BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Ken Caldeira
May 23, 2011, 5:41:01 PM5/23/11
to geoengineering, Henrik Karlsson
Hi,
Today I had a visit from Henrik Karlson, who was questioning me about a statement that David Keith and I made in a recent issue of Issues in Science & Technology. (see http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html )
We wrote:
Biomass with carbon capture and storage. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow. When burned in power plants to produce energy, plants release their accumulated CO2, producing power that is roughly carbon-neutral. If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well.
Henrik questions whether we were correct in making the final statement. He suggests that there is no significant US Federally funded research in this area, and therefore little inter-agency coordination of this research.
Does anybody on this mailing list know how much research into BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) is occurring in the US and who is funding this research? Can anybody else answer these same questions for other countries or at a global scale?
Do we need to retract the last sentence of the quoted paragraph above?
In many recent integrated assessment model simulations, BECCS is playing an important role later this century. Is there really almost no research going on in this area?
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Fulkerson, William
May 23, 2011, 6:13:15 PM5/23/11
to kcal...@gmail.com, Google Group, Bob Williams, Jay Braitsch, Henrik Karlsson
Dear Ken:
As you know DOE is doing a lot on CCS. There are seven compacts that will demonstrate CCS at one million tons per year in various geologic formations around the country. These are funded at millions of dollars each per year. As far as I know none of these is directed at biomass CCS exclusively. As you know, Bob Williams has proposed that coal and biomass be gasified together followed by Fisher Tropsch to produce liquid fuel and electricity and the excess CO2 is subjected to CCS. This produces about twice as much liquid fuel per kg of biomass as can be produced by the cellulosic ethanol fermentation approach. The coal supplies most of the energy to run the process. Overall with the right ratio of biomass to coal the process produces fuel that when burned returns the carbon in the biomass crop feedstock to the atmosphere from whence it came so the overall process is a zero or near zero carbon emitter.
I am sorry I do not know the details of all the CCS projects or their current status. I will ask Jay Braitsch of DOE FE tomorrow to fill you in.
With best regards,
Bill
As you know DOE is doing a lot on CCS. There are seven compacts that will demonstrate CCS at one million tons per year in various geologic formations around the country. These are funded at millions of dollars each per year. As far as I know none of these is directed at biomass CCS exclusively. As you know, Bob Williams has proposed that coal and biomass be gasified together followed by Fisher Tropsch to produce liquid fuel and electricity and the excess CO2 is subjected to CCS. This produces about twice as much liquid fuel per kg of biomass as can be produced by the cellulosic ethanol fermentation approach. The coal supplies most of the energy to run the process. Overall with the right ratio of biomass to coal the process produces fuel that when burned returns the carbon in the biomass crop feedstock to the atmosphere from whence it came so the overall process is a zero or near zero carbon emitter.
I am sorry I do not know the details of all the CCS projects or their current status. I will ask Jay Braitsch of DOE FE tomorrow to fill you in.
With best regards,
Bill
James Rhodes
May 23, 2011, 7:34:56 PM5/23/11
to kcal...@gmail.com, geoengineering, Henrik Karlsson
Dear Ken,
There is at least one BECCS project that appears to be moving forward with DOE funding. The project involves capture of fermentation off-gas from ethanol production at an ADM facility in Decatur, Illinois, with CO2 injection scheduled to commence ~2012 (1 Mt/yr).
Unfortunately, a quick web search didn't uncover primary information sources for the project, but some information is available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/decatur.html. I expect more detailed information on the project is available through DOE.
This is not the kind of BECCS that most integrated assessment models assume, for sound reasons. That being the case, it is arguably one of the most attractive for proximate deployment, due to the (very) low capture costs (fermentation off-gas generally has very high CO2 concentrations), the proximity of ethanol plants to potential geologic storage sites (e.g., http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17831.pdf), and the maturity of existing biomass feedstock supply chains. In particular, this configuration concentrates technological (and financial) risks on the storage end of the system, which may be attractive for proximate demonstration and deployment.
I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be that many of these are capable of leveraging CCS technologies being developed primarily for fossil fuel applications. This does not seem fully satisfying, however, for a variety of reasons.
I hope this is useful.
With regards,
Jamie Rhodes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Henrik Karlsson
May 23, 2011, 10:28:39 PM5/23/11
to geoengineering, kcal...@gmail.com, wf...@utk.edu, jsrh...@mac.com
Hi Ken, Bill and Jamie,
It is true that one of the US DOE Regional Partnership projects in
Illinois is combining CCS with biomass. The problem is that this
effort is not coupled with any dedicated BECCS research. Since some
BECCS projects are cheaper and less complicated than coal power CCS to
implement, there seems to be BECCS plants being constructed by
serendipity rather than sagacity. I’ve been to the project meetings of
this particular project several times and they never even mention CDR
implications, negative emissions or BECCS. When I’ve been trying to
introduce this topic, there has been a very limited interest. This may
be because the funding they recieve is intended for coal fired power
plant R&D, and administered by the coal sections at the DOE Office of
Fossil Energy (rather than the renewable energy branches). Thus in
these programs, coal is the big thing.
What I’m looking for is a dedicated funding and/or research efforts
into BECCS systems per se. Since I so far have found zero people in
the US DOE/USDA working with BECCS in a dedicated manner, all of the
learnings from the few BECCS projects now being planned by chance will
slip away unnoticed.
As Jamie points out, there is no next generation BECCS demonstrations
in the loop, though most of the medium and long term mitigation
scenario models depend on gigaton deployment of such technology (eg.
the IEA 2009 CCS Technology Roadmap as well as Azar et al, Climate
Change 2010).
It is troublesome that there is no/very little research in the BECCS
area presently.
Best,
Henrik
Henrik Karlsson
Verkställande direktör / President
Biorecro AB
Karlavägen 18 | Stockholm | Sweden | Visiting address
Box 3699 | SE-103 59 Stockholm | Sweden | Mailing address
+46 707 12 75 69 | direct
+46 8 678 75 01 | switchboard
+46 8 611 42 10 | fax
On May 24, 1:34 am, James Rhodes <jsrho...@mac.com> wrote:
> Dear Ken,
>
> There is at least one BECCS project that appears to be moving forward with DOE funding. The project involves capture of fermentation off-gas from ethanol production at an ADM facility in Decatur, Illinois, with CO2 injection scheduled to commence ~2012 (1 Mt/yr).
>
> Unfortunately, a quick web search didn't uncover primary information sources for the project, but some information is available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/decatur.html. I expect more detailed information on the project is available through DOE.
