List, Dr. Hori, Michael Hayes (adding Greg Rau)
I respond in part because mine is the message furthest down in this
list - and I am remiss in responding to Dr. Rau. But I am also interested in
the Hayes-Hori dialog.
This note is also about what the term “BECCS” means. Note that in
most discussions on this list BECCS refers only to electrical generation. Dr.
Hori (ut maybe not Michael) is referring to biofuels. My preference is to use
“BECCS” only for electrical generation, but to recognize that biochar can be a
co-product with both electrical and fuel generation (with which I believe
Michael concurs - and maybe also Drs. Hori and Rau). Michael does not use
BECCS in he same way.
See inserts below for four messages.
> On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:38 AM, M.Hori <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Hayes
>
> Thank you very much for your comment. It is very encouraging.
>
> 1. I would welcome you or anyone to reference my paper to your marine based
> infrastructure/investment project or any other projects for global
> environment restoration and sustainable world energy supply.
>
> 2. I am interested in your marine biomass BECCS concept, reading its
> features you wrote. Some marine biomass (algae) grow faster than terrestrial
> plants, so I think that marine BECCS process may better be centralized with
> easier assembling of biomass.
[RWL: Michael Hayes (next) uses “BECCS” to mainly (or only?) mean
“biochar”, whereas you (Dr. Hori, below) do not do so. I believe Michael is
promoting decentralization with land use of ocean-generated biomass (as
biochar). The nuclear issue then relates to economies of scale. I am
uncertain the scale of Dr. Hori’s nuclear plants/
>
> 3. I think that the global CDR task and the world energy supply task are
> both indispensable in the coming decades, and that the both tasks will be
> accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an integrated approach. The
> Carbon-Negative Energy System is a reference concept in this direction. I
> hope it will be upgraded, updated, revised and combined with other processes
> for our global tasks.
[RWL: Same for all of us on this thread, I believe. So thanks for
your emphasizing a possible (and surprising) role for nuclear energy in CDR -
with biofuels.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Masao Hori
> [email protected]
> -------------------------------------
>
> Michael Hayes wrote on 2016/04/22 8:16:
[RWL: I have communicated a good bit with Michael, and fully support
his emphasis on “blue” carbon. Here I only underline/bold how he is
emphasizing biochar (which I believe is synonymous with BECCS for Michael) -
and not the more common reservation of “BECCS” to mean deep underground
placement of pressurized/liquid CO2, following electrical generation. But I
also ask for his comments on the word “BECCS” here.
>
>> Dr. Hori et al.,
>>
>> I found your work to be the most articulate view of the potential for a
>> global scale C-neg regimen using the BECCS concept. I would like to ask
>> your permission to reference your paper within a C-neg marine based
>> infrastructure/investment concept which I'm currently working on. In
>> brief, it is my view that using the many forms of marine based renewable
>> energy for the production/processing/refinement of marine biomass, as
>> opposed to land based energy (and other land resources), may offer the
>> easiest path to truly large scale C-neg infrastructure investment.
>> Further, the deployment of such large scale marine based C-neg
>> infrastructure can also help address other pressing global issues,
>> beyond the need for biofuels and biochar, inter alia the production of
>> food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers, pharma, and even the
>> production of freshwater. This list is not exhaustive.
>>
>> The list of potential marine biomass based downstream products is
>> extensive and growing as new marine biomass based inventions and science
>> emerge. Thus, based upon currently available technology and scientific
>> knowledge, large scale investments may potentially be attracted to a
>> marine based C-neg regime sooner than vast scale land based BECCS
>> options. Once large scale marine BECCS production and a reasonable
>> investment return are both proven out, large scale investments in land
>> based nuclear energy based BECCS may become much easier to secure.
>>
>> There may be another technical option. China is currently committed to
>> the development of and deployment of a rather large fleet of marine
>> based nuclear plants. Coupling such marine based power infrastructure
>> with marine BECCS would make many of the drawbacks currently found
>> within the land based BECCS concept /simply moot/. Importantly, the
>> addition of the profits generated by the many potential downstream
>> marine based products, beyond biofuel and biochar, can help ensure a
>> reasonable return on the overall investments. We have to face the fact
>> that both biofuel and biochar are low margin products and both product
>> streams need the benefits from additional profit streams.
