BECCS is among "most promising CDR methods". "However, for BECCS strategies to succeed, major hurdles must be overcome."
GR - Indeed. If CCS is too expensive for fossil fuel CO2 mitigation it most certainly is for BE as well. While we might all agree that negative emissions technology R&D is needed, it would seem a little premature to be recommending winning CDR technologies just yet, esp considering Mother Nature's few billion year head start in this field. Are we talking about insurance that we can stabilize atmospheric CO2, or job insurance for CCSers? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6191/1431.summary Science 27 June 2014: Vol. 344 no. 6191 p. 1431 DOI: 10.1126/science.1257423 * EDITORIAL Negative-emissions insurance 1. Sally M. Benson 1. Sally M. Benson is director of the Precourt Institute for Energy and the Global Climate and Energy Project, and a professor in the department of Energy Resources Engineering, at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 1. E-mail: [email protected] In its April 2014 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized that reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 70% by mid-century will require more than just implementing emission-free solutions. Many scenarios for stabilizing GHG concentrations that were evaluated by the panel included removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere: so-called “negative emissions” or carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Among the most promising CDR methods are reforestation, afforestation (planting new forests), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, for BECCS strategies to succeed, major hurdles must be overcome. -- 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/d/optout.
