BECCS and BECS are often confused. The former assumes CO2 storage, the latter may rely on storage of elemental carbon. I don't have strong opinions about either, other than a general skepticism on cost and scalability which applies generally to CDR technology
A On 17 Jan 2014 16:48, "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Andrew. Unfortunate if BECCS is viewed as the poster child for > CDR. Making and storing concentrated CO2 is probably near the bottom of the > list, as the CCS experience has shown and as Mother Nature assiduously > avoids in her CDR. One can hope, however, that this will lead to a broader > discussion of the possibilities. > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 3:26 AM > *Subject:* [geo] (CDR) Climate Aids in Study Face Big Obstacles - > NYTimes.com > > > http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/climate-aids-in-study-face-big-obstacles.html?_r=0&referrer= > Climate Aids in Study Face Big Obstacles > By HENRY FOUNTAIN > January 16, 2014 > Some of the technologies cited in the latest draft report by United > Nations climate experts face significant obstacles before they can be > widely put in effect to limit the impact of climate change.The > technologies, including a method of energy production that permanently > removes carbon dioxide from the air, are still in their infancy, with few > projects operating around the world.The report from the Intergovernmental > Panel on Climate Change refers to bioenergy with carbon capture and > storage, or Beccs, as a possible mitigation technology. Beccs involves > using biomass — often waste from crop or forest production — to produce > energy.Vegetation removes carbon dioxide that is currently in the air > through photosynthesis and stores the carbon in its tissues. When the > vegetation is burned, carbon dioxide is released. With Beccs, this gas is > captured and injected deep underground. The net effect is permanent removal > of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.Fossil fuels form from vegetation > that is millions of years old, so capturing the carbon released by burning > does not reduce current atmospheric concentrations.Some studies have > suggested that the technology, if widely adopted, could result in the > removal of about 10 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide a year by 2050. > (Energy producers and industry currently emit about 30 billion metric tons > of carbon dioxide a year.)But there are many challenges to widespread > adoption of Beccs, and while there have been a few small demonstration > projects overseas, there is only one in the United States, in central > Illinois.Financed by a $99 million grant from the federal Department of > Energy in 2009, the project is storing carbon dioxide, captured from a > nearby plant that produces ethanol from corn, in a formation 7,000 feet > underground. In 2012 it stored 317,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide; the > goal is one million tons a year until the project ends in 2016.A 2012 > report by the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University > noted some of the economic obstacles that Beccs faces. For one thing, the > report said, emissions-trading plans do not recognize so-called negative > emissions, so there are few financial incentives to develop such projects. > And scaling up to the point where Beccs could have a meaningful impact on > carbon dioxide levels would require an enormous financial investment.There > are technical hurdles as well. Existing power plants that burn biomass > without capturing the carbon are far less efficient than coal-burning > plants; adding carbon-capture technology reduces efficiency even > further.Questions have also been raised about the long-term effectiveness > and safety of underground carbon storage. A 2012 study by two Stanford > researchers suggested that, as with wastewater from oil and gas production, > pumping carbon dioxide into rock formations could induce earthquakes. > Though it is unlikely the quakes would cause significant damage on the > surface, they might create pathways for the carbon dioxide to escape back > into the atmosphere, the study suggested. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