>
> This is not the kind of BECCS that most integrated assessment models assume, for sound reasons. That being the case, it is arguably one of the most attractive for proximate deployment, due to the (very) low capture costs (fermentation off-gas generally has very high CO2 concentrations), the proximity of ethanol plants to potential geologic storage sites (e.g., http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-...), and the maturity of existing biomass feedstock supply chains. In particular, this configuration concentrates technological (and financial) risks on the storage end of the system, which may be attractive for proximate demonstration and deployment.
It is true that one of the US DOE Regional Partnership projects in
Illinois is combining CCS with biomass. The problem is that this
effort is not coupled with any dedicated BECCS research. Since some
BECCS projects are cheaper and less complicated than coal power CCS to
implement, there seems to be BECCS plants being constructed by
serendipity rather than sagacity. I’ve been to the project meetings of
this particular project several times and they never even mention CDR
implications, negative emissions or BECCS. When I’ve been trying to
introduce this topic, there has been a very limited interest. This may
be because the funding they recieve is intended for coal fired power
plant R&D, and administered by the coal sections at the DOE Office of
Fossil Energy (rather than the renewable energy branches). Thus in
these programs, coal is the big thing.
What I’m looking for is a dedicated funding and/or research efforts
into BECCS systems per se. Since I so far have found zero people in
the US DOE/USDA working with BECCS in a dedicated manner, all of the
learnings from the few BECCS projects now being planned by chance will
slip away unnoticed.
As Jamie points out, there is no next generation BECCS demonstrations
in the loop, though most of the medium and long term mitigation
scenario models depend on gigaton deployment of such technology (eg.
the IEA 2009 CCS Technology Roadmap as well as Azar et al, Climate
Change 2010).
It is troublesome that there is no/very little research in the BECCS
area presently.
Best,
Henrik
Henrik Karlsson
Verkställande direktör / President
Biorecro AB
Karlavägen 18 | Stockholm | Sweden | Visiting address
Box 3699 | SE-103 59 Stockholm | Sweden | Mailing address
+46 707 12 75 69 | direct
+46 8 678 75 01 | switchboard
+46 8 611 42 10 | fax
On May 24, 1:34 am, James Rhodes <jsrho...@mac.com> wrote:
> Dear Ken,
>
> There is at least one BECCS project that appears to be moving forward with DOE funding. The project involves capture of fermentation off-gas from ethanol production at an ADM facility in Decatur, Illinois, with CO2 injection scheduled to commence ~2012 (1 Mt/yr).
>
> Unfortunately, a quick web search didn't uncover primary information sources for the project, but some information is available at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/decatur.html. I expect more detailed information on the project is available through DOE.
>
>
> I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be that many of these are capable of leveraging CCS technologies being developed primarily for fossil fuel applications. This does not seem fully satisfying, however, for a variety of reasons.
>
> I hope this is useful.
>
> With regards,
> Jamie Rhodes
>
> I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be that many of these are capable of leveraging CCS technologies being developed primarily for fossil fuel applications. This does not seem fully satisfying, however, for a variety of reasons.
>
> I hope this is useful.
>
> With regards,
> Jamie Rhodes
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 02:41 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I had a visit from Henrik Karlson, who was questioning me about a statement that David Keith and I made in a recent issue of Issues in Science & Technology. (see http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html)
>
> We wrote:
>
> Biomass with carbon capture and storage. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow. When burned in power plants to produce energy, plants release their accumulated CO2, producing power that is roughly carbon-neutral. If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well.
>
> Henrik questions whether we were correct in making the final statement. He suggests that there is no significant US Federally funded research in this area, and therefore little inter-agency coordination of this research.
>
> Does anybody on this mailing list know how much research into BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) is occurring in the US and who is funding this research? Can anybody else answer these same questions for other countries or at a global scale?
>
> Do we need to retract the last sentence of the quoted paragraph above?
>
> In many recent integrated assessment model simulations, BECCS is playing an important role later this century. Is there really almost no research going on in this area?
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I had a visit from Henrik Karlson, who was questioning me about a statement that David Keith and I made in a recent issue of Issues in Science & Technology. (see http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html)
>
> We wrote:
>
> Biomass with carbon capture and storage. Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere when they grow. When burned in power plants to produce energy, plants release their accumulated CO2, producing power that is roughly carbon-neutral. If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well.
>
> Henrik questions whether we were correct in making the final statement. He suggests that there is no significant US Federally funded research in this area, and therefore little inter-agency coordination of this research.
>
> Does anybody on this mailing list know how much research into BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) is occurring in the US and who is funding this research? Can anybody else answer these same questions for other countries or at a global scale?
>
> Do we need to retract the last sentence of the quoted paragraph above?
>
> In many recent integrated assessment model simulations, BECCS is playing an important role later this century. Is there really almost no research going on in this area?
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
rongre...@comcast.net
May 24, 2011, 1:24:19 PM5/24/11
to geoengineering, kcal...@gmail.com, h k, wf...@utk.edu, jsrh...@mac.com
Ken, Henrik and list
1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
"If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well."
Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits.
"Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).
However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil).
My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS)..
2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few years) overcome that first-year advantage).
To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does appear.
I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog.
Ron
1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
"If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well."
Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits.
"Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).
However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil).
My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS)..
2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few years) overcome that first-year advantage).
To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does appear.
I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog.
Ron
Josh Horton
May 24, 2011, 5:37:43 PM5/24/11
to geoengineering
In case anyone missed it, the Global CCS Institute recently put out a
global BECCS assessment report, which you can find here
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_Global_Status_of_BECCS_110302_report.pdf
Section 4 covers current BECCS projects. I notice that Biorecro
authored the report, so I assume Henrik is intimately familiar with
it.
Josh Horton
On May 24, 1:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
> Ken, Henrik and list
>
> 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
> "If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. "
>
> Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits.
>
> "Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).
>
> However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil).
>
> My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS)..
>
> 2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few years) overcome that first-year advantage).
>
> To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does appear.
> I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Karlsson" <h...@biorecro.se>
> To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com, wf...@utk.edu, jsrho...@mac.com
> > This is not the kind of BECCS that most integrated assessment models assume, for sound reasons. That being the case, it is arguably one of the most attractive for proximate deployment, due to the (very) low capture costs (fermentation off-gas generally has very high CO2 concentrations), the proximity of ethanol plants to potential geologic storage sites (e.g.,http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-...), and the maturity of existing biomass feedstock supply chains. In particular, this configuration concentrates technological (and financial) risks on the storage end of the system, which may be attractive for proximate demonstration and deployment.
