List: cc Noah Deich and Dan Kammen
1. This is to comment on the news release from the Berkeley “Center
for Carbon Renewal” sent 5 days ago by Andrew, which started this way:
> On May 5, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Senate Widens Scope of Energy Bill to Include Carbon-Negative Technologies
>
2. But it is easiest to comment on the full release, which is only
four paragraphs.
a. “BERKELEY (May 4, 2016) — The Senate recently passed two amendments to
support the development of carbon removal solutions in the Senate’s Bipartisan
Energy Bill: S.2012 - The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016. The
amendments focus on two carbon-negative energy technologies: bioenergy with
carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and sequestration. According
to Noah Deich, Executive Director of Center for Carbon Removal, “These
amendments are an important recognition from the Senate on the need for
negative emissions technologies to build a strong and secure domestic energy
industry that is compatible with our climate goals.”
[RWLa: My reading of the amendments are that they are, unfortunately,
not primarily NETs. I wish they were. How do we get more real CDR/NET
funding legislation?
b. “Amendment S.3270, sponsored by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), calls for the
creation of a “net- negative carbon dioxide emissions project” under the Coal
Technology Program. This project would employ the co-conversion of coal and
biomass fuels coupled with carbon capture and storage or utilization to produce
net-removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Postdoctoral research
scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, Daniel L. Sanchez, commented
on the amendment’s role in fostering technology innovation and
commercialization: “Near-term, large-scale, thermochemical co-conversion
projects with carbon capture and storage can demonstrate technical feasibility
and reduce investment risks, ultimately enabling gigaton-scale CO2 removal.”
[RWLb: The amendment language and funding levels show this is a coal
subsidy, but I concur we should be pleased that BECCS is in here at all.
My question (for anyone) is whether biochar proponents might have any
chance in proposing a pre-BECCS biochar component under this legislation. That
is - the input biomass can be pyrolyzed rather than combusted, with the
resulting biochar providing out-year CDR and economic benefits not possible
with BECCS. The pyrolysis gases (but no solids) would be combined with the coal
and (presumably) result in about half as much electricity per unit in-coming
biomass. The BECCS operation still captures, liquifies and places (combined
fossil and biomass) CO2 deep underground, but now about half as much CO2 from
the biomass because char is being produced. The coal companies should be
delighted as the missing carbon that has emerged as biochar must be made up
with coal. Yet there should be more total NET/CDR because of the out-year
benefits of the biochar.
This helps biochar’s argument as “all” (rather than half) of the
biomass’ carbon is sequestered. This helps the BECCS argument because of the
long-term soil and NPP improvements that the biochar provides. I have not seen
this combined biochar/BECCS concept in print - except possibly by me somewhere
earlier. Anyone seen this hybrid before? It could fly if the fundamental
source is coal and CCS, where I am claiming costing should be improved. For
strictly biomass comparisons, I fear the extra costs of the BECCS component may
not be justified. I know of lots of biochar deployment - but none with a BECCS
aspect. We need more comparative economic analyses between BECCS and biochar.
c. ”Amendment, S.3017, sponsored by Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Brian
Schatz (D-HI), creates a prize managed by the Secretary of Energy to encourage
the development of direct air capture systems by including “a financial award
for the separation of carbon dioxide from dilute sources”. “Direct air capture
is a vital technology for preventing climate change and ensuring that any
emission can be canceled. A technology prize, like the one proposed in the
Senate bipartisan energy bill, will aid these technologies in reaching cost and
scale,” said Klaus Lackner of the Arizona State University Center for Negative
Carbon Emissions on the amendment.”
[RWLc: This language seems not to require CDR - since the Lackner/DAC
emphasis seems (for cost reasons) to now be more on creating fuels - not on
CDR/NET. The connection to biochar (and BECCS) is that it should be much
cheaper to capture the high density CO2 release from a power plant. As with
BECCS, biochar benefits from anyone finding a way to use the waste CO2
productively. So producing fuels from biochar’s waste/vented CO2 stream sounds
well worth investigating. Biochar producers have a lot of hot CO2 to give
away; BECCS producers won’t.
d. ”Dr. Daniel Kammen, professor at UC Berkeley and director of the
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, as well as Science Envoy for the
U. S. State Department spoke on both amendments, saying, “Natural ecosystems
are the best means to sequester carbon, so investments in healthy forests,
oceans, and sustainable agriculture should be at the top of the carbon-negative
agenda. Moving forward the Senate bill incentivizes governments and firms who
must commit to research, development and demonstration of ecologically sound
carbon removal technologies."
[RWLd: None of Professor Kammen’s remarks (re “natural”, “forests",
"sustainable agriculture") apply to BECCS or DAC. They do apply to biochar.]
Ron
--
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.
