Ken, Julia, List I only today re-read yesterday's note by Ken on Dr. Simbeck's video and saw that I had missed that of Dr. Pongratz. I think hers is the more important; it contains valuable new work.
Her video does not, however, talk about managing and harvesting from the reforested area. That can tie into the BECS promotion of Dr. Simbeck, of course - but I think even more so into Biochar - which can be done right in the forest. A biochar operation does not require the large power plants and extensive infrastructure for a CCS operation - and it provides an annual return on investment. This is to hope also that Dr. Pongratz can comment on this further use of the reforested area for additional sequestration (BECS , Biochar, etc] - justified in part by trying to maximize the annual sequestration of the new forest through appropriate management. I thnk double the annual sequestration of the un-managed forest may be possible. Near the video of Dr/ Pongratz I found some others on reforestation. One in particular in Tanzania seemed to be very successful .[ see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxVh_w_LG1w&NR=1 ] Again, thanks for a valuable lead. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> To: r...@llnl.gov Cc: "Dave Hawkins" <dhawk...@nrdc.org>, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:52:12 PM Subject: Re: [geo] CO2 mitigation via biomass-coal co-firing? Folks interested in biomass cofiring of power plants might want to watch this little YouTube video we produce of Dale Simbeck speaking on this issue. Biomass blended with coal: Dale Simbeck speaks to Near Zero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCnYcSC0PZM While I am sending out YouTube links, you might also be interested in a video of my post-doc Julia Pongratz talking about a paper that came out yesterday on the mitigation potential of reforestation: Past land-use decisions and the mitigation potential of reforestation: Dr Julia Pongratz http://www . youtube .com/watch?v=Bmyek4gYEUk On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Rau, Greg < r...@llnl.gov > wrote: Thanks, Dave. Roger that. Full environmental cost/benefit accounting (and sustainability) for biomass is trickier than the current market euphoria would suggest. Abiotic carbon mitigation must also be considered, esp since this is the way nature will otherwise consume nearly all of our excess CO2. Meanwhile: BIOFUELS: Coal power plant in U.K. could become top renewable energy source (08/03/2011) The largest coal power plant in the United Kingdom could become the biggest source of renewable energy by burning more straw and other biomass, if government subsidies are increased. In the first half of this year, the Yorkshire-based Drax plant produced about 6 percent of the United Kingdom's total renewable power. Dorothy Thompson, chief executive of the power station, said Drax currently runs at 8 percent capacity but could achieve up to 50 percent with greater subsidies for biomass. "The level of financial support is inadequate to burn biomass in very large quantities at current market rates," she said. By burning carbon-neutral bio-waste instead of coal, the Drax facility could have a smaller carbon footprint than gas-fired power stations. If offered government support, Thompson said, the plant could be delivering renewable energy to t2 million homes by 2020. Meanwhile, U.K. government ministers are looking to move away from coal and cut carbon dioxide emissions while avoiding potential power shortages. Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, said, "Biomass is one of the cheapest ways of meeting our renewable energy targets, but the key issue is setting the level of support -- enough to deliver what is needed, but not too much, or that becomes an unnecessary price for the end-user to pay." Drax, which released its half-year financial report yesterday, was aided by a one-time £198 million ($323 million) tax credit. This will go a long way in converting the plant's coal-fired boilers to predominantly biomass generators. Huhne said the government will complete a review of its subsidy program by later this year (Fiona Harvey, London Guardian, Aug. 2). -- JP On 8/2/11 2:14 PM, "Dave Hawkins" < dhawk...@nrdc.org > wrote: > Two points. > > In the carbon mitigation option supply curve there are lots of options > that get minor to modest reductions at low costs per ton. But trying to > use these techniques to achieve large reductions typically escalates the > costs per ton, if large reductions are even technically achievable. So > the biomass/CCS comparison by the RAND engineer is an apples-to-oranges > comparison. > > Second, as my colleague Nathanael Greene points out, without > lifecycle-based accounting criteria for biomass used for energy > purposes, GHG emissions can increase for decades before the benefits of > the substitution of fossil fuels become large enough to pay back the > carbon debt produced by harvesting the carbon sequestered in biomass. > The US (and other countries) are not off to a good start in developing > sustainable accounting provisions for biomass use. Biomass producers > waged political war against EPA's attempts to implement full life-cycle > GHG accounting for biomass energy resources. > > Biomass use can be an important mitigation tool but it is important to > do it right. The lesson to date is just because it is technically > possible to "do it right" does not mean that it will be done right. > That's a lesson to keep in mind for (other) geo-engineering concepts > too. This is not an argument against geo-engineering; just a reminder > that