Tim and list I should have mentioned both BECCS and enhanced weathering in my list of comparisons. But neither violate the twin claims re Biochar I am making: energy release (carbon neutral) and out-year (some carbon-neutral, some carbon-negative) benefits.
I also am not saying these other approaches should not be aggressively implemented. These above two, in particular, can be hybridized with Biochar. I also believe, can't yet prove, that Biochar will be the least cost CDR approach (after tree-planting - which I consider part of the total Biochar picture). Having these multiple benefits may be more of a curse than a blessing. Thanks for the additions. Ron Sent from my iPad On May 9, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Tim Kruger <[email protected]> wrote: > There is also potential in employing a hybrid approach, combining BECCS with > enhanced weathering techniques (such as enhanced dissolution of carbonates to > sequester CO2 as ocean bicarbonates) as described in Rau, G.H. CO2 Mitigation > via Capture and Chemical Conversion in Seawater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, > 45, 1088-1092 and Rau, G.H.; Caldeira, K. Enhanced carbonate dissolution: A > means of sequestering waste CO2 as ocean bicarbonate. Energy Convers. Manage. > 1999, 40, 1803-1813. > > This would have the effect of reducing the costs of BECCS (as there is no > requirement to produce CO2 pure enough to be geologically sequestered) and > removes the geographic constraint of the BECCS plant being close to a > geological storage site. > > Tim > > Tim Kruger > James Martin Fellow > Oxford Geoengineering Programme > Oxford Martin School > University of Oxford > > > On 9 May 2011 13:35, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The inclusion of the word "only" renders Josh's statement false: > > In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than > > requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year > > climate benefits. > > > > Biomass energy combined with carbon capture and geologic storage (BECC) is > > a CDR approach that could also provide energy and "out-year" climate > > benefits. > > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Josh: > >> > >> I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal > >> (CDR) myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the > >> report. Thanks for pointing that paragraph out. > >> > >> Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad > >> nauseum - with apologies) that the word Geoengineering should be replaced > >> by Solar Radiation Management (SRM) when the latter is all that is being > >> discussed. > >> > >> CDR and SRM have a few things in common - but they are very different. > >> In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than > >> requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides > >> out-year climate benefits. When Jim Hansen proposes 100 GtC of a new > >> forestry carbon sink - I believe he is thinking much more of mitigation > >> than of Geoengineering. To repeat, Biochar can couple exceedingly well > >> with this new sink (and how to pay for either has not been established). > >> I think this list would benefit from a discussion of whether planting a > >> new 100GtC of forest is Geoenegineering. > >> > >> Ron > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Josh Horton" <[email protected]> > >> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:35:03 AM > >> Subject: [geo] Re: Vatican Report > >> > >> Ron, > >> > >> Note the following on p. 4: "Nations should also avoid removal of > >> carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon > >> sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop > >> and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the > >> atmosphere." > >> > >> I would also be interested in learning more about the working group > >> dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance. > >> > >> Josh Horton > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > >> On May 7, 7:03 pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> > Prof. Robock (with ccs) > >> > > >> > 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a > >> > report (" Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene"), where you are > >> > listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable > >> > athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/... > >> > > >> > 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be > >> > influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow > >> > co-authors (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on > >> > Geoengineering. More specifically can you say anything on the > >> > differences discussed between CDR and SRM? The first Geoengineering > >> > sentence below would seem to suggest that Biochar (clearly a CDR > >> > technique) should not be considered a "Mitigation" measure (which I > >> > consider it to be) > >> > > >> > 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent > >> > just before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two > >> > distinct parts (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only > >> > at SRM. Can you explain why this discrepancy? > >> > > >> > 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has > >> > (for the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 > >> > gigatons carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I > >> > believe qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base > >> > for Biochar. Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through > >> > utilizing this substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of > >> > about 60 GtC/yr.. > >> > Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop... > >> > > >> > Ron > >> > > >> > (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short > >> > that I include it all here) > >> > > >> > Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are > >> > Required > >> > > >> > Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are > >> > many questions that need to be answered about potential > >> > irreversibilities, and of the disparities in regional impacts, for > >> > example, before geoengineering could be responsibly considered. There > >> > has not been a dedicated international assessment of geoengineering. > >> > Geoengineering needs a broadly representative, multi-stakeholder > >> > assessment performed with the highest standards, based for example on > >> > the IPCC model. The foundation for such an assessment has to be much > >> > broader with deeper scientific study than there has been a chance to > >> > carry out thus far. > >> > > >> > It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and > >> > catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and > >> > adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of > >> > geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus > >> > decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be > >> > developed before any action can be taken. > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "geoengineering" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "geoengineering" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "geoengineering" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > <110509 Combining BECCS and Enhanced Weathering.pptx> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
