Hi Duncan, Thank you for your time and effort into this difficult field. I believe that this report and similar initiatives are very valuable, and must be supported. In my opinion, you have also made an important pioneering effort into cost and potential comparisons of various NETs, which I hope you will be able to carry on in greater detail. Unfortunately, I do not support the methods used to process the data in your report, which I believe have led to conclusions that are not supported in your sources.
I can only speak for BECCS, the area of my expertise, but I know that some of the statements on BECCS in this report are not fsupported by the sources available. Additionally, quotes from reports which I have been lead author on (Karlsson 2010 and Karlsson 2011) have been detached from their context. Swedish numbers from (Karlsson 2010) are used in the report to represent a global context, which they are not suitable for. Similarly, the costs from the McGlashan et al (AVOID report) from a UK context have been used to represent a global context regarding BECCS costs. I understand that Biorecro (which I represent) could according to your argument be regarded as biased, though I believe that the IEAGHG and Ecofys are to be considered as authorative. Their report (http:// www.eenews.net/assets/2011/08/04/document_cw_01.pdf), reviewed by a panel of experts from four independent organizations, is the best available source for global costs and potentials for BECCS. They state a cost for 3.5 Gtonnes of BECCS at €50 in 2050, which has been more than doubled to $150 in the aggregation numbers in your report, partly based on an argument of ‘sociology of expectations’, with potential almost halved to 2 Gtonnes (see for example the MAC curve in figure 7 in the link). You do point out that caution should be taken with the data and analysis in page 4, but the same section says "Most of the data presented regarding specific NETs arises from the original sources. Where adequate detail was available, some figures have been recalculated to facilitate comparison, but in general the figures reflect varying underlying assumptions." This statement gives the impression that sources are reflected directly in the text and figures, which is not the case. When putting these doubled costs (and almost half of the potential) into figure 7, critical information is lost. Additionally, the technological maturity of BECCS is considerably higher than of the technologies such as DAC, yielding a much higher confidence in the numbers. Please note that there is a full scale (300 000 tonnes/year, increasing to 1 000 000 in 2013) ethanol BECCS demonstration in the US which will go into operation before November this year. For more information, see www.sequestration.org. This project has had real costs for material procurement in this full scale effort, and a number of smaller pilot forerunners, experience which is reflected in the reports on BECCS. It also implies a higher technological maturity of BECCS than reflected in the report under discussion (which gives BECCS the same maturity as the DAC Wet Calcination, TRL 4-6). Best regards, Henrik Karlsson Biorecro On 21 Sep, 13:11, Duncan McLaren <[email protected]> wrote: > Group members may find my assessment of negative emissions > technologies (NETs) of interest. > > The full report runs to about 100 pages, and can be found > athttps://sites.google.com/site/mclarenerc/research/negative-emissions-... > > A summary version written for Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and > NI) will be published online later today. > > The assessment covers a wide range of NETs, but not SRM techniques. It > considers capacity, cost, side effects, constraints, technical > readiness, accountability and more for about 30 options. > > I'd be delighted to get feedback and comments. > > regards > Duncan -- 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.
