Like Greg, I also thank Andrew for alerting us to this document.
*Issue 1) "The potential global bioenergy resource available for BECCS is a key uncertainty; composed of uncertainties in land and water availability, crop yields and residue availability, each associated with socio-economic assumptions, e.g. future agricultural efficiency gains, population growth, dietary trends and lifestyles." * The above statement is completely ignoring the potential of marine biomass production, as an upstream feed stock for BECCS, which would simply negate the primary resource(s) limiting factors (e.g."*land and water availability, crop yields and residue availability*"). Further, vast scale marine biomass production would also negate the associated "*socio-economic assumptions, e.g. future agricultural efficiency gains, population growth, dietary trends and lifestyles". * Simply stated, the solution to the limiting factors cited by the authors (and many others on the BEECS subject) may be found in the marine environment using extant technology. Further, marine biomass production would not only negate the primary limiting factors/concerns it would, at the same time, *reduce* land based biomass production pressures. Issue 2) *"The only driver for introducing CCS technology is climate change mitigation, its deployment is entirely dependent on either stringent regulation and/or the application of economic incentives, such as a sufficiently high carbon price.".* The IPCC (WG3) specifically points to biochar as an acceptable form of *'Carbon Sequestration*', which requires biomass cultivation, which in turn, uses '*Carbon Capture*" through photosynthesis and.or chemosynthesis . The authors seem to be excluding all but the most highly limited definition which is wrongfully confined to point source capture (from FF plants) and geological (old oil well) sequestration. This limited view of the definition of CCS is simply not consistent with the IPCC (WG3) authors views. There seems to be a morphing of the CCS definition to exclude all but the most limited and problematic CCS concept (e.g. oil/gas well injection). There needs to be considerable cross discipline efforts made in creating a widely accepted definition of what...exactly...does, or does not, the definition of 'CCS' actually cover. Issue 3)* "While the use of biomass is established for a variety of energy applications, the use of BECCS (at any scale) depends on the implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which is itself not widely established at a commercial scale."* The use of biochar, as a carbon capture and sequestration method is, in fact, *"widely established" *(Thank you Ron). Again, the definitional premise used by the authors is problematic. The above list of issues of concerns is not exhaustive. *In conclusion:* I would like to recommend that the authors view the BECCS scenario through the lens of marine biomass production being used to sustainably supporting bio-fuel/biochar production (BECCS). If such a change in perspective were to be made by these authors, a good percentage of this paper would need to be rewritten. *However, with that aside, the author's do bring to the table a respectable effort which offers the reader a wealth of valuable references on the overall BECCS subject*. One last comment. Greg's concerns on pumping CO2 into old oil/gas wells* "**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"* is the primary reason for the need to expand, once and for all, the definition of CCS to specifically include methods such as biochar (preferably marine biomass derived biochar), Greg's method and Olaf's method. AS,* The caprock in those old wells are already webed with cracks (leaks) due to deformation of the rock through the oil/gas removal (pressure reduction) and injecting CO2 (re-pressurizing the old wells) can easily lead to further caprock failures. * *PUMPING CO2 INTO OLD OIL/GAS WELLS AND EVEN AQUFERS IS A...BARKING MAD..WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY!!!!!!!* hydromechanical failure of caprock, caprock failure <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hydromechanical+failure+of+caprock,+caprock+failure&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB0QgQMwAGoVChMI9JKUyraBxwIVzz6ICh0s1wMN> Biochar, Greg's method, Olaf's method are all far more sane capture and sequestration options than pumping CO2 into leaky old oil/gas fields. This view needs to dominate the CDR/CCS/BECCS narrative and future work. How can that be done? Best regards, Michael On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 11:39:28 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > 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 > > > There is a growing and significant dependence on biomass energy with > carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in future emission