[Stoves] Off-topic news: Biomass power is not climate-neutral
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Tue Jan 3 22:43:44 CST 2017
Nikhil: cc List and Paul
Whew - 5 messages today from Nikhil and finally one that I can see all of on my screen at once. (Here’s hoping I don’t have to read 5 more tomorrow for the third day in a row.)
In three of the four others I see one citation - GACC on Haiti. It would help me (and I think others) if Nikhil would keep all of my messages, not selectively pull out of them. (for his GACC2, Nikhil has excised all of my remarks #1 and #3. Why?)
I will respond about Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read. I seriously doubt that Kirk has written much about the two cites below covering BECCS and albedo. Note that neither of these have much, if anything, to do with stoves.
I don’t have time tonight to refute any of the mostly incorrect and non-pertinent arguments below, but let me repeat one (yNikhil, from below)that could only come from a climate denier - defined here as a person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR):
“And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere."
>>
I interpret Nikhil to mean that CDR via biochar only makes sense when source and sink are in the same block, county, state, or country, (or continent?) Whew! If not, what then does he mean? (Of course you have to read more below.)
In sum, I strongly support Paul’s gentle request to Nikhil to stick to topics that relate to this list - not things again/always in support of coal. And not blame me for not having responded quickly enough to some un-named publication of Prof. Smith (whose work, I repeat, on health matters related to stoves I strongly support - and look forward to learning what I am supposed to dissociate myself from in order to agree that the (9:04 AM CDT) climate-denying material (not in any way stove or health-oriented) below is on-topic.)
Last point for Nikhil re his last line below (“To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period. ")
- does he think that biochar from stoves cannot be carbon negative?
Ron
ps. I argue these topics (albedo, BECCS, afforestation , etc) most every day - on half a dozen lists - but never on this list.
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> It might become on-topic once Ron reads Kirk Smith.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ---------
> (US +1) 202-568-5831
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
> To Nikhil only,
>
> I agree that your message is "Off-topic". Thank you for making that clear in your subject line. Please do not make more messages that are so far off-topic that they just are beyond the scope of the Stoves Listserv.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <tel:(309)%20452-7072>
> Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> On 1/3/2017 9:04 AM, Traveller wrote:
>> Oh, dear. Just because a tree is releasing CO2 absorbed earlier makes it carbon neutral?
>>
>> Then all trees could be harvested, burnt, and that would still be carbon neutral. I don't think IPCC allows that -- its inventorying methods require that such "land use change" be reported separately.
>>
>> ****
>> Another way of putting the question (and I think this is implied by the current methods) is whether the CO2 released will in future be absorbed by another tree.
>>
>> But that raises a different problem -- this re-absorption may take years and that it may happen somewhere else. Assuming that the Drax carbon emissions from biomass burning were to be re-absorbed in the US forests where the pellets came from is quite a stretch.
>>
>> And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere.
>>
>> Since CO2 from wood combustion in a power plant is no different from CO2 from my breaths or cremation or CO2 from a power plant, it is plausible to argue that CO2 from Chinese coal-fired power plant is what gets absorbed in the net expansion of boreal forests in Canada and Europe.
>>
>> Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the albedo effect. (Reforestation Doesn’t Fight Climate Change Unless It’s Done Right <https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.jok1faoia>, Natasha Geiling, ThinkProgress, 31 August 2016).
>>
>> Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests, convert into charcoal, and export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC.
>>
>> Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has another problem - "“But if you are going to do BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of trees and the impact on land use may have very significant effects on food security,” (Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change>, Damien Carrington, Guardian (UK) 26 November 2014)
>>
>> In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled with confusion.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Deliberate confusion for political purposes. The methods of GHG accounting are NOT value-free; they (including the choice to use 100-year GWPs instead of 20- or 50-year GWPs) are intentionally biased. (I was marginally involved with this 30-odd years ago.)
>>
>> The most serious objection to the purported "carbon neutrality" of "biomass" is that depending on combustion technology, the emissions of non-CO2 GHGs - methane, which is counted under Kyoto cooking of numbers, and NMVOCs, CO, which Kyoto does not permit -- are more potent than CO2.
>>
>> If you add in black carbon, the non-CO2 damage is significantly higher.
>>
>> More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for the developing countries).
>>
>> The combined GHG loads from biomass direct thermal use around the world - when counting all GHGs and black carbon (I can cook up some estimates) - are in the range of all CO2 from Indian coal-fired power plants, maybe even all CO2 from Chinese coal-fired power plants.
>>
>> So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass use, as much as it is from India-China coal-fired power plants.
>>
>> Surprised?
>>
>> Some sages said 16+ years ago, "If one is going to put carbon in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful species from climate or health point of view."
>>
>> The policy implications of this observation are profound.
>>
>> To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period.
>>
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------
>> (US +1) 202-568-5831 <tel:(202)%20568-5831>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>> Nikhil,
>>
>> I’m thinking the energy used to make the pellets and transport are from fossil fuel. The CO2 released during combustion is from a tree that once took it out of the air. And during combustion is now releasing it back into the air - carbon neutral.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Frank
>> Frank Shields
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>> Keith Day Company, Inc.
>> 1091 Madison Lane
>> Salinas, CA 93907
>> (831) 246-0417 <tel:%28831%29%20246-0417> cell
>> (831) 771-0126 <tel:%28831%29%20771-0126> office
>> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is about US wood being exported to the Drax station in England.
>>>
>>> "The growing transatlantic trade is being financed with billions of dollars in European climate subsidies <http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/> because of a regulatory loophole that allows wood energy to count as if it’s as clean as solar or wind energy, when in reality it’s often worse for the climate than burning coal. Only the pollution released when wood pellets are produced and transported is counted on climate ledgers. Actual pollution from the smokestack — by far the greatest source of carbon pollution from wood energy — is overlooked."
>>>
>>> E.U. loophole counts wood energy as “carbon neutral.” It’s not. <http://grist.org/article/e-u-loophole-counts-wood-energy-as-carbon-neutral-its-not/> John Upton, Grist, 1 January 2017
>>>
>>> Why wasn't such loophole applied to cookstoves project, I wonder.
>>>
>>> Bean-counters for the poor, unite!
>>>
>>> Nikhil
>>>
>>> ---------
>>> (US +1) 202-568-5831 <tel:%28202%29%20568-5831>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170103/b6d15998/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list