>
> read more »
global BECCS assessment report, which you can find here
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_Global_Status_of_BECCS_110302_report.pdf
Section 4 covers current BECCS projects. I notice that Biorecro
authored the report, so I assume Henrik is intimately familiar with
it.
Josh Horton
On May 24, 1:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
> Ken, Henrik and list
>
> 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
> "If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. "
>
> Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits.
>
> "Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).
>
> However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil).
>
> My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS)..
>
> 2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few years) overcome that first-year advantage).
>
> To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does appear.
> I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Karlsson" <h...@biorecro.se>
> To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
> > I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be
>
> ...
> > I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be
>
>
> read more »
Henrik Karlsson
May 24, 2011, 7:59:58 PM5/24/11
to geoengineering, henrik....@biorecro.se
Josh,
It was during the production of this report (which I was lead author
on) and in previous work that I was amazed by the non-existent BECCS
research community. There is some BECCS related research going on at
IIASA (Austria), PIK (Germany) and other places in connection to
climate scenario modelling and forestry management. There are also
some demo projects under way, but in most cases they do not recognize
their connection to the BECCS topic. There is close to no dedicated
R&D funding and no research centers dedicated to BECCS. This is
strange as all other important climate change technologies tend to
have at least a handful of centers, and a continous stream of
dedicated funding. I haven't even found a single PhD student who is
currently working with BECCS as their primary focus.
Best,
Henrik
On May 24, 11:37 pm, Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, the Global CCS Institute recently put out a
> global BECCS assessment report, which you can find herehttp://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/GCCSI_Biorecro_...
> ...
>
> read more »
It was during the production of this report (which I was lead author
on) and in previous work that I was amazed by the non-existent BECCS
research community. There is some BECCS related research going on at
IIASA (Austria), PIK (Germany) and other places in connection to
climate scenario modelling and forestry management. There are also
some demo projects under way, but in most cases they do not recognize
their connection to the BECCS topic. There is close to no dedicated
R&D funding and no research centers dedicated to BECCS. This is
strange as all other important climate change technologies tend to
have at least a handful of centers, and a continous stream of
dedicated funding. I haven't even found a single PhD student who is
currently working with BECCS as their primary focus.
Best,
Henrik
On May 24, 11:37 pm, Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, the Global CCS Institute recently put out a
>
> read more »
Henrik Karlsson
May 24, 2011, 8:49:43 PM5/24/11
to geoengineering
Ron,
Please note that the issue discussed in this specific thread is only
related to BECCS as a CDR method, not to biopower/biofuels in general,
nor biochar. (For the context of the quote under discussion, read the
full text at http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html.)
My point, which I discussed with Ken, is that BECCS as of yet has
proved to be a surprisingly uncomfortable fit for the US DOE CCS
program. As the flue gas streams and quantities, transport and storage
network optimization, overall facility design, actor involvement,
economic incentives and GHG accounting is different between fossil
fuel CCS and BECCS, there is a need for separate BECCS efforts, of
course carried out in cooperation with other CCS efforts.
Biochar has a lot of pros, but we do not work with it at Biorecro. We
leave this technology for other entities to pursue. Essentially,
biochar and BECCS addresses two different market niches, as described
in your argumentation.
One interesting issue for a dedicated BECCS R&D effort would be to
answer your biochar <-> BECCS comparison question in depth. Until
then, I recommend a well written article by Keith and Rhodes: ”Bury,
burn or both: A two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy”,
Climatic Change, 2002.
On May 24, 7:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
> Ken, Henrik and list
>
> 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
> "If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. "
>
> Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits.
>
> "Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).
>
> However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil).
>
> My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS)..
>
> 2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few years) overcome that first-year advantage).
>
> To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does appear.
> I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Karlsson" <h...@biorecro.se>
> To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com, wf...@utk.edu, jsrho...@mac.com
> > This is not the kind of BECCS that most integrated assessment models assume, for sound reasons. That being the case, it is arguably one of the most attractive for proximate deployment, due to the (very) low capture costs (fermentation off-gas generally has very high CO2 concentrations), the proximity of ethanol plants to potential geologic storage sites (e.g.,http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-...), and the maturity of existing biomass feedstock supply chains. In particular, this configuration concentrates technological (and financial) risks on the storage end of the system, which may be attractive for proximate demonstration and deployment.
>
> read more »
Please note that the issue discussed in this specific thread is only
related to BECCS as a CDR method, not to biopower/biofuels in general,
nor biochar. (For the context of the quote under discussion, read the
full text at http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html.)
My point, which I discussed with Ken, is that BECCS as of yet has
proved to be a surprisingly uncomfortable fit for the US DOE CCS
program. As the flue gas streams and quantities, transport and storage
network optimization, overall facility design, actor involvement,
economic incentives and GHG accounting is different between fossil
fuel CCS and BECCS, there is a need for separate BECCS efforts, of
course carried out in cooperation with other CCS efforts.
Biochar has a lot of pros, but we do not work with it at Biorecro. We
leave this technology for other entities to pursue. Essentially,
biochar and BECCS addresses two different market niches, as described
in your argumentation.
One interesting issue for a dedicated BECCS R&D effort would be to
answer your biochar <-> BECCS comparison question in depth. Until
then, I recommend a well written article by Keith and Rhodes: ”Bury,
burn or both: A two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy”,
Climatic Change, 2002.
On May 24, 7:24 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
> Ken, Henrik and list
>
> 1. Ken specifically asked about the list's reaction to his final sentence being questioned by Henrik, which read (adding the previous sentence also):
> "If the plants are burned in power plants that capture CO2and store it underground in geologic reservoirs, then the net effect is to move carbon from the active biosphere to the deep geosphere, reversing the effect of producing and burning fossil fuels. This approach is already being investigated within DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the interagency cooperation seems to be working well. "
>
> Living in Golden (CO), where a lot of this type of biomass work is done or managed I have been following this topic for some years. I think both Henrik and Ken are correct. Their differing perceptions can be reconciled by noting that DoE (specifically NREL/Golden) used to have fairly large research programs in both biofuels and biopower. In one of our nation's many misguided attempts to "save" money, the biopower program was cancelled some years ago and all the US bioenergy effort since has been on biofuels. Ken is correct that there has been considerable money expended on biofuels from both the DoE and USDA appropriations. They alternate years on which department is in charge. I don't have the statistics, but "working well' is probably accurate, given funding limits.
>
> "Working well" does not apply to carbon negativity - which is closely allied with biopower. Henrik is correct that none of those dual-Agency funds (I think) have been deemed appropriate (in the past) for BECCS (and Biochar somewhat less). The dual-Agency funds are restricted to the biofuel program and none for (the no-longer-researched) fixed biopower plants. The funding restriction away from sequestration may have been slightly relaxed in the last fiscal year procurement (I vaguely recall hearing).
