Michael etal
1. I think you are seeing BECCS and biochar as roughly equivalent. I
don't. My first point, following Dr. Benson, was that BECCS has many
hurdles. Maybe there are more, but they seem to mostly relate to risks
associated with the storage component of CCS, and therefore also to BECCS.
None of the EPA-listed risks that I quoted apply to biochar, which is moving
ahead rapidly, while essentially nothing is happening with either CCS or BECCS
- despite billions spent on them. I see the (non-solvable?) problem being that
of insurance/indemnification. Too many people are going to react as did the
authors of the EPA report - not suitable for the US government to indemnify
operators. Who is going to put up the money for operations with that hurdle?
Same as for a nuclear facility. It is not just the risk, it is the potential
cost of a highly unlikely event, with no way for any insurer to calculate the
odds.
2. I have been and continue to be supportive of an ocean biomass
resource for biochar. My limited research says that will be best started as a
shore-based activity. That would keep the decisions out of international
courts. And there is plenty of coastline - close to the ag soils needing both
the biochar and the valuable ocean minor minerals available from this ag-type
activity.
3. Near the end, you say: "The list of limiting factors for
terrestrial BECCS (TBECCS) is, in fact, long (per IPCC WG3)." I appreciate
that you did not here include biochar. Your third point about all countries
being able to benefit from ocean biomass (presumably biochar) is valid - but
the same holds true for the land-based resource; many countries have poor
growing conditions. At least at first, it still seems best to concentrate on
land-based facilities using ocean waters, and international trade. And put the
captured carbon where people want it, not where it is a perceived uninsurable
risk (likely at higher cost as well).
Ron
On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Greg, Ron, (Dr. Benson) et. al.,
>
> Greg, thank you for the Benson et. al. paper. Ron, the EPA document was
> interesting to digest. However, the total lack of any marine centric view to
> the BECCS issue is troublesome. I would like to point out a few significant
> advantage concerning Marine BECCS (with Marine Biochar) production and use.
> When the full market value of all the reasonably related Marine BECCS/Marine
> Biochar non-fuel commodities are factored together (ie. organic food, feed,
> fertilizer, polymers/fabrics, vast amounts of freshwater etc.) the basic math
> shows a significant potential to generate globally meaningful profits from
> that type of extremely broad product basket. To clarify, the market value for
> the non-fuel commodities/services can greatly exceed the market value of the
> biofuel and thus comparing all other CCS concepts with Marine BECCS/Marine
> Biochar is anologistic to comparing industrial mono-culture agriculture to
> permaculture. The value of the potentially vast volumes of freshwater
> production alone makes marine BECCS operations profitable....and the pressure
> reduction on land use, wild catch fisheries, use of chemical fertilizers
> etc....priceless.
>
> In general, viewing global warming mitigation through a robust
> environmental/sociopolitical matrix of factors would seem to be the most
> logical approach to inter-generational global carbon management, as well as
> the long list of other significant global environmental issues. In general
> philosophical terms, such a broad synergistic view may best be described
> through the permaculture philosophy. The permaculture philosophy has 12
> generally accepted design principles. To quote the Wiki page:
>
> "Twelve Permaculture design principles articulated by David Holmgren in his
> Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability:[15]
>
> Observe and interact: By taking time to engage with nature we can design
> solutions that suit our particular situation.
> Catch and store energy: By developing systems that collect resources at peak
> abundance, we can use them in times of need.
> Obtain a yield: Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of
> the work that you are doing.
> Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: We need to discourage
> inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
> Use and value renewable resources and services: Make the best use of nature's
> abundance to reduce our consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable
> resources.
> Produce no waste: By valuing and making use of all the resources that are
> available to us, nothing goes to waste.
> Design from patterns to details: By stepping back, we can observe patterns in
> nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the
> details filled in as we go.
> Integrate rather than segregate: By putting the right things in the right
> place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to
> support each other.
> Use small and slow solutions: Small and slow systems are easier to maintain
> than big ones, making better use of local resources and producing more
> sustainable outcomes.
> Use and value diversity: Diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of
> threats and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which
> it resides.
> Use edges and value the marginal: The interface between things is where the
> most interesting events take place. These are often the most valuable,
> diverse and productive elements in the system.
> Creatively use and respond to change: We can have a positive impact on
> inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right
> time.
>
> (As a side note: The above environmental philosophy is a clear sighted
> declaration of how we, as a species, may possibly best interact with our
> environment. Interestingly so, at the market level view, the above 12
> philosophical Principles and Pathways seem to have both meta and micro
> economic analogies. A Wall Street Market Trader and/or family would do well
> by grasping the permaculture/financial analogy(s).)
>
> On the subject of the STEM evaluation of terrestrial BECCS, Prof. Benson
> correctly stated; "...for BECCS strategies to succeed, major hurdles must be
> overcome.". The list of limiting factors for terrestrial BECCS (TBECCS) is,
> in fact, long (per IPCC WG3). Yet, when the full spectrum of TBECCS related
> limiting factors are translated to the marine environment, this long list of
> limiting factors simply becomes moot due to;
>
> 1) the potential economies of scale (>5M km2) of standardized marine biomass
> production within the subtropical oceanic regions;
> 2) thus allowing all nations to be energy independent;
> 3) the adaptability of the marine environment to accommodate a vast scale
> production of biomass at the nutrient/energy levels;
> 4) while doing so without the displacement/conversion of existing CCS related
> terrestrial or marine ecosystems.
