tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255676013538748260.post7348047677406577104..comments2023-01-05T01:32:12.395-08:00Comments on Cars and Climate: Don't tout low-carbon fuel; track real carbon insteadAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14221841483000107479noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255676013538748260.post-27683082850334930202015-04-02T01:44:55.118-07:002015-04-02T01:44:55.118-07:00Good morning, John,
Some very eminent folks have j...Good morning, John,<br />Some very eminent folks have just weighed in with a powerful critique of your recent paper on carbon accounting for biofuels. Here is the link. <br /><br />https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-comments-liquid-carbon <br /><br />In your next post, please respond directly and specifically to their critiques, showing why you are right and they are wrong. <br /><br />Thanks,<br />Bruce<br />Dr. Bruce E. Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16827842723076733260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255676013538748260.post-77758554460523798942015-03-21T15:04:08.862-07:002015-03-21T15:04:08.862-07:00As noted in response to Bruce Dale's comment b...As noted in response to Bruce Dale's comment below, my main reply is given in the new post, "Scrutinizing the logic on biofuels." <br /><br />Robert also notes that a net draw down of atmospheric CO2 might be accomplished with "carbon-negative" mechanisms such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). That is indeed a hypothetical option, but the carbon balance must still be assessed correctly; it cannot be simply assumed the biomass feedstock for a BECCS system is inherently carbon neutral. Integrated assessment modeling (IAM) of BECCS systems do assess such effects correctly in a way that lifecycle analyses as published to date may not. <br />John DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02251316545335550634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255676013538748260.post-89959652416031310932015-03-21T15:01:36.542-07:002015-03-21T15:01:36.542-07:00Thanks to Robert and Bruce for their comments. The...Thanks to Robert and Bruce for their comments. The points they raise reflect the prevailing wisdom in the bioenergy research community and the strong difference of perspective with my analysis calls for careful discussion. <br /><br />Rather than respond in a lengthy comment, I'll explain things in a new post, "Scrutinizing the logic on biofuels," which appears just above this one. <br />John DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02251316545335550634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255676013538748260.post-88184285124593400582015-03-20T15:06:32.201-07:002015-03-20T15:06:32.201-07:00Hey John,
I had to read your blog post and your p...Hey John,<br /><br />I had to read your blog post and your paper a couple of times to be sure you were serious. Apparently you are serious. <br /><br />John, this is crazy. “Tracking real carbon” is precisely the issue and is precisely where you are wrong. One of the first things that an undergraduate student in biogeochemistry or ecology learns is the difference between carbon “stocks” and carbon “flows”. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a carbon stock and it “flows” into plant materials from which it is later released back to the atmosphere. The net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not changed. Sure, there are nuances in this story, but the basic chemistry and biochemistry is well known. Carbon flows from the atmosphere, through plants and back into the atmosphere—no net change.<br /> <br />Coal or oil or natural gas also represent carbon stocks. But when this fossil carbon is combusted and released to the atmosphere, it goes on a one way trip from the ground to the atmosphere. It doesn’t go back into the ground…a least not for a few hundred million years. The result is increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. It couldn’t be simpler.<br /> <br />I ordinarily give my colleagues in the professoriate the benefit of the doubt when discussing matters of opinion or interpretation of data. Not in this case, John. The facts are so obvious and so well known. You are just flat wrong. <br /><br />I don’t know why you are making these ridiculous assertions, but I feel I have no choice but to point out, forcefully, how mistaken you are.<br /> <br />Sincerely yours,<br />Bruce<br /> <br />Bruce E. Dale, PhD, University Distinguished Professor <br />Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science <br />DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center <br />Editor in Chief: Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining <br />Michigan State University <br />Dr. Bruce E. Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16827842723076733260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255676013538748260.post-38602081240216120132015-03-19T07:21:46.017-07:002015-03-19T07:21:46.017-07:00Prof. DeCicco, it does matter where carbon comes f...Prof. DeCicco, it does matter where carbon comes from. When we dig sequestered (fossil) carbon from geological deposits and use it to produce energy, we are increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. When we use photosynthesis to fix carbon and use the resulting biomass to produce energy, we are recycling carbon to the atmosphere. To argue that bioenergy crops are grown on lands that were already fixing carbon and hence does not affect the carbon cycle overlooks the fact that we are intercepting and productively using the energy captured by photosynthesis – and even increasing the amount of carbon fixed.<br />It is true that none of the current alternatives to fossil fuels, whether biofuels, wind, solar, or nuclear energy, is able to draw down the carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels. This would require carbon negative energy such as “bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration” (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2015/02/09/electricity-from-biomass-with-carbon-capture-could-make-western-u-s-carbon-negative/) and “pyrolysis/biochar” energy systems (http://www.engineering.iastate.edu/research/eri/initiatives/strategies/icne/). <br />I have recently written an opinion piece in The Hill to help the public understand that biofuels can help reduce the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere but only carbon negative energy can reverse the process: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/234750-managing-carbon-like-coffee-cups.<br />Regards, <br />Robert Brown<br />Bioeconomy Institute<br />Iowa State University<br />Robert Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05959029445218215774noreply@blogger.com