>
> However, more than a year ago, in Denver, DoE ran a several-day policy study to gain opinion on re-starting the now-defunct national biopower program. I attended, as did maybe three-four others interested in Biochar (out of maybe a hundred attendees). I do not recall BECCS being similarly represented or pushed, but it could have been. The reaction of the (mostly biopower) attendees (naturally) was positive to re-start a national biopower program. A draft report was issued for comment. I thought and said their comments on Biochar showed little understanding of the technology - but the word "Biochar" was included. I do not recall if BECCS was included. My guess is that someone within OMB may have killed the whole re-start concept - but the biopower option may still be filtering through the Bioenergy bureaucracy. I would not expect any new biopower funding to have much on carbon negativity, in any case. CDR needs to gain more of a following than it has at present (and which I expect to come more from rural/ag America - after it is successful in China and Brazil).
>
> My naive perception on the need for specific BECCS (and to a lesser extent - Biochar) research is that there would seem to be much more need for a carbon tax than R&D. On the resource side - biofuel-related research is already happening (mostly through Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and is applicable also to biopower. The many (and increasing number of) biopower plants seem to have limited need for research on chipping, pelletizing, and combustion (although gasification R&D is probably needed). And NETL seems to have $ billions for CCS - into which BECCS would seem to fit comfortably (and Biochar has no place). I ask (certainly naively) Henriks where the need is for specific BECCS R&D (as opposed to CCS)..
>
> 2. More also for Henriks - whose "biorecro" web site I have now looked over quite a bit, as well as those of his several partners. I like everything I see there - clearly Biorecro is a leader in the BECCS technology. However, it is not clear what Biorecro's business is beyond general development. Also, at none of the half-dozen recommended partner sites, did I find the much more recent word "Biochar", which it seems to me could/should also be part of the Biorecro portfolio. I favor Biochar over BECCS for third reasons. First, it seems to be applicable to virtually every farm or forest, whereas BECCS requires a relatively short distance to a relatively large power plant (ie not as applicable in the tropics where most biomass sequestration potential exists). Second, I think it important that the sequestered carbon (char not CO2) go into the ground where it can benefit soil productivity - both immediately and for centuries or millennia. Third, I believe CCS is going to be more costly and often delayed. I sense that the global CCS program is not going particularly well - especially involving the indemnification hurdle recently discussed on this list.. However, BECCS can be employed even after char and power have been produced, so in those cases where BECCS makes sense anyway, a Biochar "pre-cursor" could/should/might make for more favorable economics. I have talked to Professor Bob Williams on the differences (without agreeing on much). This is to ask Henriks for any comparisons between these two biomass sequestration options that he could make or direct me to. I can pretty well assure him that there are no comparisons available on the main Biochar sites. I am aware of a small comparison performed by the Royal Society In advance, I agree that for a specific biomass resource, BECCS alone can sequester more in year one than Biochar. (And of course I believe the out-year continuing advantages of Biochar will eventually (or a few years) overcome that first-year advantage).
>
> To Ken: I have also read your latest piece under discussion in this thread. This is to hope that the word "Biochar" can appear next time, so my Google searches will pick it up sooner. It is not clear in this latest policy piece if you have specifically included Biochar - although the word "soil" does appear.
> I also hope we can start a dialog again on the question of having enough land - and this time to bring Dr. Hansen's new 100 GtC of tree planting (and apparently no BECCS or Biochar) into this list's CDR dialog.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Karlsson" <h...@biorecro.se>
> To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>
>
> > I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be
>
> ...
> > I don't know of any R&D projects involving the flavors of BECCS that are typically modeled in integrated assessments. Such projects are arguably important to pursue, given their role in various simulation results. A reasonable counter argument to this might be
>
>
> read more »
rongre...@comcast.net
May 25, 2011, 8:54:34 AM5/25/11
to henrik karlsson, kcal...@gmail.com, geoengineering
Henrik and Ken (cc List)
1. Ken - thanks very much for sending the recommended 2002 article by Keith and Rhodes. I had not seen this one. Their plot of electricity costs for three options is one I shall try to add Biochar to (although comparing carbon negativity (this list's focus - at least on the CDR side) to carbon neutrality brings in considerable new complications).
2. Henrik - Please see inserts below in your very helpful response.
.
1. Ken - thanks very much for sending the recommended 2002 article by Keith and Rhodes. I had not seen this one. Their plot of electricity costs for three options is one I shall try to add Biochar to (although comparing carbon negativity (this list's focus - at least on the CDR side) to carbon neutrality brings in considerable new complications).
2. Henrik - Please see inserts below in your very helpful response.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
To: "henrik karlsson" <henrik....@biorecro.se>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:21:38 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
see attachment for the Keith and Rhodes 2002 comment in Climatic Change
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Henrik Karlsson <henrik....@biorecro.se> wrote:
Ron,
Please note that the issue discussed in this specific thread is only
related to BECCS as a CDR method, not to biopower/biofuels in general,
nor biochar. (For the context of the quote under discussion, read the
full text at http://www.issues.org/27.1/caldeira.html.)
[RWL: Partial agreement with you - but apologies if it didn't seem to fit. Ken's "Issues" article covers all CDR approaches - and I was in part hoping to bring attention to the lack of the word "Biochar" therein.
What I should have done was put more emphasis on the fact that both BECCS and Biochar suffer from a lack of interest by all those interested in bioenergy - both biopower and biofuels. Re your next sentence on BECCS fitting within the DoE CCS program, I guess the problem is similar for Biochar - but your next "fit" sentence is new information for me.]
My point, which I discussed with Ken, is that BECCS as of yet has
proved to be a surprisingly uncomfortable fit for the US DOE CCS
program. As the flue gas streams and quantities, transport and storage
network optimization, overall facility design, actor involvement,
economic incentives and GHG accounting is different between fossil
fuel CCS and BECCS, there is a need for separate BECCS efforts, of
course carried out in cooperation with other CCS efforts.
[RWL: I retract my statement below about my not seeing much need for separate attention within the CCS (and probably RE/EE) programs. Mine was a statement made from ignorance. I was not aware enough of the (now, obvious) differences between CCS and BECCS, but in retrospect I can see a need for all of your recommended added biomass-related R&D. My guess is that it will be a long time before anyone reading this can find a way to get the different parts of the biomass energy budget (who have to fight over their own shares of the budget) to cooperate with those receiving funds for fossil research. But there is reason to try for more cooperative work as well.
