Re: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] [CDR] Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty - ScienceDirect


Claudia Kammann
 

Thanks, Albert, it is so good to hear that.

 

After working on these things for so long, it’s a bit as if watching a little tree grow with a loving heart…. It feels good but you know you must protect it still, water it, tend to it.. so that it starts flowering and bearing fruit.

 

Thanks, Albert, for all that you and everyone else is/are doing, to spread the knowledge and inspire people. I wanted to say that for a log time –

 

Merry belated Christmas to all of you, and may 2021 be the year where people start to see the value in PyCCS as a way to recycle and live with (former) atmospheric carbon in C-sink materials and in soils, as a new C-negative living-habit… J

 

Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Albert Bates
Gesendet: Montag, 28. Dezember 2020 15:29
An: main@Biochar.groups.io; Biochar@groups.io
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] [CDR] Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty - ScienceDirect

 

I also found this article to be good reading, although I think the ranking algorithm and weakness of source references skewed the result against biochar. Still, third place behind BECCS and artificial trees is respectable at this early stage of ranking. When you consider that climate policy scientists are starting to lean into PyCCS as the better form of BECCS and like the article itself says, local to regional food and water security and local community livelihoods have to be considered, BC is number 1.

I have been tracking the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) <https://www.c2g2.net/>  that is running online webinars on NETs that are quite good. The one on BECCS surprisingly tilted heavily into PyCCS, essentially redefining BECCS to mean biochar production with energy.  Prof. Daniel Sanchez's 30m talk is here: https://www.c2g2.net/?p=296816.

- Albert

On 12/26/20 12:00 PM, Ron Larson wrote:

 

Biochar List. 

 

            I just sent almost exactly tthe following (few typos I was fixing when the first version got away). to the CDR list;

 

 

 

            I like the article (freebee - see below for https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020325731)

                       I like the 4-component methodology

                        I like the comparative results for biochar (shortened in paper to BC. - See Table 4.).    

                        I think they accurately captured what the literature says about BC.

 

            Anyone trying to sell BC will find this a big help - after pointing out:

                       a.   BC can easily show at least equal annual capture capability as BECCS (paper and literature now showing BC at about 10X less).  

                                               Literature is using computer modeling data; few computer models for BC)

                       b.  There are plenty of examples of negative costs for BC - and no other NET approach shows negative costs.  

                                   BC provides benefits for millennia.  First year costs are important, but life-cycle costs are also.  The BC literature is out of date. (See recent report on sugar cane)

 

Ron

 



 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 4:09 AM Andrew Lockley <andrew.lockley@...> wrote:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020325731

 

Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty

Author links open overlay panelW.Y.NgaR.R.Tanb

Show more

Outline

Share

Cite

Under a Creative Commons license

open access

Abstract

Existing mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are inadequate to reach the target emission reductions set in the Paris Agreement. Hence, the deployment of negative emission technologies (NETs) is imperative. Given that there are multiple available NETs that need to be evaluated based on multiple criteria, there is a need for a systematic method for ranking and prioritizing them. Furthermore, the uncertainty in estimating the techno-economic performance levels of NETs is a major challenge. In this work, an integrated model of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and interval-extended Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is proposed to address the multiple criteria, together with data uncertainties. The potential of NETs is assessed through the application of this hybrid decision model. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted to evaluate the robustness of the ranking generated. The result shows Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) as the most optimal alternative for achieving negative emission goals since it performed robustly in the different criteria considered. Meanwhile, energy requirement emerged as the most preferred or critical criterion in the deployment of NETs based on the decision-maker. This paper renders a new research perspective for evaluating the viability of NETs and extends the domains of the fuzzy AHP and interval-extended TOPSIS hybrid model.

·        Previous article

·        Next article

Keywords

Chemical engineering

Environmental science

Negative emission technologies

Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution

Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Uncertainty

Decision analysis

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-06viCF7UzZOSmQjvGq7pL4_WNbOSmXMfebSF3%2BWGFp6iw%40mail.gmail.com.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAAoq7hKULdf5_jRnW%2BzQsZkr2mt4fhyerauBobzf_%2B4rmEXGmg%40mail.gmail.com.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAA2mHQ%3De9ic8cGAVeJpRhyTOv%2BpwBRCKZvMnbB4Gi6BejDqaxA%40mail.gmail.com.

 

-- 
Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México
52-998-116-5532
albert@...
 
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned. - Richard Feynman

Join main@Biochar.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.