Michael and list See inserts below.
On Nov 18, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. 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. ) 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. > 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] > > 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]" (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). [RWL1a: I don’t see a need to comment here on each of your thoughts. We just disagree on how to proceed with “BECS”. I continue to believe that “BECS” is too closely associated with BECCS to take on your intended more inclusive meaning. I am not asking you to change MBECS. More below on “BECS”. > > > > [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. [RWL2a: Re MIT, MBECS and BECCS, see the first two lines (which have the words IMBECS and BECCS) at http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300209/planId/3710. If you do a search at the CoLab site for BECCS (not BECS), there are numerous references to your proposal. I submit this is a pretty good example of why the word “BECS” should be retired - you seem sure to be placed in a narrow BECCS camp that you don’t want. > > [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. [RWL3a: I continue to believe that Google’s (non) usage of “BECS” is important. > > 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 Intergrated Anthropocene Mitigation (IAM) > Systems Management STEM/governance objectives and methods while not > overloading the reader with extreme technical minutia within the title. [RWL4a: Yup. I admit to trying to avoid the “broad lens”. The CDR approaches need to be analyzed in different ways. Only biochar is striving for an emphasis on soils for instance - which is almost universally ignored by those comparing CDR approaches. The term “BECS” (when not meaning BECCS”) implies a uniformity that I feel is misplaced. > > > [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/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. Moving > 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 'Intergrated Anthropocene Mitigation 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. [RWL5a: My fifth point was that “BECS” is now a term only used a little bit and I think only on this list - mainly by yourself. I am comfortable with your using MBECS - because your emphasis is on the “M” - but I think you will find confusion with the repeated coupling above of “BECS/BECCS”. I hope others will chime in about including Olivine as part of MBECS; that doesn’t jibe for me as part of BECS. But if you are pushing to include Olivine, I don’t see a need to have a “B” in the technologies you are advocating, so MNET could work. > > 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)? [RWL6a You ask for a further understanding of my rejection of “BECS”, because you see benefits in the term being inclusive. I am supportive of “inclusion” - but “MNET” or “MCDR” are more accurate for me than “MBECS”. But even that is not the main issue for me. It mainly comes down to Biochar being in competition with BECCS, and “BECS” being so closely tied to BECCS (as shown above). I also have realized by getting into this topic in more detail this week, that the terms “storage” and “sequestration”, while clearly appropriate for BECCS, are less so for biochar. The char is only partially saving/sequestering carbon. Savings of course happens, but more importantly biochar is directly responsible for greatly increasing above ground biomass growth as well as the bacteria and fungi content of the soil. And greatly reducing the amount of required irrigation or fertilization. These are the strengths of biochar - not storage/sequestration. With carbon credits, one is getting both soil and CDR/NET benefits for the price of only one benefit. The term “BECS” seems to deny those attributes. Also burial and afforestation have no E = energy component Besides the uniqueness of carbon going into soil, I also see a need to distinguish biochar as being unique as an investment (with major out-year paybacks [the Terra Preta soils of the Amazon are valued at 4-5 times their nearby non-Anthropogenic counterparts]). And having a long history of char production and placement in soil (being much older as a practice than its name (bestowed only in 2007)). As to “necessitating negation… delineation” - I answer “yes”, when the differences between the CDR approaches are as great as I see them. > > If we could organize technology descriptors much like organics are organized > (i.e. domain, kingdom and phylum), 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. [RWL7a: Hmm. In an attempt to see whether I could find an “evolution of thought” - i offer the following Wiki said this “There are seven main taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus, species. And (adding in an eighth domain category) it was easy to find via wiki where we in the Homo Sapiens Species category fit in these eight layers. In parentheses, I add one possible arrangement for the discussion above on the topic of “BECS” (which I intentionally did not include below) Domain Biology (organics?) (societal issues, history, literature, entertainment, education, business, government…..…) Kingdom: 7: Animalia, Plants,…. (in the Societal Issues domain: …. Climate, Population, Food, Water, Education, Health ……. (the Development goal areas??) Phylum: Chordata (vertebrates) (in the Climate kingdom: … Carbon-CO2, Milankovitch cycles, clouds, volcanoes, sensitivities, …… ) Class: Mammalia, birds (in the Carbon-CO2 phylum: ……efficiency, mitigation, CDR, SRM, adaptation……) [borrowing from Caldeira] Order: Primates (Orders for the CDR class: biological, geological, chemical,…..) [“BECS” apparently here??, but I prefer not for reasons above] Family: Hominidae (Families for the biological order: BECCS, afforestation, burial,…..biochar) Genus: Homo (Genusi for the biochar “family”: fast pyrolysis, slow pyrolysis, HTC, molten salts, gasification, ….) Species: H. sapiens (temperature and species for slow pyrolysis genus: 400 C - pine,………..600 C - manure. Subspecies (specifics related to soil type: clay, sand, humus…. and plant type - tomatoes, potatoes, mangos,….) Preliminary conclusion: The main items of current interest in biochar literature are at the Genus, Species, and Subspecies rank levels - and none have any relation to biochar’s “relatives” at the Family rank level, and especially higher rank levels. We are now so far afield that I doubt this set of seven or eight ranks has any relationship to “BECS”. But (to Michael) you raised the “rank” issue and I felt obliged to see where it led. I make no claim that this above is in any way helpful or correct. > 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. [RWL8a: And to you for responding. I repeat that I put “MBECS” into a different category from “BECS” [but it wouldn’t bother me to see a change from MBECS to MNET or similar - at some later date]. Your emphasis on “M” and multiple ways to “sequester” is very important.] Ron > > 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. -- 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.