It is indeed therefore surprising to find that the sentence by Ken under question (about whether a combined DoE and USDA program was going well) needed more discussion from your BECCS perspective. I still think my observations on the missing national effort on Biopower is/was pertinent - because the DoE renewable energy people clearly need a biomass resource R&D activity. But the present DoE effort is for energy not carbon negativity - and they do conflict for Biochar (although not for BECCS). Since BECCS is receiving some national funding (through CCS) and Biochar essentially none - I would not be too unhappy if all of the Biochar funding went through USDA - and then some was sent by them to DoE as needed. Alternating annual responsibilities for the program looks like a bureaucratic nightmare.
It is not at all clear to me where national R&D budgetary responsibility for Biochar will reside. At least BECCS does not have that problem.
But probably we need a new separate agency only doing geoengineering. What is clear is that such a dream needs separate funding for the CDR and SRM activities. Just as BECCS (now) obviously needs funding separate from CCS. [And both BECCS and Biochar need funding separate from Bioenergy).
Biochar has a lot of pros, but we do not work with it at Biorecro. We
leave this technology for other entities to pursue. Essentially,
biochar and BECCS addresses two different market niches, as described
in your argumentation.
[RWL: But there is a fair degree of overlap - and your lengthy knowledge on BECCS is much needed in the much newer Biochar world. Biorecro could have a unique, profitable early role in Biochar as well.]
One interesting issue for a dedicated BECCS R&D effort would be to
answer your biochar <-> BECCS comparison question in depth. Until
then, I recommend a well written article by Keith and Rhodes: ”Bury,
burn or both: A two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy”,
Climatic Change, 2002.
[RWL: I did indeed find this article helpful. But the two main central concepts of Biochar (carbon into soils and continuing out-year benefits) are missing there (only because Biochar is new).
I agree that we need to begin what you describe as "biochar <-> BECCS comparison". The first difference (which I had not been thinking about at all) is that Biochar has no chance of dealing with CO2 arising from the fermentation/digestion approaches to Biofuels. The only competition for that market is over whether future biofuels are more apt to come from digestion (helping BECCS) or pyrolysis (helping Biochar).
I was also somehat surprised to read in your article that there are a number of existing biopower operations in Sweden that are too small for BECCS. They therefore probably are quite appropriate for Biochar. It is in these areas that I hope you can expand Biorecro's work. That (R&D, promotional, protective, carbon negative) activity should be complementary for you, not contradictory (thinking of your list of 6-7 needed BECCS research activities given above)
Again thanks.
Ron
rongre...@comcast.net
May 26, 2011, 8:36:40 PM5/26/11
to geoengineering, Henrik Karlsson, Ken Caldeira
List (ccs Henrik and Ken)
1. I had a nice short off-list note (first one following) from Henrik - and think he wouldn't mind my acknowledging it this way. I still hope he will add Biochar to his corporate activities - as he understands more than most of us about CDR using biomass. I also thank him for the recommended link to the Keith-Rhodes (K&R) paper of 2002, which was then kindly sent by Ken Caldeira (link given below). I presume this paper was one of the first to recommend BECCS (or at least to recommend it over biomass burial or combustion)
2. This note mostly is to relay my thoughts on that paper while adding Biochar to the list of options (Biochar was not being considered by many in 2002. The Biochar name was only adopted in 2007.)
3. I concur with K&R that BECCS will be able to supply significantly more useful energy, while achieving carbon neutrality, compared to either direct combustion or biomass burial. K&R compared these options using natural gas with BECCS in an example designed to be carbon neutral. With Biochar and this list wanting to emphasize carbon negativity and for simplicity, I am dropping that neutrality consraint. It is easy to add back in, but not necessary. In particular, it would likely be higher cost to use biomass to offset much (not all) of the natural gas - with energy efficiency, solar and wind , which are apt to be cheaper, and the biomass will be needed for storage/backup and for many other purposes.
So I propose the K&R Table 1 be replaced by:
I attach a figure in Word, that may help visualize what I want to emphasize:
a. Combustion (or a biofuel, etc) is best if you care nothing about CDR. (largest number in row 1; I still see this option recommended a lot. These folk are not reading Jim Hansen articles.)
b. Burial is best if you care only about CDR (largest number in row 2; certainly still has some proponents - who think next will have problems)
c. BECCS is best if you care only about immediate payoff (final row, dropping contributions from (the Biochar) rows 3 and 4)
d. Biochar is best (with the "rigged" numbers of this example) if you are willing to wait a (still undefined here) while.and don't have a good BECCS site.
e. The far right column is best if you can wait and have a low cost means of adding BECCS with deep sequestration.
For me, carbon negativity (CDR) is more important than carbon neutrality (energy) and CDR seems to be available for all biomass operations but available from very few other RE (and no EE) options. So I would put (but haven't put) higher weights on the two "carbon" rows than the two "energy" rows.
The two "out year rows" only seem possible with carbon (char) placed in ground. There could be some cases where the addition of char to soil would create negative numbers in the two "out year" rows but early straightforward testing can prevent that. One example is avoiding placing a high pH char in already high pH soil.
The items that go towards creating positive out-year energy contributions for Biochar include
1. increased annual productivity (today about 100-200% increase in "terra preta sites" in the Amazon, but 20% is perhaps average now) - that can be used for more energy production in out-years)..:
2. reduced energy for fertilizer requirements (perhaps up to half less - every year)
3. Reduced energy for irrigation - (perhaps tens of percent saving - every year)
The (non-double-counted) claimed added carbon negativity/sequestration increase will come from (not intended to be an all-inclusive inclusive list)
1. Greater average standing biomass (every year)
2. Greater soil carbon (microbes, fungi, roots) (will stabilize, not every year - and is not permanent)
3. Reduced N20 and CH4 release (every year)
4. More allowed pyrolysis - and therefore more (geometric?, exponential?) annual sequestration and resultant out-year growth.
In the example table and graph, I have only attempted to show a rough equalling of the contributions in both the energy and carbon rows. To be exact, we would have to have very specific conditions - including on discount rate and number of years in the analysis. Life cycle analyses covering a few of these out-year contributions are now beginning to appear - some as PhD theses. The attempt here is only to respond to the kind identification of the K&R paper, for those not already familiar with the Biochar argument,
I would welcome comments and again thank Henrik and Ken for sending the helpful K&R article.
