Ron et. al., I do wish to express my thanks to you for taking the time in responding, at such length, and engaging on this subject. I'll try to be as brief as possible, yet, you seemed to have covered more issues than that of simply the BECS v. BECCS issue.
Here is a good starting reference on the basic subject of Neologism: The Translation of Neologisms <http://translationjournal.net/journal/56neologisms.htm> *by Forough Sayadi* *"Introduction* *eologisms are perhaps the non-literary and the professional translator's biggest problem. New objects and processes are continually created in technology. New ideas and variations on feelings come from the media. Terms from the social sciences, slang, dialect coming into the mainstream of language, transferred words, make up the rest. It has been stated that each language acquire 3000 new words, annually, but in fact, neologisms can not be accurately quantified, since so many hover between acceptance and oblivion and many are short-lived, individual creations. In other words, Neologisms are new words, word-combinations or fixed phrases that appear in the language due to the development of social life, culture, science and engineering. New meanings of existing words are also accepted as neologisms. A problem of translation of new words ranks high on the list of challenges facing translators because such words are not readily found in ordinary dictionaries and even in the newest specialized dictionaries.". *I recommend reading the entire document. In general, an attempt should be made, at the neologism level, to simplify to the greatest degree possible. In the context of BECCS v. BECS,* it is self evident that*; if one is making bio-fuel, they have inherently *also captured* the carbon. It is physically impossible to make bio-fuel....*and not*....capture the carbon. Thus, I believe the full phrase of 'bio-energy with carbon *capture* and sequestration' is simply *redundant*. If that logical and technically correct view of reality (and the correct and proper use neologismatic methods) devalues my work in the eyes of others, well....*so be it*. It is easy to recognize that, inherently within human nature, the easiest/simplest phrase/acronym will be used by the majority of average (read Media) users and BECS does cover the basic concept of; *producing bio-energy while sequestering carbon*. I find no underlying STEM reasons or rationale to go beyond the use of BECS as the overriding goal of the IMBECS proposal is to* replace FFs while sequestering carbon *and do so in a sanctioned and profitable way. I have a great deal of respect for those that have previously offered their opinions on this subject and elect to continue to use BECCS. Yet, I view the continued reference to the word " *capture*", within the acronym, as being technically redundant and a waste of time/ink/data. Your response offers a far more complex alternative to *M*arine *B*io-*E*nergy and *C*arbon *S*equestration (*MBECS*) and I do appreciate the 10 minutes of your time you expended on the issue. Yet. it is my firm belief that the highly complex issue of MBECS needs to be communicated in the most simplistic terms, not the most complex terms. We need both the policy makers and the general public to understand the *basic* STEM and blinding them with long lists of complex acronyms is not a good first step (IMMHO). After more than a year of study and thought, it is my firm belief that, the most proper acronym for describing the use of the *M*arine environment for the production of *B*io-*E*nergy and *C*arbon *S*equestration (through the production of marine biomass derived agro fertilizer) is simply *MBECS*. Further, you offered the following thoughts; (RL) "*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”.".* Yes, I'm well aware of the works of Coolplanet and find a great deal of encouragement in seeing them move forward on a *T*erestrial *B*io-*E*nergy and *C*arbon *S*equestration (*TBECS*) combined effort. However, they will confirm, as will all others currently producing liquid bio-fuels, that liquid bio-fuels need to be subsidized to be competitive with FFs. There is simply no debate surrounding that current reality. The potential profits from biochar, *as a stand alone product*, however, is small relative to the many other commodities available for production through mariculture. The potential profits from the vast volumes of freshwater production, in itself, is far greater than any conceivable stand alone biochar market. (How many people like drinking water compared to those wanting to use biochar in their gardens?) Thus, biochar, on its' own and in relationship to large scale multifaceted mariculture operations, does appear to have a less than robust potential in producing a large profit margin and thus providing as a leading economic subsidy for the production of liquid bio-fuel. I could be wrong about the extremely low profitability of biochar as a stand alone product. Please let me know if I am. *" b. There are probably zero papers or articles (other than your own) which link biochar to the term BECS in any way. *Does not Biochar produce a form of* B*io-*E*nergy, through pyrolysis, while allowing for *C* *S*equestration, through fungi/soil enhancement??? Please let me know if I have simply misunderstood the STEM of biochar, as it does seem to be, on the face of it, a form of BECS. If I'm the first to point that out, well....so be it. Ron, you seem to be unfamiliar with my calling for the use of biochar within a formulated agro fertilizer, ie.* 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 <http://www.biochar-international.org/>. The CCS in BECCS seems only to mean deep sequestration on land. Ocean sequestration seems out of favor.". * First, I have never promoted Biochar being sequestered at sea. If you like to read my work, the primary document can be found here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub>. Yes, to the best of my knowledge, I am the first to call for the use of marine derived biochar, within a formulated fertilizer, as a form of C sequestration (ie. as a carbon negative fuel factor). I seem to be the first to connect those particular dots, yet, as you well know, there are multiple papers which support the use of biochar as a form of C sequestration and the origins of the biomass and what it is mixed with the biochar is simply secondary issues. Thank you for pointing out my pioneering work in the marine based carbon negative fuel production arena. Few have openly recognized it. Best regards, Michael (Side Note: I have created a Google Doc. comprising the two threads if anyone wishes to have a full view of the complete correspondence on this issue. The document can be found here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rRNNp0-0YdofIRY70mwI95p_4XJckASaBS3rlihqu08/pub> and will be updated as warranted.) *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* *The IMBECS Protocol Draft <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub> and Blog <http://voglerlake.wix.com/the-imbecs-protocol>* On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] > wrote: > 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.