scenarios that > do not exceed 2°C warming; over a hundred of the 116 scenarios > associated with concentrations between 430–480 ppm CO2 depend on BECCS > to deliver global net negative emissions in the IPCC Fifth Assessment > Report (AR5) (Fuss et al., 2014). Wiltshire et al (2015) found a > median value of around 168 GtC cumulatively removed by 2100 using > BECCS in the IPCC scenarios. The feasibility of this dependence on > BECCS is coming under increased scrutiny, given the interconnected > issues of food production, energy provision, energy system capacity > and environmental impacts of large scale bioenergy coupled with large > scale carbon capture and storage (CCS). > > Key Findings > > Biomass energy with Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (BECCS) is an > emerging technology that combines large scale biomass energy > applications (including electricity generation) with the capture and > storage of CO2 . > BECCS has the potential to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (‘negative > emissions’). > Alternative CO2 removal approaches do not provide the co-benefit of > energy production. > BECCS technology is entering the demonstration phase; the first large > scale (1 MtCO2 yr-1 ) project is due to start operation in 2015 in > Decatur, Illinois, USA. There are around 15 pilot scale BECCS plants > globally. > Most, but not all, IPCC WG3 emission scenarios that, for a mid-range > equilibrium climate sensitivity, do not exceed 2°C warming require > BECCS at a large scale to reconcile current emission trajectories with > cumulative carbon budgets. > For a given climate target the inclusion of BECCS in emission > scenarios allows higher total carbon emissions, and/or a later peak in > emissions, by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere later in the > 21st century.target the inclusion of BECCS in emission scenarios > allows higher total carbon emissions, and/or a later peak in > emissions, by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere later in the > 21st century. > Many scenarios consistent with 2°C use BECCS to achieve global net > negative emissions (when negative emissions from BECCS are greater > than total emissions from all other sources) by about 2070, with a > mean CO2 removal across IPCC WG3 scenarios of 616 GtCO2 by 2100. > Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are based on different assumptions > and constraints; some set a maximum limit of 200 EJ yr-1 for BECCS > applications, whilst others incorporate explicit land use modelling. > IAMs take account of future population, food production and land > availability to varying levels of detail. > The potential global bioenergy resource available for BECCS is a key > uncertainty; composed of uncertainties in land and water availability, > crop yields and residue availability, each associated with > socio-economic assumptions, e.g. future agricultural efficiency gains, > population growth, dietary trends and lifestyles. > Many IAM scenarios assume that BECCS utilises dedicated rain-fed > bioenergy crops grown on surplus agricultural land, assuming medium > yields and the use of crop and waste residues. This seeks to > circumvent issues of competition with food production and other land > uses but is strongly dependent on the underlying socio-economic > assumptions. > BECCS may not deliver negative emissions if the biomass energy system > is weakly governed and regulated. A poor choice of biomass type and > location could lead to a net release of carbon to the atmosphere > through direct and indirect land use changes. > Deployment of CCS adds to the costs of energy generation, without > strong climate policy incentives, such as suitable carbon pricing, and > regulation there is no driver to establish the technology. > Almost all scenarios compatible with the 2°C target assume full global > participation in delivering emissions reductions; at scales sufficient > to deliver global net negative emissions, uptake of BECCS in > particular will require new global implementation and governance > frameworks in the context of a highly complex supply chain. > The global potential for negative emissions is estimated to be between > 0 and 10 GtCO2 yr-1 in 2050 and between 0 and 20 GtCO2 yr-1 in 2100. > Assuming 150 EJ yr-1 bioenergy in 2050, 250 EJ yr-1 in 2100, a 90% > capture rate and emissions of 15 kg CO2 GJ-1 from bioenergy > production. If BECCS starts in 2020, the maximum values equate to > 900GtCO2 (245 GtC) removed by 2100. The lower bounds could result from > weak or no climate policy; lack of social acceptability; and/or > failure of the BECCS system to deliver net negative emissions. The > confidence in this estimate is limited as it is based on one expert > team using one particular modelling approach. > -- 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.
