Ron, Mark, etal. I apologize for taking so long in offering a response (I needed to focus on the MIT/CoLab <http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans> entries, please see the Marine BECCS proposals).
IMMHO, the scale of the problem(s) we face will require all marine related biofuel/ C storage/food/feed/fertilizer/freshwater etc. technologies being deployed for some time to come (generations). To date, I've found no marine based biofuel/C storage proposal which* can not be or should not be* (modified if needed) folded into a comprehensive and global scale marine based biofuel/C storage technological program. This view also includes what are typically non-marine concepts/practices such as Biochar, Olivine and AWL <http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174>. It may be safe to state that; a *'Coordinated Marine Approach'* (with a full spectrum of technical means/methods) to global warming mitigation is a far more comprehensive, robust, reliable and cost effective approach than any one technology....can be. To what degree one technical concept/IP gains prominence is a secondary issue. We need as many oars (options) in the water as possible. The IMBECS Protocol <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit> attempts to lay down a foundation with which a global scale deployment, of a range of mitigation means and methods, can be organized at the practical production, STEM and policy levels. Best regards, Michael *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 Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark etal: > > I know that you are occupying this ocean negative emissions space as well. > Good luck to you also. > > See insert below. > > On Jul 13, 2014, at 4:20 PM, <[email protected]> < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > *RWKL Small correction: charcoal, not biochar, is used for cooking. > Charcoal becomes biochar only when placed in soil. But yes, we have to > stamp out charcoal used for cooking. Especially when produced illegally, > which is the norm.* > > So find a replacement cooking fuel, such as biome thane. > > *[RWL: Biomethane cannot do CDR. Charcoal-making stoves can.]* > > > *Ron* > > > 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 <http://www.podenergy.org/> > > > ------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [geo] Negative CO2 Emissions: Benson weighs in > From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, July 09, 2014 3:15 pm > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > > 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 > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub> > 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 <[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 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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: >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Twelve_design_principles> >> >> *"Twelve Permaculture design principles articulated by David Holmgren in >> his Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability:[15] >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#cite_note-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 >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 >> <http://www.oecd.org/site/oecd-faoagriculturaloutlook/>) 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 >>> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fclimatechange%2FDownloads%2Fccs%2FCCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEtFMZhOKW1_uG6_t1Pk70rSdaXJA> >>> , >>> 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 >>> >>> 1. Sally M. Benson >>> >>> <http://www.sciencemag.org/search?author1=Sally+M.+Benson&sortspec=date&submit=Submit> >>> >>> >>> 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 geoengi...@googlegroups. >>> <http://googlegroups.com/>com <http://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 [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 [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 [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.
