Elsewhere in the same document, they point out that bioenergy often has higher carbon emissions than fossil fuels. I accept the wording of the extract could be improved, but it doesn't undermine their main point.
A On 3 Dec 2015 08:51, "Shah, Nilay" <[email protected]> wrote: > However this sentence: > > > > “They had included "negative emissions" from BECCS into their models - > often on a grand scale, without considering whether such a technology was > viable, whether carbon pumped underground can be trusted to stay there > forever, nor whether burning billions of tons of wood, crops and other > biomass every year could possibly be "carbon neutral" (the prerequisite for > it to become "carbon negative" with carbon storage).” > > > > Is not actually correct and again highlights the need for proper > quantification to supplement opinion: it is perfectly plausible for a > “carbon positive” bioenergy system to become “carbon negative” when used in > conjunction with CCS. UK’s DECC developed a very cautious bioenergy model > which shows this: > > > > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biomass-calculator-launched > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* 03 December 2015 08:21 > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] techno optimism and bad science in paris > > > > Poster's note : informative and well argued critique of BECCS and biochar > hubris > > > http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33874-techno-optimism-and-bad-science-in-paris-the-problem-with-carbon-capture-and-storage > > UN climate conferences provide a platform for advocating real solutions to > the climate crisis - but also for selling and promoting false ones. At the > climate conference this and next week in Paris, many civil society groups > and social movements are advocating genuinely meaningful responses to the > climate crisis: keeping fossil fuels in the ground, ending perverse > subsidies, shifting from industrial agriculture to agroecology controlled > by small farmers, protecting forests and other ecosystems through community > forestry and territories, guaranteeing areas conserved by Indigenous > peoples and local communities, and building a new economic system that does > not dictate endless growth. However, many activist voices and demands are > being silenced inside and outside the conference, in part due to the French > government's decision to ban climate protest marches and put at least 24 > climate activists under house arrest, using emergency powers acquired in > response to the recent terrorist attacks. > > Meanwhile, the organizers of the climate conference have welcomed in > fossil fuel firms and other corporate interests, which are represented by > lobby groups such as the World Business Council for Sustainable > Development, We Mean Business and the International Chamber of Commerce. > Participants in the conference have been using this opportunity to launch > private-public partnerships that are little more than new corporate lobby > groups operated under the auspices of the United Nations, and include > groups such as the Global Compact and the Sustainable Energy for All > Initiative. > > Some businesses have teamed up with think tanks and sympathetic > nongovernmental organizations to form new lobby groups just in time for the > Paris conference. Shell and the mining corporation BHP Billiton, for > example, have founded the Energy Transitions Commission, which offers > "independent advice for a sustainable future" to those in charge of energy > policy decisions and investments. Their website is short on details about > just what they would advise, but one of Shell and BHP Billiton'sfavorite > "solutions" is carbon capture and storage (CCS). Their professed enthusiasm > hasn't translated into any serious financial commitments: BHP Billiton has > so far invested precisely nothing into that technology, while Shell has so > far invested in just one commercial-scale project - capturing a proportion > of carbon dioxide from a tar sands refinery in Alberta. Out of a total > project cost of C$1.35 billion, Shell committed a mere C$485 million; all > the rest was paid out of public funds. > > The Allure of False Technological Solutions > > This week's climate conference also has its share of techno-optimists > peddling often absurd science-fiction "solutions." One of the most widely > cited media commentators on the Paris climate conference has been Tim > Flannery. He has been cited by press agencies and leading news outlets > around the world in the run-up to the conference. > > Flannery is an Australian academic, former government adviser and chief > councilor of the Australian Climate Council. He recently launched his > latest book Atmosphere of Hope: Searching for Solutions to the Climate > Crisis. It has won widespread media acclaim, and even the reputable science > blog Yale Environment 360 has granted Flannery an uncritical interview > about his proposed "solutions." Some of Flannery's "third-way solutions" > are proposals that have been widely cited in spite of a lack of scientific > backing. He remains an outspoken proponent of biochar (i.e. fine-grained > charcoal added to soils), a concept based on the assumption that biomass is > essentially carbon neutral. Biochar advocates argue that adding biochar to > soils is a reliable