Michael: cc list, Greg, Dr. Benson
(Apologies in advance for being a little too long. I did edit this.)
1. I have started a new thread because we have gotten so far off the
original that related only to an editorial by Dr. Benson. I continue to
include her only because she is so knowledgeable about BECCS, and may have a
valuable input for us on the terms BECS and BECCS.
2. I will answer much of your message below (which I have truncated
for clarity) in a later email. This is ONLY about the term BECS in your second
sentence, first paragraph. It is about: "Technologically speaking, Biochar is
a form of BECS."
3. You of course have every right to define BECS as you wish. But I
think you will not have much support for creating this new definition of BECS -
and you will (perhaps greatly) harm your efforts with the above
thought/definition.
Please tell me which of my following you disagree with:
a. "BECS" is now rarely used, being replaced by "BECCS, but still
seems identical in meaning."
1. Here are five papers using "BECS", all of which refer to
what Dr. Benson was writing about as BECCS - the storage/sequestration of CO2
deep under ground. There are probably more, but I have limited time. I know
of no published paper defining biochar as a subset of BECS - or even remotely
related. I probably have now read/skimmed about 1000 such biochar papers. Dr.
Read invited me into this geo list and has separate papers on biochar - with
no relation to BECCS.
http://www.iaee.org/documents/Prague/p03read.pdf (Read, 2005)
http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files%5C6063%5Carticles%5C6220%5Cw30h4274h130580u.pdf
(Azar, 2006)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223930931_Negative_emissions_from_BioEnergy_use_carbon_capture_and_sequestration_(BECS)the_case_of_biomass_production_by_sustainable_forest_management_from_semi-natural_temperate_forests
Kraxner, paywall, 2003)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953402001721 Kraxner,
paywall 2014
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1106-carbon-negative_becs.html (Rademachers
interview, 2007)
2. Wiki only shows BECS in two older cites, in its lengthy
article on "BECCS".
3. I have been guilty of using BECS myself when meaning BECCS
- but not recently. And not in this recent thread that Greg and I have
expressed concern that BECCS is not the only CDR/NET approach and (for me - not
Greg necessarily) a technology in trouble because of likely non-availability of
insurance/indemnification.
4. I assume you are comfortable with no change in the common
(Wiki, etc) use of the term BECCS. However, I assume you propose dropping
all use of BECS to mean BECCS. Or, how do you propose differentiating between
the uses of "BECS"?
b. There are probably zero papers or articles (other than your own)
which link biochar to the term BECS in any way.
1. I can't speak for all interested in biochar, but there has
been a consistent theme that biochar is only to refer to charcoal placed in
soil. See www.biochar-international.org. The CCS in BECCS seems only to mean
deep sequestration on land. Ocean sequestration seems out of favor.
2. Coupling these two terms through BECS is at least
potentially confusing to people interested in either biochar or BECCS.
3. I have seen almost nothing on using ocean resources to make
biochar - but also nothing to discourage that.
c. There is merit in trying to bring food into discussions involving
CDR (identical to "NET") - both for what I call biochar and what your message
below is about (much on "mariculture")
1. That coupling of CDR/NET and food topics is not now in
places like the IPCC AR5 - but should be. There is close to zero connection
between food and "BECCS", as that term is used by Dr. Benson.
2. That there could be alternatives to your (above) "BECS" for
this combination of food and CDR/NET topics.
3. That the present definitional problem is smaller than #c2
- we only need now to consider ocean or maritime based food- (or energy-)
oriented technologies that are also capable of CDR/NET.
4. This search for a name should include words like "food",
"maritime", "oceans", "negative emissions", etc. There must be thousands of
possibilities.
5. After 10 minutes of thought, I offer "CNEM" = Combined
Negative Emissions and Mariculture" - as my alternative to your "BECS". I
think Biochar advocates could agree to be part of that, as well as some BECCS
proponents. This leaves open the issue of where the stored carbon (CO2 or
charcoal or ???) resides, but it does emphasize where it comes from - and has a
possible food flavor, through "Mariculture". I admit to not knowing enough
about how "mariculture" is used, but I am assuming it can include the growth of
giant kelp only for energy, not food. Here food could be a beneficial
downstream co-product.