1. I had a nice short off-list note (first one following) from Henrik - and think he wouldn't mind my acknowledging it this way. I still hope he will add Biochar to his corporate activities - as he understands more than most of us about CDR using biomass. I also thank him for the recommended link to the Keith-Rhodes (K&R) paper of 2002, which was then kindly sent by Ken Caldeira (link given below). I presume this paper was one of the first to recommend BECCS (or at least to recommend it over biomass burial or combustion)
2. This note mostly is to relay my thoughts on that paper while adding Biochar to the list of options (Biochar was not being considered by many in 2002. The Biochar name was only adopted in 2007.)
3. I concur with K&R that BECCS will be able to supply significantly more useful energy, while achieving carbon neutrality, compared to either direct combustion or biomass burial. K&R compared these options using natural gas with BECCS in an example designed to be carbon neutral. With Biochar and this list wanting to emphasize carbon negativity and for simplicity, I am dropping that neutrality consraint. It is easy to add back in, but not necessary. In particular, it would likely be higher cost to use biomass to offset much (not all) of the natural gas - with energy efficiency, solar and wind , which are apt to be cheaper, and the biomass will be needed for storage/backup and for many other purposes.
So I propose the K&R Table 1 be replaced by:
| Combustion | Burial | BECCS | Biochar | Biochar + BECCS | |
| Energy - year 0 | 1.0 | -0.1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Carbon - year 0 | -0.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.9 |
| Energy - out years | 0.4 | 0.4 | |||
| Carbon - out years | 0.5 | 0.5 | |||
| Total | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.3 |
I attach a figure in Word, that may help visualize what I want to emphasize:
a. Combustion (or a biofuel, etc) is best if you care nothing about CDR. (largest number in row 1; I still see this option recommended a lot. These folk are not reading Jim Hansen articles.)
b. Burial is best if you care only about CDR (largest number in row 2; certainly still has some proponents - who think next will have problems)
c. BECCS is best if you care only about immediate payoff (final row, dropping contributions from (the Biochar) rows 3 and 4)
d. Biochar is best (with the "rigged" numbers of this example) if you are willing to wait a (still undefined here) while.and don't have a good BECCS site.
e. The far right column is best if you can wait and have a low cost means of adding BECCS with deep sequestration.
For me, carbon negativity (CDR) is more important than carbon neutrality (energy) and CDR seems to be available for all biomass operations but available from very few other RE (and no EE) options. So I would put (but haven't put) higher weights on the two "carbon" rows than the two "energy" rows.
The two "out year rows" only seem possible with carbon (char) placed in ground. There could be some cases where the addition of char to soil would create negative numbers in the two "out year" rows but early straightforward testing can prevent that. One example is avoiding placing a high pH char in already high pH soil.
The items that go towards creating positive out-year energy contributions for Biochar include
1. increased annual productivity (today about 100-200% increase in "terra preta sites" in the Amazon, but 20% is perhaps average now) - that can be used for more energy production in out-years)..:
2. reduced energy for fertilizer requirements (perhaps up to half less - every year)
3. Reduced energy for irrigation - (perhaps tens of percent saving - every year)
The (non-double-counted) claimed added carbon negativity/sequestration increase will come from (not intended to be an all-inclusive inclusive list)
1. Greater average standing biomass (every year)
2. Greater soil carbon (microbes, fungi, roots) (will stabilize, not every year - and is not permanent)
3. Reduced N20 and CH4 release (every year)
4. More allowed pyrolysis - and therefore more (geometric?, exponential?) annual sequestration and resultant out-year growth.
In the example table and graph, I have only attempted to show a rough equalling of the contributions in both the energy and carbon rows. To be exact, we would have to have very specific conditions - including on discount rate and number of years in the analysis. Life cycle analyses covering a few of these out-year contributions are now beginning to appear - some as PhD theses. The attempt here is only to respond to the kind identification of the K&R paper, for those not already familiar with the Biochar argument,
I would welcome comments and again thank Henrik and Ken for sending the helpful K&R article.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Karlsson" <henrik....@biorecro.se>
To: rongre...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:49:10 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your remarks. I guess that you cannot do everything at once, implying that we are not active in the biochar area. Though I know a lot of other people are.
Best,
Henrik
To: rongre...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:49:10 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your remarks. I guess that you cannot do everything at once, implying that we are not active in the biochar area. Though I know a lot of other people are.
Best,
Henrik
Henrik Karlsson
Verkställande direktör / President
Biorecro AB
Karlavägen 18 | Stockholm | Sweden | Visiting
address
Box 3699 | SE-103 59 Stockholm | Sweden | Mailing address
+46 707 12 75 69 | direct
+46 8 678 75 01 | switchboard
+46 8 611 42 10 | fax
Sam Carana
May 28, 2011, 5:14:01 AM5/28/11
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Excellent analysis, Ron.
I've tried to grasp the essence of your comparison in the document with the following URL:
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Stuart Strand
May 28, 2011, 2:39:09 PM5/28/11
to rongre...@comcast.net, geoengineering, Henrik Karlsson, Ken Caldeira
Ron,
Please provide sources (preferably peer reviewed published papers) for all of the numbers in your table.
= Stuart =
Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype: stuartestrand
rongre...@comcast.net
May 28, 2011, 11:18:51 PM5/28/11
to sam carana, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sam - Thanks for the follow-up. I have just sent the same material off to a sub-list of Biochar folk. I'll report back on their views ASAP.
Next time around, I would include a few more topics, such as biofuels (in addition to biopower), composting and doing nothing except growing trees (the Jim Hansen approach?). Of course, different soils and crops, costs, benefits, and relative income streams need to be added.
If the attached figure (not in your material I think) didn't make it, I can send to anyone interested.
Next time around, I would include a few more topics, such as biofuels (in addition to biopower), composting and doing nothing except growing trees (the Jim Hansen approach?). Of course, different soils and crops, costs, benefits, and relative income streams need to be added.
If the attached figure (not in your material I think) didn't make it, I can send to anyone interested.
rongre...@comcast.net
May 29, 2011, 9:18:33 PM5/29/11
to Stuart Strand, Ken Caldeira, geoengineering, Henrik Karlsson
Stuart:and list and 2 other ccs).
1. Below you ask a good question (asking for citations). I should have made it clear that I was only trying to show qualitative differences between the main CDR approaches based on biomass. The table and graph were mainly intended to show that Biochar is the only CDR approach which can provide out year continuing benefits. If that general principle is in dispute, we should talk about that first. Your own similar numbers seems to show no out-year benefits for Biochar - but similar to mine for the first year. I presume that is because you thought the out-year carbon negative benefits were too small to include. Or maybe you have investigated a lot and are sure that out year carbon benefits can't exist at all. I hope you will qualify what you believe on this fundamental point.