way of sequestering carbon and that this process will > thus gradually draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. > > Flannery is either unaware of or unperturbed by peer-reviewed studies > highlighting that there is still no credible data from long-term field > experiments to show whether adding biochar to soils can actually sequester > carbon in the long-term, nor whether or not, or under what circumstances, > it will lead to the loss of existing soil carbon. Nor does Flannery note a > study concluding that biochar may have positive, negative or no impacts on > emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and the powerful greenhouse gas > nitrous oxide from soils and that impacts are highly case-specific and > cannot be credibly predicted without more long-term trials. Other > "solutions" propagated by Flannery are truly bizarre. He is particularly > enthusiastic about creating vast oceanic farms of seaweed, which he > believes would draw down large quantities of carbon, thus mitigating > climate change and ocean acidification. The seaweed, he suggests, can then > be turned into fuel and eaten. The fact that both eating the seaweed and > burning fuels made from the seaweed would return all the "sequestered" > carbon to the atmosphere seems to have escaped him. > > Another idea that excites him is storing "carbon dioxide snow" in > Antarctica. He has read a peer-reviewed study that convinced him that > carbon dioxide snow is falling in Antarctica, which could be stored in > large "chiller boxes" powered by wind turbines. Unfortunately, the lead > author of the study that had so excited Flannery urged him to read the > study more carefully before referring to it. He clarified that temperatures > in Antarctica are too high and pressures too low for carbon dioxide to fall > as snow. > > Flannery's background reading about "carbon negative cement," another of > his favorite "solutions," seems to also have been rather cursory. This, he > writes, is already on the market and has been well tested, with its use > merely held back by engineers who are reluctant to use any product without > a track record. Yet the company that manufactures it, Solidia, merely > claims that their way of producing cement reduces carbon dioxide emissions > by 30 percent - not that it is carbon neutral, let alone carbon negative. > > An "even more amazing innovation," according to Flannery, is a new method > for modifying coffee grounds to store atmospheric methane. He forgets to > mention that, to "modify" the coffee grounds, researchers mixed it with > potassium hydroxide (which takes a great deal of energy to produce), kept > it at an elevated temperature for 24 hours and then heated it to 700 to 900 > degrees Celsius. The whole process hasn't gone beyond a single laboratory > experiment so far. > > One could fill many pages with similar nonexistent or unproven "solutions" > to the climate crisis that are being hyped up. There will always be > individuals and enterprises peddling false claims and wishful thinking. > Seeing influential scientists and scientific institutions embrace such > unscientific false claims turns them from ridiculous and amusing > eccentricities into something more sinister. Flannery himself is a widely > published scientist and his Climate Council was set up to "provide > independent, authoritative climate change information to the Australian > public ... based on the best science available." > > Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage > > The negotiating text in Paris contains proposed text about "zero net > emission," based on the assumption that actual emissions can be neutralized > by future "negative" ones. This is based on conclusions in the 2014 report > of the International Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). According to that > report, most relevant models predict that "negative emissions" in the form > of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) would be required > later this century if we are to avoid more than 2 degrees Celsius of > warming. BECCS would involve capturing carbon dioxide from biofuel > refineries or biomass burning power stations and burying it underground. > The idea that large-scale BECCS is feasible and can draw billions of tons > of carbon from the atmosphere has risen to prominence since the 2014 IPCC > report was published. > > But just how did the IPCC come to effectively endorse the idea of BECCS > (albeit with some mentions of "uncertainties")? For this it is important to > understand the setup of the IPCC. It consists of three different working > groups: about climate science, climate change impacts and climate change > mitigation. The first two have a consistent record of carefully reviewing > and summarizing the peer-reviewed science. Their findings are highly > regarded by virtually all except for climate change deniers. While those > working groups are - quite appropriately - dominated by climate and earth > systems scientists and ecologists, climate economists have risen to > prominence in the IPCC working group on mitigation. > > At the heart of this working group's latest 2014 report is a review and > summary of integrated-assessment models. An open call for such models was > issued in 2007. Different technology options and emissions scenarios were > to be entered into