Greg and ccs
1. This is to agree - that we urgently need comparisons of the CDR
approaches.
2. I almost didn’t read the article when I read the third summary
bullet:
“Alternative CO2 removal approaches do not provide the co-benefit
of energy production.”
Obviously, biochar does. I guess the assigned task of the authors
(Gough/Vaughan) was only to write about BECCS; to refrain from comparisons.
They did that reasonably well. But how this “only BECCS” energy error slipped
by their co-workers and reviewers of the journal baffles me. Too many others
with an energy interest, but little knowledge of CDR, will take this as true.
This major error would not have occurred if your topic (comparisons) had any
priority.
3. But aside from this error, I found it interesting to read from a
biochar perspective, as there are so many similarities (and major differences)
between these two (in the Virgin Earth Challenge sense) bio-CO2-removal
competitors. There are several useful tables near the end that are a great
starting point for comparisons. There are useful statements about the (very
wide-ranging) estimates of supply.
I found no discussion of enteric methane release; acting on that
concern could open up a huge supply of pasture land. There is no discussion
of ocean biomass.
4. This paper, commendably, is not an attempt to win the “popularity
contest” you (Greg) mention below - and we all should want to avoid. The
problems of CCS, that BECCS has to share, are well stated. For example, I
learned for the first time that the Netherlands has already rejected a planned
(Shell) CCS plant. Their cite
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115000179) is behind
a paywall but one from 2012, with emphasis on compensation by the same authors
(“The potential of host community compensation in facility siting Emma ter
Mors” ∗, Bart W. Terwel, Dancker D.L. Daamen) is downloadable.
An even earlier article (same authors, again with fee - so I haven’t
read) at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583612000576
had this summary:
Highlights
► We surveyed a sample of 811 Barendrecht residents on a proposed local CCS
project.
► Most residents were quite negative about the project and found it an
important issue.
► Concerns about safety and property value contributed to the mostly negative
attitudes.
► Socio-political factors (e.g., procedural unfairness, mistrust) contributed
as well.
► The lack of local support has contributed to the decision to cancel the CCS
project.
5. I conclude from following this thread that BECCS’ future will be
tied to CCS. Some of that concern is in the article, but it seems not to have
yet influenced the larger group’s emphasis on BECCS. Can anyone provide
counter evidence on how local citizen opposition to underground CO2 storage
will be overcome? Will pre-installation compensation be cheap enough? Is
enough attention being given to the Social Sciences views on CDR/“geo”?
Greg - again, thanks for reminding us of this list’s role in ”… serious
investigation as to how to best help save the planet.”
Ron
Note: The Gough/Vaughan article (in an “In-house" journal) is free at:
http://avoid-net-uk.cc.ic.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2015/07/Synthesising-existing-knowledge-on-the-feasibility-of-BECCS-AVOID-2_WPD1a_v1.pdf
On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, Andrew.
> From the report: "Other approaches for negative emissions have also been
> proposed (for example direct capture of CO2 from the air, ocean fertilisation
> inter alia) but BECCS is by far the most prominent of these options in
> climate change mitigation scenarios and so BECCS will be the focus of this
> report."
>
> GR - How and why did BECCS become "by far the most prominent" option and why
> does this automatically mean it's the best and only option, considering how
> little R&D has been conducted on any CDR method? At this early stage, are we
> really going to place all of our bets on a method that requires doubling
> current land CO2 sinks (miraculously without affecting existing land use
> services) at a cost of $100/tonne CO2 to make concentrated CO2 that might not
> stay permanently stored underground and might cause earthquakes and
> groundwater pollution, and, oh by the way, will consume 30-40% of the
> bioenergy produced? Or, considering that the Earth’s future is at stake,
> shall we take the more rational approach and say that CDR is needed, BECCS is
> one of a myriad of nascent CDR strategies that demand policies, which, rather
> than prematurely christening winners, needs to broadly solicit ideas and
> foster objective R&D that allows us to make informed choices about what CDR
> portfolio options might make sense? Is this a popularity contest or a serious
> investigation as to how to best help save the planet?
>
> Greg
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 7/26/15, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Subject: [geo] Synthesising existing knowledge on the feasibility of BECCS
> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
> Date: Sunday, July 26, 2015, 11:39 PM
>
> Download link http://avoid.uk.net/?ddownload=10391
> Web link
> http://www.avoid.uk.net/2015/07/synthesising-existing-knowledge-on-the-feasibility-of-beccs/
>
> Synthesising existing knowledge on the feasibility of BECCS
> (D1.a)
>
> July 21, 2015
>
> Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (D), Publications,
> Reports and policy notes
>
> <snip>
> Alternative CO2 removal approaches do not provide the co-benefit of energy
> production.
<snip>
--
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.
