The IPCC has summarized the literature as 22 EJ – 400 EJ if I recall correctly. So that shows the large uncertainty; depending on assumptions on learning rates, tech breakthroughs, what type of impacts are acceptable etc etc.

But even on the low end scale, tens of EJ is rather large niche solution!

So why does this blog talk endlessly about ‘core climate solutions’ but ignore the real question of the political route to achieving it – globally? For a start, Joe seems to forget that the world continues beyond the borders of the US. Very odd.

The exact reason that government intervention/regulation/subsidy is needed in some areas. You are describing the failure of free markets to adequately address problems that when the cost to society is not included in the cost of doing business.

The market decides how energy will be generated and consumed. The ‘core climate problem’ is therefore political, in that we would need to wrest control away from the 6.7 billion individuals who cumulatively decide these things (i.e. the market) and place it in the hands of a global political force that puts climate change at the top of its agenda.

Unless this happens your ‘core climate solutions’ will only see the light of day if there is some technoloical breakthrough that makes it the cheapest way of generating energy – unlikely as things stand.

It’s great to hear there is something that works well in decreasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I do have a question about it. You decribe the most important measurement of an carbon reducing energy source as CO2/GWh of which I’m not familiar with, but I would say that two other measures are more important.

One of these measures is cost of electricity per KWH or for us across the pond as dollars per KWH.

The second measure is cost per ton of Carbon Dioxide sequestration.

Your measure of tons CO2/GWh doesn’t mean that much to me if my electricity costs are high and the cost per ton of Carbon Dioxide is high also.

If I’m wrong about that let me know. I just don’t think that tons per CO2/GWh is the best measure.

There is a torrified wood reactor making about 75,000 tonnes of ‘biocoal’ per year in The Netherlands; the torrified wood is co-fired in German coal reactors.

There are at least two more similar torrified wood reactors being built in The Netherlands; might be operational by now.

Anyway, there is more than one commercial coal/biomass power plant in the world.

Strange how opinions can differ.

Let’s look at two rather authoritative sources:

1. James Hansen.

2. For those who know the debate in Europe, let’s look at the wedges presented in the Bellona Foundation’s most recent report on mitigating climate change.

=======

James Hansen says: we need to aim for 350ppm. The only feasible way to do this is via biofuels:

-biomass coupled to CCS
-bioenergy coupled to biochar.

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, James C. Zachos, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, March 2008.

http://www.columbia.edu/ ~jeh1/ 2008/ TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
========

Now let’s look at the Bellona Foundation, which aims for an 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050.

The Bellona Foundation, so far, is the only organisation taking bio-CCS and bio-CCCS into account. Thus it can be easily considered to be the most up to date on the technologies.

These are its wedges (roughly sketched, more details in the link):

1. Carbon-negative biofuels: 22%
2. All other renewables combined: 10%
3. CCS: 10%
4. Land use change: 8%

In short, biofuels alone represent twice as large a potential than wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc… combined.

Graph.
http://i234.photobucket.com/ albums/ ee274/ biopact3/ biopact_carbon-negative_bellona.jpg?t=1212759388

Bellona Foundation: It is fully possible to reduce emissions by 85 percent – June 5, 2008.
http://www.bellona.org/ articles/ articles_2008/ cc8_conference

The logic is quite straightforward: old school renewables like wind or solar remain carbon-neutral forever. They can never take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Carbon-negative biofuels, on the contrary, can take huge amounts of CO2 away.

Let’s look at the numbers. How much CO2 can each technology reduce or remove? Or, put differently, how much CO2 does the technology yield per Gigawatthour of electricity generated?

Here are the numbers:

-solar PV: +100 ton CO2/GWh
-wind: +30 to 50 ton CO2/GWh
-large hydro: +10 to 20 ton CO2/GWh
-biomass+CCCS: -500 to -800 tons CO2/GWh [that is: minus]
-biomass+CCS: -800 to -1000 tons CO2/GWh [that is: minus]

In short: for each GWh of electricity generated, carbon-negative bioenergy can reduce emissions by up to 10 times compared with wind and solar.

========

Obviously, biofuels are “the” most important technology to mitigate climate change.

There is basically no discussion about this, is there? The numbers speak for themselves: biofuels are the single biggest wedge of the future. (+100tonCO2/GWh versus -1000tonCO2/GWh… add Hansen…).

But apparently, the news still has to cross the pond. If there’s anything else we can help our American friends with, let us know!

[Jonas: You are not talking about biofuels -- biomass to liquid fuels - but rather biomass power. I tend to throw that in with the PV/renewables wedge. In fact, if coal with carbon capture and storage proves practical on a large scale (and the jury is out on that) then yes throwing in some biomass is probably the best use of that biomass. But we are two steps removed from that being practical. I think there is only one commercial coal/biomass power plant in the world. Some of us on this side of the pond try to stay ahead of the curve, but we appreciate all the help we can get from the old World.]

According to E85 map, there are 1200 stations in the US, most of them in the upper mid-West.

Iowa has 85 stations spread around the state. [See my earlier comments about Iowa.]

list of flex-fuel vehicles. Unsurprisingly, these include vehicles popular in mid-West.

Now 85 isn’t huge, but it’s enough that a FFV might actually be useful there.