>>
>> To conclude, your work on the nuclear powered BECCS option should be
>> considered as being central within the overall BECCS discussion due to
>> its articulation, scope, and comprehensiveness. Expanding the work to
>> include the marine space, and the vast resources which our great seas
>> and even the high seas offer all of us, may also be worth accepting as a
>> central idea as you point out in your paper /**/"The task of removing CO
>> 2 and supplying fuel is a gigantic international public-works project,
>> andit would evolve into creating new big environment/energy
>> businesses.". If this effort is to reach the needed scale, it will
>> require relatively secure and prosperous investment options at both the
>> initial stage of deployment as well as for generations to come. I
>> believe marine based BECCS has the potential for early stage success
>> which can pave the way for a long-term (generational) mix of BECCS
>> options...including the nuclear.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-7, mhori wrote:
>>
>> I tried to construct a Carbon Negative Energy System, which enables the
>> CDR and energy supply integrally, by full use of available ‘clean’
>> (non-carbon emitting) energy sources – renewable (biomass, solar, wind,
>> hydro, etc.) and nuclear energies. The executive summary of this report
>> was distributed to this list October last year, and the copy can be
>> downloaded from below;
>>
>> "CARBON-NEGATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM -- Sustainable World Energy Supply and
>> Global Environment Restoration Using Renewable and Nuclear Energies"
>> (2015)
>> http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf
>> <http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf>
[RWL: In this 10-pager, the word “BECCS” appears once, and “biochar”
21 times. The electricity generation here is via nuclear - so BECCS is not
needed or reasonable to discuss.
A surprise to me was reference to 60% increase in this sentence on his
page 4: “This synergistic biomass-nuclear process can increase the effective
carbon removal amount by both biochar and biofuel about 60% compared to a
similar biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.”
There are very few biochar producers working with biofuels. The main one I
know of (http://www.coolplanet.com/ <http://www.coolplanet.com/>) does not use
Fischer-Tropsch. But I can conceive that nuclear thermal might have a place
with biomass drying (Dr. Hori has a figure showing drying with nuclear
electricity).
I can’t be sure of why Dr. Hori has emphasized biochar in his response
to Greg - but note that most of the biochar (charcoal used in
agriculture/horticulture) literature over the 100 years prior to about 2000 was
in Japanese.
>>
>> The concept is as follows;
>>
>> C: Carbon in biomass, typically C6H10O5
>>
>> By the carbonization of biomass;
>>
>> C (biomass) -> C (biochar) + C (volatile)
>>
>> C (biochar) is up to a half of C (biomass) in usual carbonization
>> process, and this biochar acts as the CDR.
>>
>> By the steam gasification process of the remaining C (volatile) ;
>>
>> C (volatile) + H2O -> CO + H2
>>
>> This [CO + H2] (Syngas or synthesis gas) is used as important
>> industrial
>> resources (for process and energy).
>>
>> Syngas can also be used to produce hydrocarbons (CH2 in constituent
>> ratio) such as diesel oil, which could replace petroleum products for
>> transportation and other fields as ‘clean’ fuels.
>>
>> A typical process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis as follows;
>>
>> CO + 2H2 -> CH2 + H2O
>>
>> In the above processes, the steam gasification process is a strong
>> endothermic reaction which needs large heat (131 kJ/mol). This heat can
>> be supplied from biomass itself by combusting part of it, but if the
>> heat is supplied by nuclear energy, the effective carbon removal amount
>> (by both biochar and biofuel) can be increased about 60% compared to
>> biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.
>>
>> It would be crucial to increase the ratio of CDR amount to the
>> processed
>> biomass amount when the available global biomass resources are limited,
>> and this biomass-nuclear synergistic process will be useful for such
>> circumstances.
>>
>> By the way, as the heat supplied to the endothermic reaction will be
>> contained in the heat of combustion of products, the nuclear heat is
>> effectively converted to a part of the heat of fuel, deducting heat
>> loss
>> during the processes.
>>
>> A quantitative image of global carbon/energy balance in Year2065 by
>> this
>> Carbon Negative Energy System is shown in the attached figure.
[RWL: Not reproduced here, but I think we can do more with biomass
(Dr. Hori showing biomass harvest for CDR as 6 Gt C/yr, with biochar from that
at 1.1 Gt C/yr), Additionally, more biochar is possible when co-produced with
electrical and thermal needs in mind. But also much more when using ocean
resources (per Michael Hayes). I can’t see that Dr. Hori is using ocean
biomass.
>>
>>
>> Masao Hori
>> Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
>> Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132
>> Email: [email protected] <javascript:>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:
[RWL: I believe the above contribution from Dr. Hori is based on this
comment on BECCS (not biochar?) from Dr. Rau four days ago, replying to me.
>>
>> > I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
>> > production. Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
>> > figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
>> > hydrogen rather than the carbon).
[RWL: I don’t understand the above. There are hundreds of biochar
companies now - with at least a dozen (and many more academic and others) who
are producing both biochar and energy on a daily basis. And probably about
half the energy is from carbon (the weight loss is about 3/4- but only 1/2 the
carbon is lost as CO2 in the pyrolysis process). A beauty of the biochar
production process (for CDR) is that so much of the hydrogen can be removed for
energy purposes; the considerable energy value of H2 in biomass is not needed
for CDR.
>> If $100/tonne CO2 is a
>> showstopper for
>> > negative emissions energy, then why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
>> to BE
>> > the darling of this field?
[RWL: I didn’t mean to say that $100/tonne CO2 was a showstopper. It
probably is cheaper than the alternative of not aggressively pursuing CDR
(agreeing with you I think). But that numerical figure gives about $300/tonne
biochar (combining the 44/12=3.67 value and the fact that biochar is not 100%
carbon). Charcoal itself (not certified biochar) itself can be purchased today
at a value less than $300/tonne. In addition biochar has commercial value
today in excess of its sale price (because of increased production and reduced
other expenses - even possibly with a one-year payback - as can be seen in
Cool-Planet literature). So, I presume that Greg’s reference to “darling”
means BECCS, not biochar. In the absence of the $100/tonne CO2, BECCS is
expense only - not the investment category when one is buying biochar.
>> The energy penalty for CCS is on the
>> order of
>> > 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
>> increase
>> > land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)
>> > The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
>> production
>> > may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
>> required).
[RWL: All of these statements apply to BECCS, not biochar.
The problem is compounded by needing to analyze the “payback” over hundreds of
years, whereas BECCS requires continuing expenditures for monitoring (no
out-year income). These out-year payback computations must include many
aspects of carbon - above and below ground. I don’t see those out-year
computations in almost any CDR comparison.
But my guess on why we will see BECCS languish is the user’s need for
insurance - the same as for CCS. The US’ DoE has already declined to pay for
CCS insurance.
I am mostly agreeing here with Greg- not disagreeing.
Ron
>> > Greg
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>> > *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>>;
>> Geoengineering
>> > <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM
>> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global
>> record
>> >
>> > Greg and list
>> >
>> > My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”. Your
>> > papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2. Biochar is growing
>> quite
>> > rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks
>> (even
>> > in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and
>> > increased productivity. Only a few receiving financial benefits
>> > from voluntary CDR payments today.
>> >
>> > Ron
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]
>> <javascript:>
>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ron,
>> >> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is
>> >> powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear).
>> >> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc
>> --->
>> >> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
>> >> e.g. silicates -
>> >> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g + Mg2+ +
>> 4HCO3- +
>> >> SiO2s
>> >> e.g. carbonates:
>> >> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
>> >> See the links I listed earlier.
>> >> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to
>> electrolytic H2
>> >> production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of
>> >> minerals is exothermic. CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges
>> from
>> >> 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
>> >> G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>> >> *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>> >> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>; Geoengineering
>> >> <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
>> global
>> >> record
>> >>
>> >> Greg, Stephen, list
>> >>
>> >>
[RWL: Snip three points.
>> >>
>> >> 4. Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with
>> either
>> >> solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?
>> Seems to
>> >> me it has to be biochar.
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>> >>
>> >>
[RWL: Snipped 5-6 messages.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
