Stewart and Andrew This being exclusively about BECCS, I answer this before going to Stuart's two earlier messages today re biochar and CROPS. Few inserts - mainly in Andrew's message.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart Strand" <sstr...@u.washington.edu> To: "andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "Bhaskar M V" <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com>, joshic...@gmail.com, rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:07:11 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Sounds good, but it’s another hurdle. Let’s see what the math says. [RWL 1 : I agree with Stuart that we need math here - and Stuart he has done a good job with the Math of CROPS . I hope he can apply that same math approach to biochar. I don't know the BECCS world well enough - but think it faces some legal and business hurdles as well as math problems.] = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014 , Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:52 AM To: Stuart Strand Cc: geoengineering; Bhaskar M V; joshic...@gmail.com; rongretlar...@comcast.net Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Surely CO2 from BECCS doesn't need to be stored locally. Fuels (inc wood) are already shipped globally. Why should biofuel for BECCS be any different? It would make sense to take fuel by sea or rail to the best storage locations, or to pipe the CO2 to the same. Indeed, shipping compressed CO2 like CNG may make sense. A [RWL: I like Andrew's transportation argument here - which applies to CROPS and biochar as well as to BECCS. I only know of three published Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) for biochar - but none raised serious tr ansportation-cost issues for biochar . In general, BECCS plants are likely to be an or d er of magnitude larger in scale than biochar-related power plants (which might also therefore be more likely to be combined heat and power (CHP)). I am even thinking we may much biochar application for backing up wind and solar - right at the biomass-preoducing farms - no transportation cost. So the transportation cost issues seem sure to be larger for BECCS than biochar. But more importantly, BECCS cannot be coupled with biofuels. See the website: www.coolplanetbiofuels.com There probably cannot ever be CCS for any bio-thermal project (too small) . BECCS seems to me to be having a very hard time getting going (on the CCS side) - so I would like to hear more on the topic of first commercial plant. That part of the biochar story talking about biopower can also capture the CO2 and be thought of at least partially as BECCS. BECCS has a big first-year advantage over the usual non-CCs biochar in both energy and CDR contexts, since so much more of the initial biomass C can end up being sequestered after providing twice as much energy. The tradeoff is that BECCS only has out-year expenses and (I think) larger first year expenses - while biochar has a projected set of out-year sequestration and income benefits. Part of these out-year benefits are N20 and CH4 related. I will not repeat the soil scientist concerns over land i mprovement/degradation. But my main concern for BECCS remains the legal ones. If I owned mineral rights on land intended for any CCS operation, I would expect to be paid for using that space I presumably own. My recollection is that the federal funding for the first CCS (and BECCS) plants also includes a good amount for insurance. I would welcome dialog on these non-simple economic topics. Ron On Dec 17, 2012 8:43 AM, "Stuart Strand" < sstr...@u.washington.edu > wrote: Regarding biochar, I would like Ron or others to provide a total estimate of the total amount of carbon that could be sequestered globally in agricultural soils only, not including any forest soils, with peer reviewed citations please. BECCS carbon analysis depends on whether efficient and practical use of crop residues requires co-burning with coal (in which case the carbon balance falls well below 100%), or whether CR can be burnt efficiently and practically alone, without co-combustion. And whether CO2 sequestration underground will be accepted by the public in high agriculture productive societies. = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014 , Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350 , fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:58 PM To: bhaskarmv 64 Cc: joshic...@gmail.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Bhaskar and list: 1. a. The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today (and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556 b. Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach. This objection was based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the soil. See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004 This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors. The cite is Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8011–8015 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . <RWL snipped remainder as little related to BECCS > -- 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.
