Comments on Biofuelwatch report, forwarded from another list
A
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
Date: Nov 16, 2012 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Bioenergy with Carbon Capture: Climate Saviour or
Dangerous Hype
To: "biochar-policy" <biochar-pol...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "andrew lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
List:
I have just finished reading the new BFW report on BECCS identified
below. I write to encourage biochar policy enthusiasts to read and
comment on it - as portions of the report relate to biochar (although the
term and idea of biochar is only mentioned once, in an innocuous manner).
The connection to biochar and our list is through the relatively small
discussion on limited biomass supply. Of course, BFW dislikes this
technology for the same reason they are opposed to biochar - it involves
harvesting biomass for bioenergy.
Because BECCS can tie up *nearly all* of the biomass' carbon content
(biochar sequesters only about half, unless combined with BECCS), it has
many supporters. These BECCS supporters will be faced with the same choice
we have on this list - to ignore or to fight BFW. We on this list can
learn a lot from future BFW discussions on BECCS, even if we are mostly on
the sidelines. I do not see any reason to try to defend either BFW or
BECCS.
I view BECCS as the principal techncal competitor to biochar, and so I
legitimately should be suspect when I say that I find much to agree with in
the BFW writing this time. I am very skeptical that CCS will ever be
successfully demonstrated and become commercially viable. However, as with
their several prior reports on biochar, this BFW report is one-sided and
cleverly written to show nothing positive at all about BECCS. There is
essentially nothing (as in their reports on biochar) on climate issues -
and the virtues of getting back to 350 ppm of CO2. They are clearly
stating here opposition to anything smacking of geoengineering.
Parts of this related to EOR could easily have been written by a
pro-coal group, as they especially pan all ideas of using CCS for EOR (or
enhanced gas recovery). I agree with this panning of EOR - but I do so for
climate reasons (I want to quickly move away from all fossil fuels),
whereas BFW seems to do it for anti-big-business and anti-bioenergy
reasons. I don't believe they argued in favor of zero fossil fuel use -
only zero biomass/bioenergy.
Here is one example of the level of their arguments on harvesting biomass.
Middle of page 7: *"There is simply no guarantee that new trees will grow
back."*
I am not claiming that I read this carefully - as there is little here
to impact biochar. But I would love to hear of how others reacted to this
new piece from BFW. There are some useful cites in the 102 provided.
Ron
------------------------------
*From: *"Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
*To: *"geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Sent: *Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:23:17 AM
*Subject: *[geo] Bioenergy with Carbon Capture: Climate Saviour or
Dangerous Hype
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Climate Saviour or
Dangerous Hype?
Download at: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2012/beccs_report
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is being promoted as
‘carbon negative’, i.e. as a way of removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and as such is proposed for “climate geoengineering”. It is
referred to by many, even within IPCC, as having great potential,
“essential” to achieving emissions reduction targets.
Yet, on closer examination, BECCS is largely serving as a means of
perpetuating fossil fuel industries. Current projects largely use CO2
captured from bioenergy facilities, mostly ethanol refineries, for
“enhanced oil recovery” to extend production from depleted oil wells. The
favorable economics of this practice make this form of BECCS an “early
mover” to facilitate technology development of CCS for application to
fossil fuels, considered a lifeline to the future for coal (so called
“clean coal”).
IN addition to the huge negative impacts associated with all technologies
that require massive and ongoing supplies of plant biomass, storage of
carbon underground presents additional new, serious risks and the potential
for a new form of “underground” land grabbing as demand for storage sites
increases. Some communities have already resisted having their lands
injected with CO2. Based on the clearly false assumption that all
bioenergy processes are “carbon neutral” and that capture and storage will
render them “carbon negative”, BECCS is deeply rooted in false logic and
dangerous misrepresentation.
This report examines the theory behind BECCS, the likely impacts should
such a technology be scaled up and the technical and economic barriers and
provides a summary of BECCS-related investments, subsidies and policies.
Rachel Smolker
Biofuelwatch/Energy Justice Network
rsmol...@riseup.net
skype: Rachel Smolker
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
