Re: [geo] Woody Biomass for Power and Heat Impacts on the Global Climate

[Ronal W . Larson]

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
 

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 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  
> 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
>  
> .
>  
> See a BBC article summarizing the disagreement between the two groups of 
> academics,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_campaign=41bd2d3162-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_13_medium=email_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
>  
> 

RE: [geo] Woody Biomass for Power and Heat Impacts on the Global Climate

[Bernard Mercer]

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.


  *   See a BBC article summarizing the disagreement between the two groups of 
academics, 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_campaign=41bd2d3162-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_13_medium=email_term=0_00bf999edc-41bd2d3162-245804889.



  *   The author of the report wrote a rebuttal of the IEA Bioenergy letter, 
see 
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.



  *   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

bmer...@mercerenvironment.net
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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: 15 April 2017 09:00
To: geoengineering 
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#

Woody Biomass for Power and 
Heat
Impacts on the Global Climate
[Image removed by sender. Woody Biomass for Power and Heat]
DATE
 23 February 2017
PROJECTS
Energy, Environment and Resources Department, 
 The Environmental Impact of 
the Use of Biomass for Power and 
Heat
AUTHOR
Duncan BrackAssociate Fellow, Energy, 
Environment and Resources
ISBN978 1 78413 190 6
DOWNLOAD PDF 470 
KB
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 relatively cheap and flexible way of supplying renewable energy, 
with benefits to the global climate and to forest industries. To its critics, 
it can release more greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere than the 
fossil fuels it replaces, and threatens the maintenance of natural forests and 
the biodiversity that depends on them. Like the debate around transport 
biofuels a few years ago, this has become a highly contested subject with very 
few areas of consensus. This paper provides an overview of the debate around 
the impact of wood energy on the global climate, and aims to reach conclusions 
for policymakers on the appropriate way forward.

Although there are alternatives to the use of wood for biomass power and heat, 
including organic waste, agricultural residues and energy crops, they tend to 
be less energy-dense, more expensive and more difficult to collect and 
transport. Wood – and particularly wood pellets, now the dominant solid biomass 
commodity on world markets – is therefore likely to remain the biomass fuel of 
choice for some time.

Biomass is classified as a source of renewable energy in national policy 
frameworks, benefiting from financial and regulatory support on the grounds 
that, like other