Agree that it is concerning that "such technologies" are required, but we have
passed the point where emissions reduction alone can solve the problem. More
concerning is how BECCS emerged as the only C negative technology to be
seriously considered in the models, ignoring a variety of other possibilities
and others that are likely to emerge if encouraged to do so. Instead we are
told that BECCS is the answer.
The following statement seems to imply that Ecosys exerted an inordinate amount
of influence in making BECCS central to the IPCC's and now the public's
perception that this is the future of negative emissions technology and,
apparently, the planet:"BECCS could, according to the models summarized by the
IPCC, sequester up to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. That figure
was based on two sources: One was a literature review by a Ph.D. student. The
other was a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), written
by Ecofys.Ecofys is a consultancy that is fully owned by a Dutch energy company
(Eneco Group) that has built the first large biomass power station in the
Netherlands, hence clearly not unbiased. Ecofys' estimate of the maximum BECCS
potential is derived from estimates of the global potential for "sustainable
biomass," made up of "residues" and "energy crops." But how did they estimate
that? For the "residues," they lifted a figure from a preliminary report, which
contained no details at all about what that figure was based on. For the
"energy crops," they used figures from one study that estimated how much could
be produced by converting "abandoned cropland" and natural grasslands to
bioenergy plantations."
Ecofys's and the IPCC's enthusiasm for land bio- (and CCS-)centric CO2
management is duly noted, but it is unwise and unnecessary to place the entire
burden of negative emissions on an already oversubscribed 30% of the Earth's
surface and assume that we have the luxury of ignoring the other 70% and the
dominant role played by abiotic and marine processes in natural CO2
consumption. Some glimmer of hope for a more balanced view of CO2 management
potentials is seen here:
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/climate-change-mitigation-leverhulme-1.531199but
then this is far removed from the "solutions" being promoted under the bright
lights in Paris.
Greg
From: "Shah, Nilay" <[email protected]>
To: 'Andrew Lockley' <[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:57 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] techno optimism and bad science in paris
#yiv6455665948 -- filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2
4;}#yiv6455665948 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2
4;}#yiv6455665948 filtered {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3
3;}#yiv6455665948 p.yiv6455665948MsoNormal, #yiv6455665948
li.yiv6455665948MsoNormal, #yiv6455665948 div.yiv6455665948MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6455665948 a:link,
#yiv6455665948 span.yiv6455665948MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6455665948 a:visited, #yiv6455665948
span.yiv6455665948MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6455665948 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6455665948
p.yiv6455665948MsoAcetate, #yiv6455665948 li.yiv6455665948MsoAcetate,
#yiv6455665948 div.yiv6455665948MsoAcetate
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv6455665948
span.yiv6455665948BalloonTextChar {}#yiv6455665948
span.yiv6455665948EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv6455665948
.yiv6455665948MsoChpDefault {}#yiv6455665948 filtered {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv6455665948 div.yiv6455665948WordSection1 {}#yiv6455665948
Indeed – the general consensus is that the BEAC is an overly cautious
assessment. Having said that, and despite working on the engineering of BECCS,
I do find it concerning that the IAMs “need” such technologies to converge to
low climate impact scenarios. NS
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 03 December 2015 08:55
To: Shah, Nilay
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: RE: [geo] techno optimism and bad science in paris Elsewhere in the
same document, they point out that bioenergy often has higher carbon emissions
than fossil fuels. I accept the wording of the extract could be improved, but
it doesn't undermine their main point. A On 3 Dec 2015 08:51, "Shah, Nilay"
<[email protected]> wrote: However this sentence: “They had included
"negative emissions" from BECCS into their models - often on a grand scale,
without considering whether such a technology was viable, whether carbon pumped
underground can be trusted to stay there forever, nor whether burning billions
of tons of wood, crops and other biomass every year could possibly be "carbon
neutral" (the prerequisite for it to become "carbon negative" with carbon
storage).” Is not actually correct and again highlights the need for proper
quantification to supplement opinion: it is perfectly plausible for a “carbon
positive” bioenergy system to become “carbon negative” when used in conjunction
with CCS. UK’s DECC developed a very cautious bioenergy model which shows this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biomass-calculator-launched
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 03 December 2015 08:21
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] techno optimism and bad science in paris Poster's note :
informative and well argued critique of BECCS and biochar hubris
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33874-techno-optimism-and-bad-science-in-paris-the-problem-with-carbon-capture-and-storage
UN climate conferences provide a platform for advocating real solutions to the
climate crisis - but also for selling and promoting false ones. At the climate
conference this and next week in Paris, many civil society groups and social
movements are advocating genuinely meaningful responses to the climate crisis:
keeping fossil fuels in the ground, ending perverse subsidies, shifting from
industrial agriculture to agroecology controlled by small farmers, protecting
forests and other ecosystems through community forestry and territories,
guaranteeing areas conserved by Indigenous peoples and local communities, and
building a new economic system that does not dictate endless growth. However,
