Ron et al, I attempt to address Ron's nomenclature concerns below and welcome other voices as well as Ron's further thoughts.
Ron wrote: > > List: > > [RWL1] I should like to have some list discussion on > continuation/discontinuation of the term “BECS”. This is prompted by an > off-list conversation on the use of “BECS" to include Biochar (and other > bio forms of CDR), which I was trying to avoid on 13 Nov. > > Reason #1: “BECS” has been used to mean the same thing as BECCS > “Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration”. BECCS has only the > single meaning of liquefaction of CO2 and (either storage or sequestration) > deep underground or in the ocean. BECCS is easily found in Googling or > Wiki - with only this liquid/pressure/deep meaning. The “BECCS” wiki is at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEfySu1ed97DIzi-AmkBUBCtr7F_w>. > The > term BECCS doesn’t seem about to change meaning. BECS to mean > BECCS occurred in a 2004 paper by Peter Read and Jonathon Lermit; they were > referring to what we now call BECCS ( > http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/Workshop/worksh_6_2003/2003P_read.pdf > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iea-etsap.org%2Fweb%2FWorkshop%2Fworksh_6_2003%2F2003P_read.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHkDFLjcdPtTyu5b4ZMH2cIUG-P4g>. > > ) This was also the way BECS was used by the Royal Academy (see the > definitions in Section 18 of > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22105.htm > > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200910%2Fcmselect%2Fcmsctech%2F221%2F22105.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEd-OWuWAb_2bnnp4OzEJjrHLq9FA> > . > The BECCS entry in Wiki also refers to Laurens Rademacher using BECS in > 2007 (see http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1106-carbon-negative_becs.html) > I have seen other uses of BECS to mean BECCS, but BECS is hard to find > via Googling (see below), so I can’t tell how many other uses there are. > I conclude from this considerable prior use of "BECS” that it would be > wise to not try to change this “BECS” = “shorthand of BECCS” meaning of > “BECS” to include biochar and other bio-oriented CDR approaches. > *[MH1] The Wiki definition does not specifically limit the sequestration phase to geological injection. And, the passage of "*BECCS has only the single meaning of liquefaction of CO2 and (either storage or sequestration) deep underground or in the ocean." *can not be viewed as being technologically exclusive nor exhaustive.** Further, the Parliament document needs a close inspection on the minuscule distinction between BECS and Biomass/Biochar. To quote the publication:* *"Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (BECS) *Biomass may be harvested and used as fuel, with capture and sequestration of the resulting carbon dioxide; *for example*, the use of biomass to make hydrogen or electricity and sequester the resulting carbon dioxide in geological formations*.*[32 <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22105.htm#note32> ] *Biomass and biochar* As vegetation grows it removes large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. When the organisms die and decompose, most of the carbon they stored is returned to the atmosphere. There are several ways in which the growth of biomass may be harnessed to slow the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide—*for instance*, Biomass may be harvested and sequestered as organic material, for example, by burying trees or crop wastes, or as charcoal ("biochar").[33 <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22105.htm#note33>]" (*My highlight/italics*) *What differences we find between the two definitions are largely relative to the final form of C storage which are not set in stone. Thus, biochar can be substituted for injection into geological formations, and by doing so, merges the two definitions. Thus, the use of BECS to include biochar, as the form of sequestration, is an evolution of the original BECS concept rather than a misuse or conflicting use. This is truly and difference without distinction. * *One last issue in this section I would like to address is the comment of "*The term BECCS doesn’t seem about to change meaning."*. As you have just demonstrated, in today's world, many times that issue comes down to prevalence within search engines outputs. It is plausible to completely subjugate the old-school definition of BECS/BECCS with just one Internet 'viral' effort/event describing the new-school definition(s).