models to show how such different technology choices and > socioeconomic pathways would translate into different concentrations of > greenhouse gases and thus different risks of warming. > > At an expert meeting convened by the IPCC in September 2007, modelers were > told that to ensure the robustness of the modeling studies, "scientifically > peer-reviewed publication is considered to be an implicit judgment of > technical soundness." Thus, if a company's representatives manage to > publish a peer-reviewed study in whichever journal, which "concludes" that > the company's technology is sound, modelers can assume the result to be > fact. Peer-reviewed studies written by industry representatives are > commonplace. Climate change deniers would have a field day if the IPCC > working group on climate science set such a low standard for evidence! > > As for the "GHG and carbon cycle accounting, land use implications, and > economic considerations" of different technology choices used in models, > those were to be assessed by a panel. Quite how wasn't made clear, but the > discussion of the life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of different, > supposedly low-carbon and carbon-negative technology choices in the latest > IPCC report is woefully brief. At the 2007 expert meeting, some > participants expressed concern that at least some models were expected to > include "negative emissions" - namely through bioenergy with carbon capture > and storage (BECCS). They pointed out that there were "technical concerns > about the ... characterisation of the negative emissions technology" and > about potential consequences, including on emissions of the powerful > greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from greater fertilizer use. > > Judging by the IPCC's 2014 report, those concerns were brushed aside. The > vast majority of models considered by the IPCC "find" that BECCS is needed > if we want to have a greater than 50 percent chance of keeping global > temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius. Modelers had done as they had > been requested: They had included "negative emissions" from BECCS into > their models - often on a grand scale, without considering whether such a > technology was viable, whether carbon pumped underground can be trusted to > stay there forever, nor whether burning billions of tons of wood, crops and > other biomass every year could possibly be "carbon neutral" (the > prerequisite for it to become "carbon negative" with carbon storage). > > BECCS could, according to the models summarized by the IPCC, sequester up > to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. That figure was based on > two sources: One was a literature review by a Ph.D. student. The other was > a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), written by > Ecofys. > > Ecofys is a consultancy that is fully owned by a Dutch energy company > (Eneco Group) that has built the first large biomass power station in the > Netherlands, hence clearly not unbiased. Ecofys' estimate of the maximum > BECCS potential is derived from estimates of the global potential for > "sustainable biomass," made up of "residues" and "energy crops." But how > did they estimate that? For the "residues," they lifted a figure from a > preliminary report, which contained no details at all about what that > figure was based on. For the "energy crops," they used figures from one > study that estimated how much could be produced by converting "abandoned > cropland" and natural grasslands to bioenergy plantations. > > Natural grasslands are home to a signification proportion of the world's > biodiversity and they store large amounts of carbon, most of it in soil - > and much of that is emitted when grasslands are ploughed up and turned into > monoculture plantations, as several peer-reviewed studies confirm. Yet in > the Ecofys/IEA report and thus in the IPCC report, all this bioenergy is > simply assumed to be carbon neutral (and thus carbon negative with carbon > capture and storage). The fact that the IPCC report suggests a massive > "negative emissions" potential from BECCS raises serious concerns that > scientific standards have been abandoned in relation to climate change > mitigation. > > This is only one of the problems with BECCS, as a new Biofuelwatch > reportshows in detail: The technologies that would be required to sequester > significant amounts of carbon dioxide from biomass burning power stations > are beset with major problems and challenges. Overcoming those to render > BECCS technically and economically viable seems unlikely. Carbon > sequestration can be combined with additional oil extraction, but this > would likely result in greater overall carbon emissions. Sequestering > carbon without such oil recovery, on the other hand, is even less likely to > become economically viable, and evidence shows that it is far from reliable. > > In short, there is no credible scientific basis whatsoever for suggesting > that BECCS could ever sequester up to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide per > year. Yet this very claim is the basis for the text proposal about > "negative emissions" debated by governments in Paris right now. > > -- > 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 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.