many activist voices and demands are being silenced inside and outside the
conference, in part due to the French government's decision to ban climate
protest marches and put at least 24 climate activists under house arrest, using
emergency powers acquired in response to the recent terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, the organizers of the climate conference have welcomed in fossil
fuel firms and other corporate interests, which are represented by lobby groups
such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, We Mean
Business and the International Chamber of Commerce. Participants in the
conference have been using this opportunity to launch private-public
partnerships that are little more than new corporate lobby groups operated
under the auspices of the United Nations, and include groups such as the Global
Compact and the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative. Some businesses have
teamed up with think tanks and sympathetic nongovernmental organizations to
form new lobby groups just in time for the Paris conference. Shell and the
mining corporation BHP Billiton, for example, have founded the Energy
Transitions Commission, which offers "independent advice for a sustainable
future" to those in charge of energy policy decisions and investments. Their
website is short on details about just what they would advise, but one of Shell
and BHP Billiton'sfavorite "solutions" is carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Their professed enthusiasm hasn't translated into any serious financial
commitments: BHP Billiton has so far invested precisely nothing into that
technology, while Shell has so far invested in just one commercial-scale
project - capturing a proportion of carbon dioxide from a tar sands refinery in
Alberta. Out of a total project cost of C$1.35 billion, Shell committed a mere
C$485 million; all the rest was paid out of public funds. The Allure of False
Technological Solutions This week's climate conference also has its share of
techno-optimists peddling often absurd science-fiction "solutions." One of the
most widely cited media commentators on the Paris climate conference has been
Tim Flannery. He has been cited by press agencies and leading news outlets
around the world in the run-up to the conference. Flannery is an Australian
academic, former government adviser and chief councilor of the Australian
Climate Council. He recently launched his latest book Atmosphere of Hope:
Searching for Solutions to the Climate Crisis. It has won widespread media
acclaim, and even the reputable science blog Yale Environment 360 has granted
Flannery an uncritical interview about his proposed "solutions." Some of
Flannery's "third-way solutions" are proposals that have been widely cited in
spite of a lack of scientific backing. He remains an outspoken proponent of
biochar (i.e. fine-grained charcoal added to soils), a concept based on the
assumption that biomass is essentially carbon neutral. Biochar advocates argue
that adding biochar to soils is a reliable way of sequestering carbon and that
this process will thus gradually draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Flannery is either unaware of or unperturbed by peer-reviewed studies
highlighting that there is still no credible data from long-term field
experiments to show whether adding biochar to soils can actually sequester
carbon in the long-term, nor whether or not, or under what circumstances, it
will lead to the loss of existing soil carbon. Nor does Flannery note a study
concluding that biochar may have positive, negative or no impacts on emissions
of carbon dioxide, methane and the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from
soils and that impacts are highly case-specific and cannot be credibly
predicted without more long-term trials. Other "solutions" propagated by
Flannery are truly bizarre. He is particularly enthusiastic about creating vast
oceanic farms of seaweed, which he believes would draw down large quantities of
carbon, thus mitigating climate change and ocean acidification. The seaweed, he
suggests, can then be turned into fuel and eaten. The fact that both eating the
seaweed and burning fuels made from the seaweed would return all the
"sequestered" carbon to the atmosphere seems to have escaped him. Another idea
that excites him is storing "carbon dioxide snow" in Antarctica. He has read a
peer-reviewed study that convinced him that carbon dioxide snow is falling in
Antarctica, which could be stored in large "chiller boxes" powered by wind
turbines. Unfortunately, the lead author of the study that had so excited
Flannery urged him to read the study more carefully before referring to it. He
clarified that temperatures in Antarctica are too high and pressures too low
for carbon dioxide to fall as snow. Flannery's background reading about "carbon
negative cement," another of his favorite "solutions," seems to also have been
rather cursory. This, he writes, is already on the market and has been well
tested, with its use merely held back by engineers who are reluctant to use any
product without a track record. Yet the company that manufactures it, Solidia,
merely claims that their way of producing cement reduces carbon dioxide
emissions by 30 percent - not that it is carbon neutral, let alone carbon
negative. An "even more amazing innovation," according to Flannery, is a new
method for modifying coffee grounds to store atmospheric methane. He forgets to
mention that, to "modify" the coffee grounds, researchers mixed it with
potassium hydroxide (which takes a great deal of energy to produce), kept it at
an elevated temperature for 24 hours and then heated it to 700 to 900 degrees
Celsius. The whole process hasn't gone beyond a single laboratory experiment so
far. One could fill many pages with similar nonexistent or unproven "solutions"
to the climate crisis that are being hyped up. There will always be individuals
and enterprises peddling false claims and wishful thinking. Seeing influential
scientists and scientific institutions embrace such unscientific false claims
turns them from ridiculous and amusing eccentricities into something more
sinister. Flannery himself is a widely published scientist and his Climate
Council was set up to "provide independent, authoritative climate change
information to the Australian public ... based on the best science available."
Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage The negotiating text in Paris
contains proposed text about "zero net emission," based on the assumption that
actual emissions can be neutralized by future "negative" ones. This is based on
conclusions in the 2014 report of the International Panel on Climate
Change(IPCC). According to that report, most relevant models predict that
"negative emissions" in the form of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
(BECCS) would be required later this century if we are to avoid more than 2
degrees Celsius of warming. BECCS would involve capturing carbon dioxide from
biofuel refineries or biomass burning power stations and burying it
underground. The idea that large-scale BECCS is feasible and can draw billions
of tons of carbon from the atmosphere has risen to prominence since the 2014
IPCC report was published. But just how did the IPCC come to effectively
endorse the idea of BECCS (albeit with some mentions of "uncertainties")? For
this it is important to understand the setup of the IPCC. It consists of three
different working groups: about climate science, climate change impacts and
climate change mitigation. The first two have a consistent record of carefully
reviewing and summarizing the peer-reviewed science. Their findings are highly
regarded by virtually all except for climate change deniers. While those
working groups are - quite appropriately - dominated by climate and earth
systems scientists and ecologists, climate economists have risen to prominence
in the IPCC working group on mitigation. At the heart of this working group's
latest 2014 report is a review and summary of integrated-assessment models. An
open call for such models was issued in 2007. Different technology options and
emissions scenarios were to be entered into models to show how such different
technology choices and socioeconomic pathways would translate into different
concentrations of greenhouse gases and thus different risks of warming. At an
expert meeting convened by the IPCC in September 2007, modelers were told that
to ensure the robustness of the modeling studies, "scientifically peer-reviewed
publication is considered to be an implicit judgment of technical soundness."
Thus, if a company's representatives manage to publish a peer-reviewed study in
whichever journal, which "concludes" that the company's technology is sound,
modelers can assume the result to be fact. Peer-reviewed studies written by
industry representatives are commonplace. Climate change deniers would have a
field day if the IPCC working group on climate science set such a low standard
for evidence! As for the "GHG and carbon cycle accounting, land use
implications, and economic considerations" of different technology choices used
in models, those were to be assessed by a panel. Quite how wasn't made clear,
but the discussion of the life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of different,
supposedly low-carbon and carbon-negative technology choices in the latest IPCC
report is woefully brief. At the 2007 expert meeting, some participants
expressed concern that at least some models were expected to include "negative
emissions" - namely through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
They pointed out that there were "technical concerns about the ...
characterisation of the negative emissions technology" and about potential
consequences, including on emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas nitrous
oxide from greater fertilizer use. Judging by the IPCC's 2014 report, those
concerns were brushed aside. The vast majority of models considered by the IPCC
"find" that BECCS is needed if we want to have a greater than 50 percent chance
of keeping global temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius. Modelers had done
as they had been requested: They had included "negative emissions" from BECCS
into their models - often on a grand scale, without considering whether such a
technology was viable, whether carbon pumped underground can be trusted to stay
there forever, nor whether burning billions of tons of wood, crops and other
biomass every year could possibly be "carbon neutral" (the prerequisite for it
to become "carbon negative" with carbon storage). BECCS could, according to the
models summarized by the IPCC, sequester up to 10 billion tons of carbon
dioxide every year. That figure was based on two sources: One was a literature
review by a Ph.D. student. The other was a report published by the
International Energy Agency (IEA), written by Ecofys. Ecofys is a consultancy
that is fully owned by a Dutch energy company (Eneco Group) that has built the
first large biomass power station in the Netherlands, hence clearly not
unbiased. Ecofys' estimate of the maximum BECCS potential is derived from
estimates of the global potential for "sustainable biomass," made up of
"residues" and "energy crops." But how did they estimate that? For the
"residues," they lifted a figure from a preliminary report, which contained no
details at all about what that figure was based on. For the "energy crops,"
they used figures from one study that estimated how much could be produced by
converting "abandoned cropland" and natural grasslands to bioenergy
plantations. Natural grasslands are home to a signification proportion of the
world's biodiversity and they store large amounts of carbon, most of it in soil
- and much of that is emitted when grasslands are ploughed up and turned into
monoculture plantations, as several peer-reviewed studies confirm. Yet in the
Ecofys/IEA report and thus in the IPCC report, all this bioenergy is simply
assumed to be carbon neutral (and thus carbon negative with carbon capture and
storage). The fact that the IPCC report suggests a massive "negative emissions"
potential from BECCS raises serious concerns that scientific standards have
been abandoned in relation to climate change mitigation. This is only one of
the problems with BECCS, as a new Biofuelwatch reportshows in detail: The
technologies that would be required to sequester significant amounts of carbon
dioxide from biomass burning power stations are beset with major problems and
challenges. Overcoming those to render BECCS technically and economically
viable seems unlikely. Carbon sequestration can be combined with additional oil
extraction, but this would likely result in greater overall carbon emissions.
Sequestering carbon without such oil recovery, on the other hand, is even less
likely to become economically viable, and evidence shows that it is far from
reliable. In short, there is no credible scientific basis whatsoever for
suggesting that BECCS could ever sequester up to 10 billion tons of carbon
dioxide per year. Yet this very claim is the basis for the text proposal about
"negative emissions" debated by governments in Paris right now. --
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.
--
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.
