Dear Brian, I was trying to add to your point that CCS might be ‚greenwashed‘ by attaching it to bioenergy, that also the bioenergy sector is not as green as it is perceived to be. Of course CCS should be evaluated most carefully, along with the implications of carbon management via photosynthesis!
Here a no-fee link to the article (until 27. Feb): http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1SL8J3HcE1Js3i <http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1SL8J3HcE1Js3i> The paper is a biogeochemical analysis of the impacts of biomass plantations on the global carbon and water cycle, all in comparison to the impacts of current land use. As you also suggested, the impacts are comparable or even larger, but of a different kind than agricultural impacts. This is usually not considered in most BECCS studies, tending to ‚greenwash‘ the bioenergy sector (while of course considering other important trade-offs). Best, Vera Personally, I do not have distinct knowledge in CCS, but > Am 05.01.2016 um 03:44 schrieb Brian Cartwright <[email protected]>: > > Thank you for your message, Vera. > > I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making between biomass > plantations and historical human land use changes. I think that serious > degradation is possible from either path to the degree they depart from a > natural and biodiverse ecosystem. "Plantation" usually refers to a massive > monoculture project. I don't have access to your article but only the > abstract. > > The point I was trying to make in my posting is that CCS in underground > formations should be evaluated on its own terms, not being "greenwashed" by > association with the biomass source of the CO2 being sequestered. > > Best wishes, > Brian Cartwright > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Vera Heck <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear Brian, > > here a very recently published article of mine on the ‚greenness‘ of tCDR via > biomass plantations. Although it does not cover carbon storage, the > conclusion is that tCDR via biomass plantations should probably not be > considered green geoengineering. I hope this is interesting for you! > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818115301612 > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818115301612> > > Best regards; > Vera > > > Vera Heck > PhD Student > Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research > Research Domain I: Earth System Analysis > > Telegraphenberg A 62 > 14412 Potsdam, Germany > Ph.: +49-331-288 2458 <tel:%2B49-331-288%202458> > http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/veraheck > <http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/veraheck> > > > > > >> Am 06.12.2015 um 14:09 schrieb Brian Cartwright <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> To geoengineering, >> >> I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy >> with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing? >> >> On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling >> emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is what has been >> happening for billions of years. >> >> Is this in fact what happens when pressurized CO2 is injected into >> underground formations? Or is that conversion such a slow process that we >> have an expensive engineered time bomb in the interim? >> >> These facts don't appear in any discussion I've seen, and as a layman I >> think they are central to evaluating CCS. Without knowing whether injected >> CO2 verifiably creates stable carbonates I tend to think CCS is >> ill-conceived, and photosynthesis is by far my preference for managing CO2. >> >> Brian >> >> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D >> >> <http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D> >> The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions >> >> >> < snipped > >> >> -- >> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering >> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <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.