* > > [RWL2] Reason #2: “BECS” has also appeared in the above Wiki on BECCS > as part of the term IMBECS, often written about on this list by Michael > Hayes (see July 9, 2014). His BECS includes more than the term BECCS > (although MIT mislabeled his proposal that way). I wish he had used a term > other than BECS, but the I and M in his work perhaps significantly modifies > the BECS. IMBECS is quite prominent in the Wiki on BECCS, but I don’t > think Michael wants “BECS” to include afforestation and burial. I am > interested in where other ocean CDR approach proponents stand on the term > “BECS”. > I conclude that Wiki’s description of BECCS is not recommending BECS to > mean something different (but is [?] mostly saying that BECS = BECCS). My > “mostly” refers to IMBECS and the Reason #1 examples. I will try to > clarify at the wiki site, depending on responses to this message. > *[MH2] On the issue of afforestation and burial, I've often supported the use of MBECS derived freshwater, fertilizer and biochar/olivine etc. in large scale terrestrial (desert) afforestation work. The sequestration of biomass through burial is not a subject I've spent time on as it is apparent that the biomass has far better uses than burial. Yet, I do not exclude the possibility that such operations will come about. Also, I would appreciate some clarification on the comment of "*although MIT mislabeled his proposal that way". *I did the labeling*. > > [RWL3] Reason #3: Google comes up with something CDR-related only once > in its first 10 pages (100 entries). That is on its page 3 recognizing the > above 2004 paper by Peter Read and Jonathon Lermit. As noted for Reason > #1, R&L used BECS to mean what we all (?) understand now by BECCS, with > their C meaning carbon (not capture), and their “S” was for storage. > I conclude that Google is not trying to help with defining BECS. > > Reason #4: I can’t find one place where the biochar community talks of > BECS - much less that biochar is a subset of BECS. I think this is also > true for researchers in BECCS, afforestation, and burial areas. I should > think “BECS” especially awkward for BECCS proponents. > I conclude few CDR proponents would advocate being part of BECS. > *[MH3] The lack of current conversations linking biochar and BECS/BECCS/MBECS is not a clear indication that the technologies are not compatible. The lack of conversation simply indicates an understandable desire, by many in the CDR field, to focus upon a limited suite of technologies as opposed to viewing them through a much broader lens. Your conclusion that "*few CDR proponents would advocate being part of BECS" *is somewhat irrelevant as any BECS/BECCS/MBECS operation will simply utilize what technologies offers the best logic within the actual field conditions. Thus, withholding 'advocacy' is useless to the discussion and operations.* *The use of the term 'Intergovernmental Marine Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (IMBECS) Protocol' is used in and with full respect of prior art. Yet, it is an attempt to evolve a nomenclature which can embrace the full spectrum of a broad based **I*ntergrated *A*nthropocene *M*itigation * (IAM) *Systems Management* STEM/governance objectives and methods while not overloading the reader with extreme technical minutia within the title. * > [RWL4) Reason #5: I can find the idea that “BECS” should include all the > biomass parts of CDR only on this list (see 13 Nov.) and the Wiki working > page associated with the BECCS entry ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage&action=edit > I conclude from the wiki dialog that BECS is not now “officially” > recognized by wiki to include biochar and similar bio approaches. > > I am sympathetic to the advantages of having an acronym that > distinguishes the biological from the geological, chemical, and other CDR > types. Maybe CDR-B, CDR-G, etc? > *[MH4] I believe I am justified in being in favor of evolving a somewhat more inclusive approach to the descriptors. The BECS/BECCS suite of technologies are a prime example of the hazards of building upon early stage (and limited viewed) descriptors. The implications of marine and or terrestrial BECS/BECCS technologies and the relevant socioeconomic/political involvements go far beyond just the CDR/CCS technologies. We find many times that, in an evolutionary process, early stage developments are dropped from the body **(become obsolete) **in favor of more long-term/useful developments. The use of CDR/CCS may be live examples of such early stage nomenclature developments which are rapidly becoming obsolete.* *Honestly, even I find the use of BECS/BECCS frustrating due to the limited technical views used by the original authors. And, there is a good case to be made that the distinctions between BECS/BECCS and that of biochar are without significant distinctions if the inclusive interpretation is used. M**oving forward, IMMHO, with definitions which accept the inclusive interpretations, over that of the exclusive interpretations, is important for future developments and have limited disruptive potential at this early stage.