The International ‘CTI’ Project on CO2 ocean sequestration: lessons for mCDR?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During the Third Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) in Kyoto in December 1997 an international project on CO2 ocean sequestration was launched, under the auspices of the UNFCCC/OECD Climate Technology Initiative (CTI). The US, Japan and Norway agreed to support an initial field experiment on ocean CO2 sequestration by direct injection. Later Australia and Canada joined the team. At that time, some 25 years ago, ocean storage of CO2 by direct injection was actively considered along with subseabed geological storage of CO2 as options for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).The release experiment was originally planned to take place in Hawaii at 800 m depth in 2001. However, permitting prcoedures turned out to be difficult even if the experiment was to take place within an ocean research corridor. As a contingency plan it was decided to move the experiment to Norway in 2002. The project revised its scientific plan and submitted an application for a permit to release 5.4 tons of CO2 in 2002. The pure liquid CO2 would be released by remote control at 800 m water depth offshore mid-Norway from an array of CO2 in tanks mounted inside a cage on the seabed. During the experiment the greenhouse gas was to be released in limited amounts several times during the 10-day experiment period. The project team would subsequently measure and observe how CO2 dissolved in the ambient water.Shortly before the date of the experiment, permits were withdrawn. To cut short, the project ended after 5 years with its mission not completed due to opposition from private and public stakeholders claiming that the release experiment would pollute and disturb the ocean. This happened despite repeated findings of no significant impact.The ocean sequestration project was a direct follow-up of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This convention encourages research on natural CO2 sinks, inclusive the ocean, and how these sinks may be stimulated for increased uptake. The London Convention and OSPAR both opened up for research on ocean sequestration and at that time (2002) were awaiting further findings in order to be able to conduct a balanced discussion on the issue. This seemed to contradict what actually happened. The paper will discuss what happened more than 20 years ago with this ocean CO2 storage project in relation to marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) initiatives that are being considered today.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».