SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

Chapter-
Comment
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
based on studies with rather serious omissions regarding the
available potentials, conversion efficiencies and integration with the
rest of the energy system. The bioenergy potentials given in the
text (Ch. 4.3.3.3, p.50) and based on Hoogvijk (2004) should be
reconsidered. The study has assumed that very large areas for
energy plantations will be available and that all of the energy grown
is directly available, with a conversion efficiency of that of biomass
integrated gas combined cycle or F-T synthesis. The conversion
losses of the whole energy system are ignored. Also the questions
related to integration with the rest of the energy system are ignored.
With high amounts of bioenergy use, the required transportation
costs (and related emissions) will become substantial. On the other
hand, with small-scale technologies the conversion efficiencies will
decrease substantially. Also the availability of water for plantations
has been ignored. The study has largely concentrated on shortrotation
energy plantations, which may also not be a fully valid
assumption.
(Government of Finland)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
fair statement.
We should
revise this
paragraph –
topic for the
bioenergy
breakout group
discussion in
NZ?
(8)
Agree, the
hoogwijk
estimate is to
high,
Will be dealt
with in CCT
(9)
See comment
SPM 982 A.
Noted. Try to
include other
literature
showing the
same results of
Hoogvijk but
based in well
used
technologies,
like ethanol
from sugar cane
Anyway it is
worth to state as
follows:
“Potential fossil
Page 270 of 348