I missed Andrew's email on these Senate Amendments when he first posted it.
The Manchin Amendment (s. amdt. 3270) is deeply flawed in that its specification for the biomass energy input for "net-negative" projects does not require the biomass to be produced in a manner that is net-zero in carbon emissions. The relevant text is-- ``(C) through which each use of coal will be combined with the use of a regionally indigenous form of biomass energy, provided on a renewable basis, that is sufficient in quantity to allow for net-negative emissions of carbon dioxide (in combination with a carbon capture system), while avoiding impacts on food production activities." As can be seen, the text requires only that the biomass be "regionally indigenous," "provided on a renewable basis," and avoid "impacts on food production activities." These conditions of course do not require that the supplied biomass achieves a net increase in removals sufficient to cover the emissions resulting from its production, transport and combustion. This defect was brought to the attention of the sponsors, who declined to fix the problem. The refusal of legislators to insist on adequate specifications for biomass, if continued, will be a major barrier to responsible exploration of biomass energy systems. David ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:36:34 PM To: Geoengineering Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Senate Energy Bill Carbon Removal Amendments 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