* *Frankly, I'm sure that the prior BECS/BECCS authors would have happily embrace biochar and even olivine within the BECS/BECCS technical constellation (as I have) if biochar and olivine was, at the time of their earlier work, being as heavily and expertly championed as they now are (obviously due to your and Olaf's respective leadership efforts). There are no obvious technical contradictions in the use of biochar/olivine within a BECS/BECCS or MBECS suite of technologies. In fact, the use of biochar/olivine within such systems is highly advantageous as we see in the Cool Planet and other commercial/operational efforts. In the IMBECS Protocol Draft, I could call for seafloor injection and or any number of CO2 disposal means, as opposed to biochar/fertilizer/olinine as a CO2 disposal path, yet the obvious advantages of the latter suite of technologies is overwhelmingly compelling. And, I have no objections to a designation which highlights the different CO2 sequestration means. Having a Biochar and or Olivine enhanced MBECS distinction is acceptable. Working out the codification should be simplistic. * *In general, MBECS is a legitimate descriptor of a suite of marine derived and based biomass/biofuel/biochar/fertilizer (with olivine)/food/feed/polymer/freshwater production technologies. To describe MBECS as simply CDR-B would be much like describing a Space Shuttle as no more than an atmospheric moisture delivery system. Clearly, the Space Shuttles did deliver significant amounts of moisture to the atmosphere as does many a lawn sprinkler. However, it did far more at the technical level as well as accomplish a significant scientific/socio/politico/environmental spectrum of missions. In brief, our nomenclature should not hold back innovation but evolve with the new combinations of technologies and or virgin concepts. Nature's number one law is: Adapt to change or fail. Our evolving language has no immunity against that hard law. * *Further, the comment of "*I conclude from the wiki dialog that BECS is not now “officially” recognized by wiki to include biochar and similar bio approaches." *ignores the reality that we are currently (here and now) working out the most advanced and contemporary "official" nomenclature rationale in this rapidly evolving field. And, as we all know, getting 'official', in the Wiki world, is not problematic. * *However, my views on nomenclature are not limited to CDR/CCS/BECS/BECCS/MBECS etc..* *As the list of potential large scale climate change mitigation methods (and socioeconomic/political stresses due to climate change) expands, even the expansive catchall word of geoengineering seems to be becoming more and more non-appropriate as a tool for describing the overall field of work emerging around that one word. Also, the combination of some forms of mitigation do seem to create synergistic benefits which go **altogether **well beyond physical climate change mitigation physical engineering needs and thus are as much, if not more so, socioeconomic/political engineering as they are geoengineering. The IMBECS Protocol is one example of this evolutionary expansion of both means and mission beyond any of the multiple definitions of means/missions of geoengineering.* *The phrase '**I*ntergrated *A*nthropocene *M*itigation Systems Management*' (IAM) seems to offer the most condensed yet broad based (inclusive) overall descriptor of this phenomenon. In that, the mitigation of the overall negative effects of the anthropocene has become synonymous with geoengineering yet, in many hypothetical examples, requires the integration of multiple mitigation methods to achieve the most efficient and efficacious means at the physical and socioeconomic/political levels. No current definition of geoengineering entertains that level of complexity. * *Finally, and in brief, the IAM descriptor opens up the full spectrum of relevant global scale anthropocene mitigation issues and does so beyond the limitations of any form of physical engineering. To use a medical analogy, it addresses the patient's overall needs as well as that of the needs of the injury. * So here’s hoping we can talk more about using the term “BECS”. > > Ron > *[MH5] Ron, as I always find, your logic is highly interesting and clearly superior to many views I find in my research on these many subjects. As such, I would truly like to further understand your objection(s) to the use of the more inclusive definitions of BECS/BECCS/MBECS. If the sequestration is biochar or/burial or/afforestation or/fertilizer or/geological injection or/awl etc. or a combination of such; Does each **combination and permutation **necessitate the negation of, or need for further delineation of, the BECS/BECCS/MBECS designator(s)?* *If we could organize technology descriptors much like organics **are organized **(i.e. domain, kingdom and p**hylum**)**, I would highly welcome such an important evolution of thought. Yet, that becomes practically impossible if we insist upon carrying forward the technological shortsightedness of all prior art. I always keep in mind the confusion which still exists in the electrical arts due to the erroneous early stage belief that the 'negative' wire had a deficit of surface charges. Or, how 'positive' ions actually do have a deficit of surface charges.* *This evolving nomenclature, in this highly important area which we collectively work, needs to be alive and a constantly improving construct.* *Thank you for bring this issue to the table.* *Best regards,* *Michael * -- 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.