making a concept effective in the real world involves more than > coming up with an effective technological approach. > > -----Original Message----- > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Rau, Greg > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:56 PM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] CO2 mitigation via biomass-coal co-firing? > > "According to DOE's estimates, it would cost $94 per metric ton of > carbon dioxide to abate carbon emissions using carbon capture technology > in older, subcritical coal plants. In comparison, it could cost as > little as $16 per metric ton to abate carbon if 5 percent of coal supply > were replaced with locally sourced woody biomass." > > RENEWABLE ENERGY: Adding biomass to coal much less expensive than carbon > capture -- study (08/02/2011) > Tiffany Stecker, E&E reporter > Faced with increasing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, coal-burning > power plants may be better off adding biomass to the energy mix rather > than waiting for expensive carbon capture and storage technology, a > study suggests. > > Shrinking greenhouse gas emissions with biomass from forestry waste, > logging residues or commercially produced wood pellets costs a fraction > of what carbon capture and storage technology abatement would, states a > report from the RAND Corp. The report is the fourth in a series prepared > for the Department of Energy on the technical aspects of using biomass. > > According to DOE's estimates, it would cost $94 per metric ton of carbon > dioxide to abate carbon emissions using carbon capture technology in > older, subcritical coal plants. In comparison, it could cost as little > as $16 per metric ton to abate carbon if 5 percent of coal supply were > replaced with locally sourced woody biomass. > > Even if a plant chose to use pellets, about three times more expensive > than locally sourced biomass, it would cost about $56 per metric ton of > CO2 to abate the carbon emissions -- 40 percent less than for carbon > capture and storage. > > Even in the high-priced scenarios, "if you remove the [margin of > uncertainty], it's still reasonably priced as compared to carbon capture > and sequestration," said David Ortiz, lead author of the study and an > engineer at RAND. "It ends up still being a cost-effective way to do > this." > > The researchers assessed three different percentages of biomass supply > to replace coal: 2 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent. They applied these > three figures for three different biomass mixes. Woody biomass from > local sources costs $40 per dry metric ton. Factory-made pellets from > switch grass and corn stover cost three times as much -- $120 per metric > ton. A mix of both costs about $62 per metric ton. > > Carbon capture and storage technology involves capturing carbon > emissions from a plant and storing them underground. While pilot > projects are in operation around the world, the technology has yet to be > commercialized. > > Cutting renewable costs has its limits > The benefits of using biomass for renewable energy are visible. Wood is > plentiful, state and federal programs to promote the method are growing > and, compared to building infrastructure for wind turbines or solar > panels, combusting biomass is far less expensive. > > But older power plants can only accept up to 10 percent biomass, a big > limiting factor to the greenhouse gas-saving potential, said Ortiz. In > addition, grinding biomass for use in boilers requires additional energy > -- electricity that could instead be sold to utilities. > > Biomass can also slow down a plant's efficiency, all for less energy > output than burning coal. Even when burning high-energy density pellets > in a 5 percent mix, it would cost a plant an additional 6.9 cents per > kilowatt-hour. > > "You can't get around the fact that you're going to need additional > energy," said Ortiz. > > While many state renewable energy tax credit systems favor biomass > energy, Ortiz suggests that the rate be flexible according to feedstock > choice. > > "The cost of producing electricity in coal-firing is so variable on the > price of fuel that a renewable energy credit may all of a sudden not > become an attractive option," he said. > > Makes sense 'if you're going to burn it anyway' > The carbon savings of biomass have also been questioned by environmental > groups, which claim that carbon emissions from combusting wood has no > advantage over burning fossil fuels. A study commissioned by the state > of Massachusetts released last year found that switching from coal to > biomass could increase the state's carbon emissions 3 percent by 2050 > (Greenwire, June 11, 2010). > > Nevertheless, U.S. EPA ruled last month to allow biomass plants a > three-year exemption from regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. > > It could take up to 100 years for the world's trees to make up for > biomass emissions by sequestering carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, > said Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy with the > Natural Resources Defense Council. > > The only time when woody biomass makes sense, he said, is if loggers > sell timber leftovers that would otherwise be burned in an open pit. > > "If you're going to burn it anyway, burning it in a power plant is > obviously better," he said. "But there's not much of that out there." > > "We shouldn't be making a choice between mountaintop removal and > chopping down forests," he added. "We have better options." -- 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.