As to what the units are (besides being relative to unity), I had intended these to be standard CDR variety - "wedge"-like - GtC over some time period or GtC/yr, operating with the same (unspecified) input biomass. I have included both displaced (carbon neutral energy) and removed (carbon negative). A better unit might be similar - but on a per capita basis. I prefer Ceq over CO2eq.
We obviously disagree on the appropriateness of lumping them together. We should/can talk about which is most instructive - but I believe my claimed "out-year" added results apply to the two components separately, in any case.
2. The experimental data on out-year benefits that I like most is the experience in the Amazon with the anthropomorphic "Terra Preta".soils. There must be many dozens of refereed articles on this subject . I like work by Drs. Johannes Lehmann, Christoph Steiner, and Julie Majors - all of whom did their doctoral work in that geographic region on these soils. A good place to get a summary (with refereed journal publications) on terra preta soils is at www.biochar-international.org. but most overview articles start with this topic. These comparative (factors of 2 and 3) numbers are obviously all "out-year" productivity increases having nothing to do with the initial sequestered amounts.
Professor William Woods has a large terra preta bibliography from anthropology and archaeology perspectives. There are also three recent huge technical publications (all dedicated to a recently deceased Prof. Wim Sombroek, who did the earliest work in this area. One was edited by Prof. Woods. Terra Preta is written up in the popular book "1491" by Charles Mann (also author of an article in the Aug 2008 National Geographic) that will lead to more refereed citations on this long-lasting out-year benefit (about 500 years since char was last produced). If the reported soil productivity improvement estimates are off by an order of magnitude (10-20% rather than 100-200%) my chart will be accurate even if we limit our time span to less than a decade..You can find some of (now retired) Dr. Woods' work at:
http://www2.ku.edu/~geography/CurrentResearch/Woods/ScienceMann1.pdf
3. For still-active Biochar researchers, the earliest relevant citation I like is:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2006) 11: 403–427 C Springer 2006
DOI: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5
BIO-CHAR SEQUESTRATION IN TERRESTRIAL
ECOSYSTEMS – A REVIEW
JOHANNES LEHMANN,∗, JOHN GAUNT and MARCO RONDON
It is downloadable at
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/MitAdaptStratGlobChange 11, 403-427, Lehmann, 2006.pdf
This early article, with first authorship by the most-quoted Biochar expert includes mention of all the out-year added climate benefits - although unfortunately again without numbers, I recommend it for our dialog because it has been available for so long, and has very large (technical potential) numbers (approaching 10 GtC/y. Recently Dr.Lehmann has been backing awayfrom this number - for presumably PR reasons. If the numbers here are significantly wrong, one should expect to find themdiscredited in refereed journals. I have seen that.only at the sites of a few anti-biomass advocates. I think we can do this amount - even before out-year additions. Your approach of burial can also (if we take a threat seriously).
4. The out-year values should generally come under the category of LCA = Life Cycle Analysis. The refereed paper I have seen most often quoted is a thesis by (now) Dr. Kelli Roberts. This is behind a pay wall - but a copy is at Dr. Johannes Lehmann's web site
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/ES&T%2044,%20827-833,%202010%20Roberts.pdf
Supplementary information is also free there and free at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es902266r/suppl_file/es902266r_si_001.pdf
5. Dr. Roberts does mention some out year information, but I couldn't identify a specific out-year value. It may be there. She seems to rely for those out year values on information given by John Gaunt See.
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/ES%26T%2042,%204152-4158,%202008%20Gaunt.pdf
John is also cautious these days on claiming anything controversial. He gave a possibly helpful video presentation last week in Edinburgh at the most recent Biochar conference (Biochar conferences are occurring with surprising frequency). See
http://www.livestream.com/esktn/video?clipId=flv_ec467c70-32f7-42b9-a037-de59dab975c1&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
I pick John's talk out of several dozen because he credits Peter Read, who many on this list will remember. I have reviewed Peter's papers - but don't find them superior to the above. John also gives a hint on the present status of biochar commercialization.and product certification - where he is more than mostknowledgeable. Nothing on your question - but I can recommend this and other talks there - that are now still less than a week old. Drs. Lehmann and Roberts also have nearby presentations. I hope we can have further dialog and anything anyone finds surprising. I have only listened to a few - and there may be some data of the type you request.
6. The most recent article close to your question that contains some of the out-year terms I am claiming is by Woolf, Amonette, etal - found free at:
http://nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html,
with a lot more in their supplementary information portion.found nearby. I feelthat they are overly conservative in their projections. The recommendation this month by Dr. Jim Hansen for 100 gTC of new added standing biomass violates the input assumptions of this Wolff paper. I hope these authors will look seriously at this huge (potential) new resource in a subsequent article
7. In summary, I don't believe the backup refereed data you are asking for exists. But that is because most Biochar authors (including myself) like to believe they are cautious. My estimate of about the same amount of out-year as first year value is certainly on the outer edge of what others are claiming. But very few are putting any value at all in increased productivity - belied by what we know about Terra Preta soils.
I shall request help from other Biochar analysts but the above is what first comes to mind. No-one else is to blame.. I look forward to further dialog on both whether any out-year value exists, and on how large it might be.
Thanks for asking the right question. Sorry I can't yet (nor I think can anyone else) give specific out-year numbers. The Biochar technology is too new. However, the first year numbers are reasonably agreed-upon - and we seem not to be in disagreement on them.
1. Below you ask a good question (asking for citations). I should have made it clear that I was only trying to show qualitative differences between the main CDR approaches based on biomass. The table and graph were mainly intended to show that Biochar is the only CDR approach which can provide out year continuing benefits. If that general principle is in dispute, we should talk about that first. Your own similar numbers seems to show no out-year benefits for Biochar - but similar to mine for the first year. I presume that is because you thought the out-year carbon negative benefits were too small to include. Or maybe you have investigated a lot and are sure that out year carbon benefits can't exist at all. I hope you will qualify what you believe on this fundamental point.
As to what the units are (besides being relative to unity), I had intended these to be standard CDR variety - "wedge"-like - GtC over some time period or GtC/yr, operating with the same (unspecified) input biomass. I have included both displaced (carbon neutral energy) and removed (carbon negative). A better unit might be similar - but on a per capita basis. I prefer Ceq over CO2eq.
We obviously disagree on the appropriateness of lumping them together. We should/can talk about which is most instructive - but I believe my claimed "out-year" added results apply to the two components separately, in any case.
