we can remove and not set off the tipping points, and not have the climate extremes like the present time. While labs are working to find the fastest and safest rate, since it takes time to scale the technologies to remove gigatonnes; we need entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers to create, enhance, and scale CDR technologies.

What can we do, how can we take climate action?
   We need everyone to create, extend, and scale renewables and CDR technologies. We’ll need many early adopters to buy or try open CDR solutions. We'll need everyone to switch to the renewable option asap. These efforts will get the economic engine to prefer recycled-emissions carbon-based goods. And we need everyone to get involved in CDR now, and so we can go carbon negative!

¹ In the paper Alternative Method to Determine a Carbon Dioxide Removal Target, as well as in "A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation", the historical RF precedent is used to substantiate temperature in the place of generating a model.

Horseshoe bay

The git based repository for Open NanoCabon is named Horseshoe Bay after the bay that the future home of Starfleet headquarters overlooks. This is a hope for doing grandiose things with project ONC to have a major benefit to all humans and the planet within our lifetimes.
Many navy ships were named after places, and thus I found it fitting to name the effort to ship after a place that would inspire people, with a more humanitarian purpose, to reach for the unknown: Ex Astris, Scientia.