RE: [geo] Negative CO2 Emissions: Benson weighs in

[markcapron]

Ron & Michael,

Yes.  Do biochar to the max.  The world could do more biochar if some developing places didn't use it for cooking fuel.  So find a replacement cooking fuel, such as biomethane.

There is a short description of Ocean Forests at http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701.

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [geo] Negative CO2 Emissions: Benson weighs in
From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, July 09, 2014 3:15 pm
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: voglerl...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, smben...@stanford.edu

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. 

I fail to see the link between mariculture (which has existed for thousands of years) and (RL) "I see the (non-solvable?) problem being that of insurance/indemnification.". The Marine BECS operations would be strongly focused upon...well....BECS within highly spatially/biologically isolated oceanic deserts. How does that relate to a "non-solvable problem...of insurance/indemnification"? Your statement of, "It is not just the risk (MH-What risk?), it is the potential cost of a highly unlikely event, with no way for any insurer to calculate the odds.", is simply not supportable as such genuflection to the 'Unknown Unknowns (the Rumsfieldian 'Unk Unks')" would seize up all scientific, political and economic works. Why even get out of bed if the Unk Unks will get you! I simply fail to see even minor environmental "risk" in growing fish and algae in oceanic deserts, even on a vast scale. I am always open to expert level knowledge in the evaluation of risks and benefits. However, IMMHO, Unk Unks should never be given leadership at either the strategic nor tactical levels. Standard marine vessel insurance will meet the needs of a Marine BECS commercial operation. 

On point: (RL) "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.".  The use of the oceanic commons for mariculture needs no international/national permitting and is, in fact, exempted from the IMO restrictions on oceanic GE.. Yet, I do vigorously support the development of intergovernmental treaty protocols, concerning large scale marine BECS operations, which would both protect the commons and champion coordinated production standards and practices. Hopefully, the IMBECS Protocol will be useful to that end. 

Further, "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.", coastal (littoral) regions typically already have robust ecosystems which need to be protected from large scale changes in their environmental/nutrient state. Carpeting them with BECS operations would be disruptive to a significant degree on multiple levels. I do support, however, limited use of littoral regions for testing of BECS related STEM and only on a limited and temporary basis. The overwhelming bulk of the marine BECS (MBECS)operations should, by all relative marine STEM standards and in accordance with the precautionary principle , be limited to the off shore desert (STCZ) regions. Marine transport, using in-house produced carbon negative biofuel, would be highly cost effective in moving MBECS products to market.  

On point 3: (RL) "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).". At the STEM level, land based expansion of BECS, even marine microalgal BECS, is acceptable if one wishes to limit the eventual scale to local/regional markets and support a low profit, extremely marginal, business operation. The multiple difficulties and additional costs associated with the international trade of terrestrial biomass/biochar are, clearly, some of the primary limiting factors for both biochar and TBECS. Again, this is well covered at the international STEM level.

Finally, as to the issue of where to sequester the CO2, the development of an industrial grade organic fertilizer, which uses biochar and many other bi-products of the marine biomass production, offers a highly 'insurable' and biologically robust option for CO2 sequestration. This approach also allows for the reduction of the chemical fertilizer related environmental hazards such as ozone depletion and waterway nutrification. Also, the profits from the fertilizer can subsidize the cost of biocrude production. In short, Biochar is a good/excellent soil enhancer which offers a unique bioenergy production means through pyrolysis, however, it is not a fertilizer and it has limited use in subsidizing liquid/portable biofuel production. 

Ron, as always, your views are highly interesting to me and I greatly appreciate your skilled use of logic. The take away I have from your comments is that I need to work on further explaining the MBECS concept in terms of mapping out of the synergistic aspects of the concept. The Intergovernmental MBECS (IMBECS) Protocol is not just one idea, it is a compilation of many ideas (including Biochar) which attempts to address the multiple meta environmental concerns we now face. In short, IMBECS is not a one trick pony.      

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 <vogle...@gmail.com> 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 issue is troublesome. I would like to point out a few significant advantage concerning Marine BECCS (with Marine Biochar) production and use. When the full market value of all the reasonably related Marine BECCS/Marine Biochar non-fuel commodities are factored together (ie. organic food, feed, fertilizer, polymers/fabrics, vast amounts of freshwater etc.) the basic math shows a significant potential to generate globally meaningful profits from that type of extremely broad product basket. To clarify, the market value for the non-fuel commodities/services can greatly exceed the market value of the biofuel and thus comparing all other CCS concepts with Marine BECCS/Marine Biochar is anologistic to comparing industrial mono-culture agriculture to permaculture. The value of the potentially vast volumes of freshwater production alone makes marine BECCS operations profitable....and the pressure reduction on land use, wild catch fisheries, use of chemical fertilizers etc....priceless.  

In general, viewing global warming mitigation through a robust environmental/sociopolitical matrix of factors would seem to be the most logical approach to inter-generational global carbon management, as well as the long list of other significant global environmental issues. In general philosophical terms, such a broad synergistic view may best be described through the permaculture philosophy. The permaculture philosophy has 12 generally accepted design principles. To quote the Wiki page:

"Twelve Permaculture design principles articulated by David Holmgren in his Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability:^[15]

1. Observe and interact: By taking time to engage with nature we can design solutions that suit our particular situation.
2. Catch and store energy: By developing systems that collect resources at peak abundance, we can use them in times of need.
3. Obtain a yield: Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the work that you are doing.
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
5. Use and value renewable resources and services: Make the best use of nature's abundance to reduce our consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable resources.
6. Produce no waste: By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.
7. Design from patterns to details: By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go.
8. Integrate rather than segregate: By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.
9. Use small and slow solutions: Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones, making better use of local resources and producing more sustainable outcomes.
10. Use and value diversity: Diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides.
11. Use edges and value the marginal: The interface between things is where the most interesting events take place. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system.
12. Creatively use and respond to change: We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.

(As a side note: The above environmental philosophy is a clear sighted declaration of how we, as a species, may possibly best interact with our environment. Interestingly so, at the market level view, the above 12 philosophical Principles and Pathways seem to have both meta and micro economic analogies. A Wall Street Market Trader and/or family would do well by grasping the permaculture/financial analogy(s).) 

On the subject of the STEM evaluation of terrestrial BECCS, Prof. Benson correctly stated; "...for BECCS strategies to succeed, major hurdles must be overcome.". The list of limiting factors for terrestrial BECCS (TBECCS) is, in fact, long (per IPCC WG3). Yet, when the full spectrum of TBECCS related limiting factors are translated to the marine environment, this long list of limiting factors simply becomes moot due to;

1) the potential economies of scale (>5M km2) of standardized marine biomass production within the subtropical oceanic regions;

2) thus allowing all nations to be energy independent; 

3) the adaptability of the marine environment to accommodate a vast scale production of biomass at the nutrient/energy levels;

4) while doing so without the displacement/conversion of existing CCS related terrestrial or marine ecosystems. 

Simply stated, concerning the most significant global environmental concerns, the basket holds far more than just carbon and Marine BECCS with Marine Biochar can fill the basket with reasonable and supportable options. It opens the door to a wide spectrum of socioeconomic and environmental remedies and opportunities. 

Best,

Michael

On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 7:22:02 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote:

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 <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 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

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: smbe...@stanford.edu

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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
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 togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.