Comment Log Display

Thanks for the webinar featuring the E3 report.

Of the 3 options, I favor Zero Carbon Energy (ZCE) most because it
is likely to be most effective and the lowest risk.

CDR is the most risky and is likely to be less effective than the
ZCE and Balanced plans. CDR technologies have the following
problems.
             * The US Dept. of Energy declared that it is not
cost-effective on a commercial scale. Recently, these technologies
have an operating cost of about $100/tCO2.
              This excludes the cost of manufacture, maintenance,
transportation, subterranean injection, land for equipment and
storage, disposal and recycling of
              used equipment, and insurance.

             * CDR technologies have been researched and developed
for over 16 years and innovations have been marginal in recent
years, despite burgeoning scientific
             understanding.
 
             * CDR technologies do not remove toxic co-pollutants
from combustion of fossil fuels or biomass. Worldwide, annually,
8.8 million people are killed by air pollution.
             Such mass homicide is primarily due to toxic
co-pollutants rather than GHGs.

             * The feasibility of long-term subterranean storage
and leak prevention is unknown.

In contrast, natural sequestration by marine and terrestrial
botanicals has been well-proven. Old-growth forests store more
carbon than any other habitat. They have
been shown to remove many co-pollutants including sulpher oxides,
nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and ground-level ozone.
Forests provide an impressive array of
ecosystem services. Expanded protection of ocean and land in CA has
been proposed in AB3030, which has passed the Assembly and is
proceeding through Senate committees.
Legislation to preserve the ecological integrity of working lands
is also making headway in the Senate. Organic agroecology that
maximizes carbon storage is needed. Another
natural measure that would significantly drive down GHGs is to
replace livestock raising with crop agriculture. I look forward to
the 2022 Scoping Plan re. natural sequestration
and have numerous recommendations re. policies that will facilitate
this.

Replacing fossil energy (including NG) with renewable electricity
for all sectors is the most important policy objective and is the
core of the ZCE plan.
The renewable portfolio standard energy sources specified in SB100
are wind, solar, geothermal, and existing large-scale hydro. It
excludes fossil, biomass, biofuels, and nuclear energy.
Since passage of SB100,  it has been discovered that electrolytic
hydrogen may be produced with 100% renewable energy, e.g., wind. It
is likely that it meets the RPS definition.

A major problem with biofuels and biomass is that they remove plant
material from the environment. We need every botanical that is not
grown as a crop for humans to be preserved so it may
continue to store carbon. And expired plants must be naturally
recycled into the earth to enrich the soil and store carbon in the
soil. Combustion of botanicals immediately loads the atmosphere
with GHGs and toxic co-pollutants. There are 22 biomass facilities
in CA. All are 3 to 4 decades old lack state of the art CDR
technologies. Emissions from biomass incineration equal that of
thermal coal combustion. The cost of biomass electricity is more
than double that of fossil electricity. Though woody biomass, even
when imported, is classified as renewable energy in
Europe, it in fact is far from renewable or zero carbon.

Efficiency, heat pumps, and concrete that has a cement substitute
are keen ideas.

Curbing GHGs via carbon pricing may be effective for decreasing
GHGs only if numerous policy provisions are followed. I have lots
of research on this if you are interested.

Let me know if you wish clarification or citations.

Thanks,

David Bezanson, Ph.D.
CA resident and voter