Greg and list (with apologies for sounding too supportive of the un-mentioned
main CDR competitor to BECCS:
a. There is another side to the word "insurance" you have picked up
on. On p 123 of the exhaustive 2010 federal multiagency report on CCS (all of
which applies to BECCS)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ccs/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf ,
we read as one of the major conclusions: "Open-ended Federal indemnification
should not be used to address long-term liabilities
associated with CO2 storage."
I get the impression that insurance (indemnification) is as critical
for CCS as is the Price-Anderson Act for nuclear systems. If not Federal
indemnification - then who? The other major biomass-related CDR approach,
biochar, is going ahead today full steam with neither subsidies nor
indemnification. And biochar is applicable for all energy sectors - not just
electrical (an energy end-use factor of about three?), is not dependent on the
availability of a suitable final resting place (a geologic factor of three?),
available right now in the tropics where biomass growth is fastest (a
geographic factor of three?), and being best applicable to decentralized use
(another capital-availability factor of three?). I am baffled as to how BECCS
can be listed so often as having a larger technical potential than biochar.
b. I presume that the above surprising negative finding on
"insurance" availability from the US government is associated with the eight
risk potentialities given (page H-1) in:
Appendix H. Potential Causes of Long-Term Storage Risk and/or Liability
"Potential causes of long-term storage and/or liability risk include the
following:
1. Scientifically understood phenomena. For example, migration of CO2 in
scientifically understood ways as a result of high injection pressures.
2. Scientific uncertainties or unknown phenomena that would alter
previous
understandings about risks.
3. Operator error. For example, an operator misapplies monitoring
technology and fails
to detect migration of CO2, or an operator misuses injection equipment, which
fails, and
CO2 is released from the storage site.
4. Regulatory mistake or oversight. For example, a State or Federal
agency reviewing
a permit application fails to detect a geological feature, or fails to identify
migration of
CO2 in monitoring data.
5. Falsification and illegal conduct. For examples, a site operator
falsifies geological
data in order to obtain a permit; a site operator falsifies monitoring data in
order to
avoid the costs of remediation; or a site operator stores more CO2 than allowed
under
a permit to obtain the associated income stream.
6. Policy changes. For example, a subsequent Administration withdraws
funding for CCS
activities, or the relevant legal framework changes, or a State ceases funding
for a
storage site.
7. Acts of God. For example, an earthquake causes a release from a
storage site.
8. Judicial system error. For example, groundwater contamination develops
near a
storage site. The harm is not in fact caused by the site, but would have
occurred even
without the storage activity. A court nevertheless erroneously holds the site
operator
liable, for example on an ultrahazardous activity theory."
RWL: I can't think of a single show-stopping risk associated with biochar.
Biochar actually needs perhaps half as much Carbon placed in the ground, as
biochar leads to increased above and below ground carbon from living things
(especially fungi). There is more soil carbon than the combination of
atmospheric and above-ground life.
c. The subject of CCS costs is well covered in this above-cited EPA
report (for collection, transport, and storage). These CCS costs are not low -
and they continue for perhaps a century. But BECCS is clearly more expensive
than CCS (although BECCS is never mentioned in the above-cited EPA report). So
there will be little reason to put BECCS ahead of CCS, even if one believes CCS
is appropriate for CDR and (?) for EOR reasons. Biochar comes with real
user-sharing of costs (for soil productivity improvement reasons) - not added
costs. Better to think of biochar as an investment, with payback over
centuries, not as a cost. Some field experiments are already showing
first-year payback - if the value of the crop is high enough.
Thanks to Greg for raising the "insurance" topic.
RWL
On Jul 7, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
> Sally M. Benson
> 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.
> 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.
--
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.