2. The experimental data on out-year benefits that I like most is the experience in the Amazon with the anthropomorphic "Terra Preta".soils. There must be many dozens of refereed articles on this subject . I like work by Drs. Johannes Lehmann, Christoph Steiner, and Julie Majors - all of whom did their doctoral work in that geographic region on these soils. A good place to get a summary (with refereed journal publications) on terra preta soils is at www.biochar-international.org. but most overview articles start with this topic. These comparative (factors of 2 and 3) numbers are obviously all "out-year" productivity increases having nothing to do with the initial sequestered amounts.
Professor William Woods has a large terra preta bibliography from anthropology and archaeology perspectives. There are also three recent huge technical publications (all dedicated to a recently deceased Prof. Wim Sombroek, who did the earliest work in this area. One was edited by Prof. Woods. Terra Preta is written up in the popular book "1491" by Charles Mann (also author of an article in the Aug 2008 National Geographic) that will lead to more refereed citations on this long-lasting out-year benefit (about 500 years since char was last produced). If the reported soil productivity improvement estimates are off by an order of magnitude (10-20% rather than 100-200%) my chart will be accurate even if we limit our time span to less than a decade..You can find some of (now retired) Dr. Woods' work at:
http://www2.ku.edu/~geography/CurrentResearch/Woods/ScienceMann1.pdf
3. For still-active Biochar researchers, the earliest relevant citation I like is:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2006) 11: 403–427 C Springer 2006
DOI: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5
BIO-CHAR SEQUESTRATION IN TERRESTRIAL
ECOSYSTEMS – A REVIEW
JOHANNES LEHMANN,∗, JOHN GAUNT and MARCO RONDON
It is downloadable at
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/MitAdaptStratGlobChange 11, 403-427, Lehmann, 2006.pdf
This early article, with first authorship by the most-quoted Biochar expert includes mention of all the out-year added climate benefits - although unfortunately again without numbers, I recommend it for our dialog because it has been available for so long, and has very large (technical potential) numbers (approaching 10 GtC/y. Recently Dr.Lehmann has been backing awayfrom this number - for presumably PR reasons. If the numbers here are significantly wrong, one should expect to find themdiscredited in refereed journals. I have seen that.only at the sites of a few anti-biomass advocates. I think we can do this amount - even before out-year additions. Your approach of burial can also (if we take a threat seriously).
4. The out-year values should generally come under the category of LCA = Life Cycle Analysis. The refereed paper I have seen most often quoted is a thesis by (now) Dr. Kelli Roberts. This is behind a pay wall - but a copy is at Dr. Johannes Lehmann's web site
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/ES&T%2044,%20827-833,%202010%20Roberts.pdf
Supplementary information is also free there and free at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es902266r/suppl_file/es902266r_si_001.pdf
5. Dr. Roberts does mention some out year information, but I couldn't identify a specific out-year value. It may be there. She seems to rely for those out year values on information given by John Gaunt See.
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/ES%26T%2042,%204152-4158,%202008%20Gaunt.pdf
John is also cautious these days on claiming anything controversial. He gave a possibly helpful video presentation last week in Edinburgh at the most recent Biochar conference (Biochar conferences are occurring with surprising frequency). See
http://www.livestream.com/esktn/video?clipId=flv_ec467c70-32f7-42b9-a037-de59dab975c1&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
I pick John's talk out of several dozen because he credits Peter Read, who many on this list will remember. I have reviewed Peter's papers - but don't find them superior to the above. John also gives a hint on the present status of biochar commercialization.and product certification - where he is more than mostknowledgeable. Nothing on your question - but I can recommend this and other talks there - that are now still less than a week old. Drs. Lehmann and Roberts also have nearby presentations. I hope we can have further dialog and anything anyone finds surprising. I have only listened to a few - and there may be some data of the type you request.
6. The most recent article close to your question that contains some of the out-year terms I am claiming is by Woolf, Amonette, etal - found free at:
http://nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html,
with a lot more in their supplementary information portion.found nearby. I feelthat they are overly conservative in their projections. The recommendation this month by Dr. Jim Hansen for 100 gTC of new added standing biomass violates the input assumptions of this Wolff paper. I hope these authors will look seriously at this huge (potential) new resource in a subsequent article
7. In summary, I don't believe the backup refereed data you are asking for exists. But that is because most Biochar authors (including myself) like to believe they are cautious. My estimate of about the same amount of out-year as first year value is certainly on the outer edge of what others are claiming. But very few are putting any value at all in increased productivity - belied by what we know about Terra Preta soils.
I shall request help from other Biochar analysts but the above is what first comes to mind. No-one else is to blame.. I look forward to further dialog on both whether any out-year value exists, and on how large it might be.
Thanks for asking the right question. Sorry I can't yet (nor I think can anyone else) give specific out-year numbers. The Biochar technology is too new. However, the first year numbers are reasonably agreed-upon - and we seem not to be in disagreement on them.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Strand" <sst...@u.washington.edu>
To: rongre...@comcast.net, "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Henrik Karlsson" <henrik....@biorecro.se>
Cc: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 12:39:09 PM
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
To: rongre...@comcast.net, "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Henrik Karlsson" <henrik....@biorecro.se>
Cc: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 12:39:09 PM
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
Ron,
Please provide sources (preferably peer reviewed published papers) for all of the numbers in your table.
= Stuart =
Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype: stuartestrand
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rongre...@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:37 PM
To: geoengineering; Henrik Karlsson
Cc: Ken Caldeira
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: BECCS -- How much research is going on into biomass energy with carbon capture and storage?
List (ccs Henrik and Ken)
Stuart Strand
May 30, 2011, 1:21:32 AM5/30/11
to rongre...@comcast.net, geoengineering, Henrik Karlsson
Ron,
You want to “replace” the figure in Keith and Rhode’s comment in 2002. That figure was part of an exchange in a peer reviewed journal in response to the peer reviewed paper by Metzger and Benford 2001 and the invited editorial comment by Keith opposing it. Sorry, but your table doesn’t meet the standards of a letter in the scientific literature. Each number in your table requires substantiation by specific citation. Otherwise you are merely expressing personal opinion.
Also, what are the units of these numbers? Are the units consistent across columns? If not, how can you add them? Aren’t they describing apples and oranges? If there are no units or specific citations for specific numbers, then isn’t this table just your opinion dressed up with rankings?
A “qualitative comparison” can mean many things, ranging from a statement of opinion to outright propaganda, while a quantitative comparison is specific and can be objectively analyzed. That is the essence of science.
Sorry to sound condescending, but this forum needs discussion that can be objectively analyzed, not advocacy.
= Stuart =
Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype: stuartestrand
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages