Henrik and Ken (cc List) 1. Ken - thanks very much for sending the recommended 2002 article by Keith and Rhodes. I had not seen this one. Their plot of electricity costs for three options is one I shall try to add Biochar to (although comparing carbon negativity (this list's focus - at least on the CDR side) to carbon neutrality brings in considerable new complications).
2. Henrik - Please see inserts below in your very helpful response. . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> To: "henrik karlsson" <henrik.karls...@biorecro.se> Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:21:38 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage? see attachment for the Keith and Rhodes 2002 comment in Climatic Change On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Henrik Karlsson < henrik.karls...@biorecro.se > wrote: Ron, Please note that the issue discussed in this specific thread is only related to BECCS as a CDR method, not to biopower/biofuels in general, nor biochar. (For the context of the quote under discussion, read the full text at http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html .) [RWL: Partial agreement with you - but apologies if it didn't seem to fit. Ken's "Issues" article covers all CDR approaches - and I was in part hoping to bring attention to the lack of the word "Biochar" therein. What I should have done was put more emphasis on the fact that both BECCS and Biochar suffer from a lack of interest by all those interested in bioenergy - both biopower and biofuels. Re your next sentence on BECCS fitting within the DoE CCS program, I guess the problem is similar for Biochar - but your next "fit" sentence is new information for me.] My point, which I discussed with Ken, is that BECCS as of yet has proved to be a surprisingly uncomfortable fit for the US DOE CCS program. As the flue gas streams and quantities, transport and storage network optimization, overall facility design, actor involvement, economic incentives and GHG accounting is different between fossil fuel CCS and BECCS, there is a need for separate BECCS efforts, of course carried out in cooperation with other CCS efforts. [RWL: I retract my statement below about my not seeing much need for separate attention within the CCS (and probably RE/EE) programs. Mine was a statement made from ignorance. I was not aware enough of the (now, obvious) differences between CCS and BECCS, but in retrospect I can see a need for all of your recommended added biomass-related R&D. My guess is that it will be a long time before anyone reading this can find a way to get the different parts of the biomass energy budget (who have to fight over their own shares of the budget) to cooperate with those receiving funds for fossil research. But there is reason to try for more cooperative work as well. It is indeed therefore surprising to find that the sentence by Ken under question (about whether a combined DoE and USDA program was going well) needed more discussion from your BECCS perspective. I still think my observations on the missing national effort on Biopower is/was pertinent - because the DoE renewable energy people clearly need a biomass resource R&D activity. But the present DoE effort is for energy not carbon negativity - and they do conflict for Biochar (although not for BECCS). Since BECCS is receiving some national funding (through CCS) and Biochar essentially none - I would not be too unhappy if all of the Biochar funding went through USDA - and then some was sent by them to DoE as needed. Alternating annual responsibilities for the program looks like a bureaucratic nightmare. It is not at all clear to me where national R&D budgetary responsibility for Biochar will reside. At least BECCS does not have that problem. But probably we need a new separate agency only doing geoengineering. What is clear is that such a dream needs separate funding for the CDR and SRM activities. Just as BECCS (now) obviously needs funding separate from CCS. [And both BECCS and Biochar need funding separate from Bioenergy). Biochar has a lot of pros, but we do not work with it at Biorecro. We leave this technology for other entities to pursue. Essentially, biochar and BECCS addresses two different market niches, as described in your argumentation. [RWL: But there is a fair degree of overlap - and your lengthy knowledge on BECCS is much needed in the much newer Biochar world. Biorecro could have a unique, profitable early role in Biochar as well.] One interesting issue for a dedicated BECCS R&D effort would be to answer your biochar <-> BECCS comparison question in depth. Until then, I recommend a well written article by Keith and Rhodes: ”Bury, burn or both: A two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy”, Climatic Change, 2002. [RWL: I did indeed find this article helpful. But the two main central concepts of Biochar (carbon into soils and continuing out-year benefits) are missing there (only because Biochar is new). I agree that we need to begin what you describe as "biochar <-> BECCS comparison". The first difference (which I had not been thinking about at all) is that Biochar has no chance of dealing with CO2 arising from the fermentation/digestion approaches to Biofuels. The only competition for that market is over whether future biofuels are more apt to come from digestion (helping BECCS) or pyrolysis (helping Biochar). I was also somehat surprised to read in your article that there are a number of existing biopower operations in Sweden that are too small for BECCS. They therefore probably are quite appropriate for Biochar. It is in these areas that I hope you can expand Biorecro's work. That (R&D, promotional, protective, carbon negative) activity should be complementary for you, not contradictory (thinking of your list of 6-7 needed BECCS research activities given above) Again thanks. Ron On May 24, 7:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: > Ken, Henrik and list > > 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence > being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also): > "If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it > underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon > from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of > producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being > investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and > the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. " > > Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or > managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik > and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting > that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research > programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided > attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago > and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct > that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE > and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in > charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, > given funding limits. > > "Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied > with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I > think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar > somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program > and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding > restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the > last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing). > > However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study > to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I > attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe > a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or > pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) > attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A > draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on > Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word > "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is > that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the > biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I > would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, > in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present > (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is > successful in China and Brazil). > > My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - > Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon > tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already > happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable > also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to > have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion > (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ > billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and > Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is > for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS).. > > 2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over > quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I > see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it > is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at > none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more > recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the > Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it > seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS > requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie > not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential > exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not > CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both > immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to > be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not > going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle > recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after > char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense > anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable > economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences > (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons > between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct > me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available > on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the > Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS > alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe > the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few > years) overcome that first-year advantage). > > To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. > This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google > searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece > if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does > appear. > I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land > - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and > apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog. > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henrik Karlsson" < h...@biorecro.se > > To: "geoengineering" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > > Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com , wf...@utk.edu , jsrho...@mac.com > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:28:39 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy > with carbon capture and storage? > > Hi Ken, Bill and Jamie, > > It is true that one of the US DOE Regional Partnership projects in > Illinois is combining CCS with biomass. The problem is that this > effort is not coupled with any dedicated BECCS research. Since some > BECCS projects are cheaper and less complicated than coal power CCS to > implement, there seems to be BECCS plants being constructed by > serendipity rather than sagacity. I’ve been to the project meetings of > this particular project several times and they never even mention CDR > implications, negative emissions or BECCS. When I’ve been trying to > introduce this topic, there has been a very limited interest. This may > be because the funding they recieve is intended for coal fired power > plant R&D, and administered by the coal sections at the DOE Office of > Fossil Energy (rather than the renewable energy branches). Thus in > these programs, coal is the big thing. > > What I’m looking for is a dedicated funding and/or research efforts > into BECCS systems per se. Since I so far have found zero people in > the US DOE/USDA working with BECCS in a dedicated manner, all of the > learnings from the few BECCS projects now being planned by chance will > slip away unnoticed. > > As Jamie points out, there is no next generation BECCS demonstrations > in the loop, though most of the medium and long term mitigation > scenario models depend on gigaton deployment of such technology (eg. > the IEA 2009 CCS Technology Roadmap as well as Azar et al, Climate > Change 2010). > > It is troublesome that there is no/very little research in the BECCS > area presently. > > Best, > Henrik > > Henrik Karlsson > > Verkställande direktör / President > > Biorecro AB > > Karlavägen 18 | Stockholm | Sweden | Visiting address > Box 3699 | SE-103 59 Stockholm | Sweden | Mailing address > +46 707 12 75 69 | direct > +46 8 678 75 01 | switchboard > +46 8 611 42 10 | fax > > On May 24, 1:34 am, James Rhodes < jsrho...@mac.com > wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > > There is at least one BECCS project that appears to be moving forward with > > DOE funding. The project involves capture of fermentation off-gas from > > ethanol production at an ADM facility in Decatur, Illinois, with CO2 > > injection scheduled to commence ~2012 (1 Mt/yr). > > > Unfortunately, a quick web search didn't uncover primary information > > sources for the project, but some information is available at: > > http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/decatur.html . I expect more > > detailed information on the project is available through DOE. > > > This is not the kind of BECCS that most integrated assessment models > > assume, for sound reasons. That being the case, it is arguably one of the > > most attractive for proximate deployment, due to the (very) low capture > > costs (fermentation off-gas generally has very high CO2 concentrations), > > the proximity of ethanol plants to potential geologic storage sites (e.g., > > http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-... ), > > and the maturity of existing biomass feedstock supply chains. In > > particular, this configuration concentrates technological (and financial) > > risks on the storage end of the system, which may be attractive for > > proximate demonstration and deployment. > > > I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are > > typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably > > important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A > > reasonable counter argument to this might be > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
