Andrew, cc list
I have just finished "reading" (closer to "skimming") the new BFW report on BECCS that you have identified today/below. For any geo list members who are defenders of BECCS, I would love to hear your reactions - as the BFW group has similarly (since 2007) slammed biochar. I have fought with them regularly on biochar - as not doing good/honest analysis. Here I find less to criticize them for as regards CCS and EOR. BECCS is better for me, but not much. This paper equally slams all of geoengineering - but the detail here is mostly on CCS and bioenergy. Again, I hope someone closer to CCS will take them on. Of course I'd love also to hear more on their handling the biomass side as well, where I think they are on very weak grounds. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:23:17 AM Subject: [geo] Bioenergy with Carbon Capture: Climate Saviour or Dangerous Hype Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Climate Saviour or Dangerous Hype? Download at: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2012/beccs_report Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is being promoted as ‘carbon negative’, i.e. as a way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and as such is proposed for “climate geoengineering”. It is referred to by many, even within IPCC, as having great potential, “essential” to achieving emissions reduction targets. Yet, on closer examination, BECCS is largely serving as a means of perpetuating fossil fuel industries. Current projects largely use CO2 captured from bioenergy facilities, mostly ethanol refineries, for “enhanced oil recovery” to extend production from depleted oil wells. The favorable economics of this practice make this form of BECCS an “early mover” to facilitate technology development of CCS for application to fossil fuels, considered a lifeline to the future for coal (so called “clean coal”). IN addition to the huge negative impacts associated with all technologies that require massive and ongoing supplies of plant biomass, storage of carbon underground presents additional new, serious risks and the potential for a new form of “underground” land grabbing as demand for storage sites increases. Some communities have already resisted having their lands injected with CO2. Based on the clearly false assumption that all bioenergy processes are “carbon neutral” and that capture and storage will render them “carbon negative”, BECCS is deeply rooted in false logic and dangerous misrepresentation. This report examines the theory behind BECCS, the likely impacts should such a technology be scaled up and the technical and economic barriers and provides a summary of BECCS-related investments, subsidies and policies. Rachel Smolker Biofuelwatch/Energy Justice Network rsmol...@riseup.net skype: Rachel Smolker -- 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.