>
> Simply stated, concerning the most significant global environmental concerns,
> the basket holds far more than just carbon and Marine BECCS with Marine
> Biochar can fill the basket with reasonable and supportable options. It opens
> the door to a wide spectrum of socioeconomic and environmental remedies and
> opportunities.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 8, 2014 7:22:02 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote:
> Greg and list (with apologies for sounding too supportive of the
> un-mentioned main CDR competitor to BECCS:
>
> a. There is another side to the word "insurance" you have picked up
> on. On p 123 of the exhaustive 2010 federal multiagency report on CCS (all
> of which applies to BECCS)
> http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ccs/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf
> ,
> we read as one of the major conclusions: "Open-ended Federal indemnification
> should not be used to address long-term liabilities
> associated with CO2 storage."
>
> I get the impression that insurance (indemnification) is as critical
> for CCS as is the Price-Anderson Act for nuclear systems. If not Federal
> indemnification - then who? The other major biomass-related CDR approach,
> biochar, is going ahead today full steam with neither subsidies nor
> indemnification. And biochar is applicable for all energy sectors - not just
> electrical (an energy end-use factor of about three?), is not dependent on
> the availability of a suitable final resting place (a geologic factor of
> three?), available right now in the tropics where biomass growth is fastest
> (a geographic factor of three?), and being best applicable to decentralized
> use (another capital-availability factor of three?). I am baffled as to how
> BECCS can be listed so often as having a larger technical potential than
> biochar.
>
>
> b. I presume that the above surprising negative finding on
> "insurance" availability from the US government is associated with the eight
> risk potentialities given (page H-1) in:
>
> Appendix H. Potential Causes of Long-Term Storage Risk and/or Liability
>
> "Potential causes of long-term storage and/or liability risk include the
> following:
>
> 1. Scientifically understood phenomena. For example, migration of CO2 in
> scientifically understood ways as a result of high injection pressures.
>
> 2. Scientific uncertainties or unknown phenomena that would alter
> previous
> understandings about risks.
>
> 3. Operator error. For example, an operator misapplies monitoring
> technology and fails
> to detect migration of CO2, or an operator misuses injection equipment, which
> fails, and
> CO2 is released from the storage site.
>
> 4. Regulatory mistake or oversight. For example, a State or Federal
> agency reviewing
> a permit application fails to detect a geological feature, or fails to
> identify migration of
> CO2 in monitoring data.
>
> 5. Falsification and illegal conduct. For examples, a site operator
> falsifies geological
> data in order to obtain a permit; a site operator falsifies monitoring data
> in order to
> avoid the costs of remediation; or a site operator stores more CO2 than
> allowed under
> a permit to obtain the associated income stream.
>
> 6. Policy changes. For example, a subsequent Administration withdraws
> funding for CCS
> activities, or the relevant legal framework changes, or a State ceases
> funding for a
> storage site.
>
> 7. Acts of God. For example, an earthquake causes a release from a
> storage site.
>
> 8. Judicial system error. For example, groundwater contamination develops
> near a
> storage site. The harm is not in fact caused by the site, but would have
> occurred even
> without the storage activity. A court nevertheless erroneously holds the site
> operator
> liable, for example on an ultrahazardous activity theory."
>
> RWL: I can't think of a single show-stopping risk associated with biochar.
> Biochar actually needs perhaps half as much Carbon placed in the ground, as
> biochar leads to increased above and below ground carbon from living things
> (especially fungi). There is more soil carbon than the combination of
> atmospheric and above-ground life.
>
>
> c. The subject of CCS costs is well covered in this above-cited EPA
> report (for collection, transport, and storage). These CCS costs are not low
> - and they continue for perhaps a century. But BECCS is clearly more
> expensive than CCS (although BECCS is never mentioned in the above-cited EPA
> report). So there will be little reason to put BECCS ahead of CCS, even if
> one believes CCS is appropriate for CDR and (?) for EOR reasons. Biochar
> comes with real user-sharing of costs (for soil productivity improvement
> reasons) - not added costs. Better to think of biochar as an investment,
> with payback over centuries, not as a cost. Some field experiments are
> already showing first-year payback - if the value of the crop is high enough.
>
>
> Thanks to Greg for raising the "insurance" topic.
>
> RWL
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> BECCS is among "most promising CDR methods". "However, for BECCS strategies
>> to succeed, major hurdles must be overcome."
>>
>> GR - Indeed. If CCS is too expensive for fossil fuel CO2 mitigation it most
>> certainly is for BE as well. While we might all agree that negative
>> emissions technology R&D is needed, it would seem a little premature to be
>> recommending winning CDR technologies just yet, esp considering Mother
>> Nature's few billion year head start in this field. Are we talking about
>> insurance that we can stabilize atmospheric CO2, or job insurance for
>> CCSers?
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6191/1431.summary
>>
>> Science 27 June 2014:
>> Vol. 344 no. 6191 p. 1431
>> DOI: 10.1126/science.1257423
>> EDITORIAL
>> Negative-emissions insurance
>> Sally M. Benson
>> Sally M. Benson is director of the Precourt Institute for Energy and the
>> Global Climate and Energy Project, and a professor in the department of
>> Energy Resources Engineering, at Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
>> E-mail: [email protected]
>> In its April 2014 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
>> (IPCC) recognized that reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 70%
>> by mid-century will require more than just implementing emission-free
>> solutions. Many scenarios for stabilizing GHG concentrations that were
>> evaluated by the panel included removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
>> atmosphere: so-called "negative emissions" or carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
>> Among the most promising CDR methods are reforestation, afforestation
>> (planting new forests), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
>> (BECCS). However, for BECCS strategies to succeed, major hurdles must be
>> overcome.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 http://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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