6. It avoids the issue of whether the "E" in BECS means
energy. CNEM is not appropriate if you want an energy flavor also to this
acronym. To distinguish between different end-point issues, you can have
CNEM-S (S for Soil); CNEM-O (O for Ocean), etc. I think leaving energy out
is OK, since DAC is a heavy energy user - not an energy supplier - but is
routinely included as a NET. Their artificial trees could be ocean based.
7. I avoid "NEMS" - as that is widely used in energy modeling
d. I have to comment on this part of your sixth (next-to-last) paragraph
> In short, Biochar ....... has limited use in subsidizing liquid/portable
> biofuel production.
I urge you to look around the site: www.coolplanet.com . They seem
to be the company leading the race on both the biofuel and biochar sides - with
major support from at least four large petroleum companies. There is no
concept of "limited" on their site. Or even "subsidizing".
e. There have been 3-4 others on this "geo" list with an interest in
ocean-based "CNEM". I'd like to hear their thoughts. I am especially
interested in hearing reasons why biochar shouldn't be pushed as one possible
use of ocean-grown biomass.
Thoughts?
Ron
On Jul 9, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron et. al.,
>
> Concerning your first point, my view of biochar is that it is a complete form
> of a bioenergy and carbon sequestration method. Technologically speaking,
> Biochar is a form of BECS. Yet, Biochar is not the only form of BECS.
> Developing vast (global scale) coordinated biochar programs, using an
> extremely wide spectrum of local/regional flora for biomass, has been and
> most likely always will be, an obvious and highly significant limiting factor
> for terrestrial BECS (TBECS) at the economic/biomass supply levels. Biochar
> and TBECS do, in fact, share the obvious and substantial limiting factor of
> being resistant to standardization (of production) thus both Biochar and
> TBECS have significant challenges in achieving the vast scale needed to
> substantially mitigate global warming, at this time of our current STEM
> development level. The IPCC WG3 was clear and cogent on that point.
>
> <snip 6 paragraphs - for a later reply >
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 10:11:42 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote:
> Michael etal
>
> 1. I think you are seeing BECCS and biochar as roughly equivalent. I
> don't. My first point, following Dr. Benson, was that BECCS has many
> hurdles. Maybe there are more, but they seem to mostly relate to risks
> associated with the storage component of CCS, and therefore also to BECCS.
> None of the EPA-listed risks that I quoted apply to biochar, which is moving
> ahead rapidly, while essentially nothing is happening with either CCS or
> BECCS - despite billions spent on them. I see the (non-solvable?) problem
> being that of insurance/indemnification. Too many people are going to react
> as did the authors of the EPA report - not suitable for the US government to
> indemnify operators. Who is going to put up the money for operations with
> that hurdle? Same as for a nuclear facility. It is not just the risk, it is
> the potential cost of a highly unlikely event, with no way for any insurer to
> calculate the odds.
>
> 2. I have been and continue to be supportive of an ocean biomass
> resource for biochar. My limited research says that will be best started as
> a shore-based activity. That would keep the decisions out of international
> courts. And there is plenty of coastline - close to the ag soils needing
> both the biochar and the valuable ocean minor minerals available from this
> ag-type activity.
>
> 3. Near the end, you say: "The list of limiting factors for
> terrestrial BECCS (TBECCS) is, in fact, long (per IPCC WG3)." I appreciate
> that you did not here include biochar. Your third point about all countries
> being able to benefit from ocean biomass (presumably biochar) is valid - but
> the same holds true for the land-based resource; many countries have poor
> growing conditions. At least at first, it still seems best to concentrate on
> land-based facilities using ocean waters, and international trade. And put
> the captured carbon where people want it, not where it is a perceived
> uninsurable risk (likely at higher cost as well).
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Greg, Ron, (Dr. Benson) et. al.,
>>
>> Greg, thank you for the Benson et. al. paper. Ron, the EPA document was
>> interesting to digest. However, the total lack of any marine centric view to
>> the BECCS
<snip several messages - not related to this new thread >
--
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.
