There is a new article about BECCS. The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world Here is a link to its abstract.
The abstract includes:
1) We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals,
2) , and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
Those two statements say the impact of BECCS will be during 2050 to 2100 and then will have a backstop (low but stable) price of $240 /t CO2e.
Accomplishing that in the coming decades is NOT good news. It is procrastination and lack of awareness of what biochar can do NOW.
F. BECCS has received an enormous amount of attention, especially in Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) used by scientists in the preparation of the IPCC documents (2018) on 1.5 degrees C of global temperature rise. The rationale for this focus on BECCS is that it can be modeled (presumably because of available data on biomass supply (including AR), as opposed to hypothetical data for DACCS, EW, OF, and SCS). But the IAM projections are based on hope of what CCS for sequestration MIGHT accomplish in the coming decades if CCS becomes financially viable. In contrast, BC&E [Biochar and Energy] already has the sequestration issue resolved as stable biochar from essentially the same sources of available biomass.
This white paper contends that BC&E is a better, more realistic NET than BECCS for use in IAM calculations about the future of our planet. See supporting information in Section VIII.
Section VIII is on pages 17 – 18, which I provide here:
Section VIII. “Anything BECCS can do, BC&E can do better; char can do anything better that BECCS” (Proposed lyrics for a CDR song.)
A. BC&E can significantly exceed the expectations of BECCS.
1. Different technologies: BECCS appears to have the advantage because it starts with technology for releasing 100% of the energy by burning biomass all the way to ash, and the intention that nearly 100% of the created CO2 could be captured and stored via proposed functional CCS technology. In contrast, BC&E appears to offer less because it releases only 70% of the total biomass energy for possible productive use. 30% of the energy remains in the captured 50% of the carbon atoms (or 40% for long-term sequestration).
2. Different levels of readiness: For BECCS, of its two components, BE and CCS, the CCS capability is grossly lacking as of 2020 and is dependent on assumptions and speculations for solutions that will be costly because they are industrial, and not natural. In contrast, for BC&E, both the BC and &E components are already functional or awaiting the existing business sector for heat capture to adjust to and commercially promote some BC&E systems of heat delivery and usage for homes, etc.
3. Sizes of units: BECCS focuses on large (expensive) facilities and has no expression as small, decentralized capabilities. BC&E springs from and thrives in small units, as in cookstoves, but also can have major capabilities for much larger facilities where heat can pay the bills while biochar is a desired co-product. (See Part Two.)
4. BC&E devices are, in general, significantly less expensive, allowing for more units to be placed in more locations closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations of the sequestration of the biochar. Lower costs and moderate sizes combine for these advantages for BC&E:
a. Different sizes of facilities allow BC&E to be much more accommodating to use diverse types of biomass, with the result that the potential pool of biomass is larger for BC&E than for BECCS.
b. BC&E locations will be much more numerous and located closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations for the heat. Local ownership is more likely.
c. BC&E has worldwide appeal to and potential involvement with all socio-economic strata. BECCS is directed toward wealthy societies.
B. The integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to project future climate situations should be recalculated with the impact of biomass utilization based on BC&E and not on BECCS. This could change for the better the IAM projections that are used in so many models of global temperature increases.
C. The focus on electricity production via BECCS is misleading, as was pointed out in Section VII about heat and energy. When BC&E becomes well established and is providing useful thermal energy, there will be minimal biomass available or affordable for expensive BECCS installations that require massive amounts of biomass with significant transportation costs.
I welcome anyone who would like to develop further (or to correct or to refute) these statements to contact me directly psanders@...
or enter into discussion on one of the Discussion Groups (I subscribe to both the Biochar and the CDR groups), or participate in a webinar discussion if some organization would like to sponsor it.
I have nothing personal against the advocates of BECCS. But they are overlooking biochar that is right in front of them.
Basically, BECCS is BUNK!! And biochar technology is available now and is getting better. The white paper (page 45) projects many GIGAtonnes of carbon dioxide removal and storage (CDRS) in the near future.
My credentials are in my biosketch found on page 50 of the white paper.
There is now legislation in the US House of Representatives to advance biochar. I hope that this message can help get the attention that it deserves for climate issues.
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]
Thank you, Norm. If you are still having trouble getting the full article, just ask and I will send it.
Have been a bit shy about publicizing too much.
Here is a new article about BECCS. Looks to be good but unfortunately, I do not have access to the full article. I'm hoping one of you can get all of us a full pdf.
Also, Michael, I was very pleased with your publication on crop burning. Very well said. I too am a big proponent of democratized biochar and truly feel it is one of the best options for all people to fight global warming. I also like the fact that you put real numbers to avoided emissions and especially PM2.5. Congrats. Again, well done!