Bernard and List, cc Andrew
1. Thanks for your complete documentation re this important
CDR-via-biomass thread. I have also visited and enjoyed your own website and
its recent emphasis on this “woody biomass” topic.
2. Your final bullet indicates a missing document (re the 50
responding to the 125). I found this letter at:
http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Scientists-bioenergy-letter-March-15-2017.pdf
<http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Scientists-bioenergy-letter-March-15-2017.pdf>
with this final paragraph (three emphasis added)
"The failure of the EU to act increases the urgency that the UK abandon
the EU’s profoundly flawed approach to biomass. We accordingly urge the UK
government to reform carbon accounting for bioenergy to appropriately weight
current, measurable bioenergy carbon emissions over unsecured and hypothetical
forest regrowth, and to end subsidies for large-scale wood-fueled bioenergy
that injures forests and the climate. These bold steps would mark the UK as a
climate and conservation leader, and save billions in public funds. “
3. Explaining my three added emphases:
a. Nowhere in the thread’s dialog on carbon accounting do I
find anything on improving soil carbon while (without conflict) sequestering
carbon via biochar.
b. We presently have slightly too high costs of removing
excess biomass that presently injures forests and the climate - forests that
could instead be improved by making and using biochar.
c. Biochar has received small commendable R&D funding for soil
science but could also save billions in public funds coming down the road if
we don’t start funding CDR.
4. Surprising to me is that almost none of this thread dialog
(especially this “50-letter”) talks about the strong COP emphasis on soils
carbon since COP-21. Most of the negative reactions re biomass in the above
“50-letter” do not apply to biochar and other forms of carbon sequestration in
soil. The above final paragraph states nothing that should obstruct biochar.
5. I wonder if any of the arguments against the Drax biomass-using
facility (a main target of this letter) would stand up if that facility was
converted to one that pyrolyzed rather than combusted its biomass? After
using the pyrolysis gases for electrical generation, biochar proponents claim
that the out-year further benefits in sequestering additional carbon exceed the
small initial advantage achieved by BECCS (which could also be used at Drax).
One only sees this biochar advantage with the growing IPCC emphasis on soil
carbon and a longer time horizon.
6. So I can support the letters from both the 125 and the 50 - as
well as the original Chatham House report - all silent on increasing soil
carbon for CDR reasons.
Ron
> On Apr 16, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Bernard Mercer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Below is a link to a short synthesis report from Chatham House that
> accompanies their “Woody Biomass for Power and Heat” report, which Andrew
> referenced below.
>
> And some other links to post-publication comment and critique. If nothing
> else, the report has brought the strong academic disagreements on bioenergy
> out into the open (125 academics criticising the report, a different group of
> 50 academics supporting it).
>
> The synthesis report (“The Environmental Impact of the Use of Biomass for
> Power and Heat”) is at
> https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/impacts-demand-woody-biomass-power-and-heat-climate-and-forests
>
> <https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/impacts-demand-woody-biomass-power-and-heat-climate-and-forests>.
>
> See a BBC article summarizing the disagreement between the two groups of
> academics,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39267774
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39267774>.
>
> The letter from Piers Forster and 124 other academics (“gives an inaccurate
> interpretation of the impact of harvesting on forest carbon stock") was
> issued via IEA Bioenergy Technology Collaboration Programme, the letter and
> other supporting documents are here,
> http://www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/iea-bioenergy-response/?utm_source=AEBIOM+AM+ONLY+%28official%29&utm_campaign=41bd2d3162-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_00bf999edc-41bd2d3162-245804889
>
> <http://www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/iea-bioenergy-response/?utm_source=AEBIOM+AM+ONLY+%28official%29&utm_campaign=41bd2d3162-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_00bf999edc-41bd2d3162-245804889>.
>
> The author of the report wrote a rebuttal of the IEA Bioenergy letter,
> seehttps://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/2017-04-05-ResponsetoIEABioenergy.pdf
>
> <https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/2017-04-05-ResponsetoIEABioenergy.pdf>.
>
> There is an interesting article reviewing the dispute, from the Institute of
> Materials, Minerals, and Mining,
> http://www.iom3.org/materials-world-magazine/news/2017/mar/31/scientists-react-chatham-house-biomass-rebuttal
>
> <http://www.iom3.org/materials-world-magazine/news/2017/mar/31/scientists-react-chatham-house-biomass-rebuttal>.
>
> I have not been able to find the letter from the 50 scientists supporting the
> report (referenced in the BBC article).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bernard
>
> Bernard Mercer
> Mercer Environment Associates
> 15 Beardell Street
> London
> SE19 1TP
>
> 44 (0)7710 407809
>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> www.mercerenvironment.net <http://www.mercerenvironment.net/>
>
> Mercer Environment Associates Ltd, Registered in England and Wales. Company
> No: 8180100. Registered address: 1-6 The Stables, Ford Road, Totnes, Devon,
> TQ9 5LE.
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
> Sent: 15 April 2017 09:00
> To: geoengineering <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: [geo] Woody Biomass for Power and Heat Impacts on the Global Climate
>
> Poster's note : full report on link. BECCS section below
>
> https://reader.chathamhouse.org/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate?_ga=1.89601309.723207103.1492243082#
>
> <https://reader.chathamhouse.org/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate?_ga=1.89601309.723207103.1492243082>
>
> Woody Biomass for Power and Heat
> <https://reader.chathamhouse.org/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate>
> Impacts on the Global Climate
> <~WRD000.jpg>
> DATE
> 23 February 2017
> PROJECTS
> Energy, Environment and Resources Department,
> <https://www.chathamhouse.org/taxonomy/term/203>The Environmental Impact of
> the Use of Biomass for Power and Heat
> <https://www.chathamhouse.org/taxonomy/term/591>AUTHOR
> Duncan Brack <https://www.chathamhouse.org/node/3651>Associate Fellow,
> Energy, Environment and Resources
> ISBN978 1 78413 190 6
> DOWNLOAD PDF 470 KB
> <https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-02-23-woody-biomass-global-climate-brack-final2.pdf>
> CONTENTS
> Executive Summary
>
> The use of wood for electricity generation and heat in modern
> (non-traditional) technologies has grown rapidly in recent years. For its
> supporters, it represents a
>
> <snipped as being off topic>
--
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.
