Terra Preta in the news

[Flying Binghi]

"Recent studies have found a 150 per cent increase in corn yield when biochar is applied at the rate of 20 tonnes to the hectare."

 

Does anybody have an average weight of a cubic metre of biochar ?

[erich]

About 550 lbs / m3 , depending on size of char particles

[Eclipse Now]

My fellow peak-oil activists thought I was claiming too much for Biochar, and so I've had to edit my 4-year disclaimer to include the following. I love Biochar, but don't want to see TOO much claimed for it. So after my previous 4 points in favour of Biochar, basically a round up of the summary pieces out there, I had to include point 5. It's mainly about the amount of energy Biochar could produce.

 

Cheers.

 

Eclipse Now: Replenish the soil

 

5. Not a Silver Bullet for peak oil

The reason I rave about Biochar so much is that I get frustrated when I see an important 'niche' solution being ignored by the mainstream press and policy makers. With some serious funding and implementation, it seems that Biochar could help at least rural communities adapt to a post oil world. If the economies of scale bring the price down I'm allowing myself to hope that we might one day at least have an agricultural sector that is oil free! However I have never presented it as the "Solution" to peak oil.

 

I do not believe even Eprida claim that they can supply all our liquid fuels in this manner. "10 tons of any woody or plant biomass and turns it into 1 ton of charcoal and 3.2 tons of diesel." That's about 3 tons of biomass for every ton of diesel. We are simply not going to grow that much biomass and turn it into diesel! Just a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows why.

 

We use roughly 85 million barrels a day of liquid fuel each day.

Divide by 7.33 (barrels / ton) = 11.596 million tons of fuel a day.

 

According to the figures above, we need 3.125 tons of biomass to get 1 ton of diesel. That means we'd need to find 36.238 million tons of biomass to cook up each day, or 13.2 trillion tons of biomass a year to replace all our liquid fuel use from Biochar!! When one considers that the world grain harvest each year is only 2.2 trillion tons a year, even if the agriwaste volume is double the actual grain weight (in removed husks, corn stalks, plant mass etc), we're still going to fall short of our daily fuel needs. I haven't even counted the amount of energy this system takes to run. ABC's Catalyst informs us that about half the syngas created in one Biochar burn is used to power the next burn!

 

Let's eliminate this problem by "just assuming" that the whole world uses solar thermal heat to cook the Biochar so that all the synfuel can be saved for energy use. Where else might the fuel be needed?

 

As one peak oiler I respect said:

 

Have you considered all the diesel needed to harvest the biomass, and to transport the biomass to the factory, and then to take the biochar out to all the farms in Australia, and then to spread the biochar onto all the paddocks and then plough it all in. I have not seen this mentioned. It will certainly not be trivial. Certainly, if there is a source of existing waste, biochar may be a good way to recover some energy and produce some soil improvers, but this will inevitably be small on a global scale. However, utilising existing centralised waste is a world away from enormous-scale deliberate harvesting of biomass for biochar manufacture and redistribution. The larger the scale of the biochar factory, the larger will be the scale of the transport problem. If there are lots of little biochar factories scattered around, then there are lots of little transport problems for building the factories, and for getting the staff to work, every day, etc, etc.

 

Or as Rob from Transition Culture put it:

 

I wonder about the full energy breakdown of growing the crops in the first place for the Eprida system? How much biomass would it take to produce enough diesel to run all the UK’s cars? In terms of conventional biodiesel it is said to be something like 3 times the UK land mass. As Robert Hirsch is wont to point out, peak oil is primarily a liquid fuels problem. Can Eprida be scaled up to be able to produce enough diesel for the UK car and transport fleet? I suspect not. With the addition of the fuel it takes to grow the biomass in first place, I imagine it would have a place as an on-farm source of sufficient diesel to run farm machinery, but to run our current transport based globalised economy, it wouldn’t appear to me to be a runner. As I said at the beginning, tend to think that something that looks too good to be true is generally not. What do you think?

 

If Biochar can help us develop a more sustainable post-oil agricultural revolution (combined with many other drastic changes to agriculture), and reduce some of our Co2 burden, shouldn't we just be thankful? Complaining that it does not also completely replace oil as well seems a bit unreasonable. One problem at a time please! I see Biochar as one of many solutions to the oil and climate crisis, and when I say 'solution' I do not mean that the transition will be pain free! (I still see a Great Depression as pretty much unavoidable).

 

Biochar will not solve peak oil. We will still need to REZONE our cities around New Urbanism and cycling, rebuild RAIL that runs on renewable electrons, REDESIGN industry around "Cradle to Cradle" recycling systems to reduce our dependence on raw materials and chemical feed stocks, RESTORE local ecosystem services and lastly, REDUCE population by creating a worldwide demographic transition. These things are achievable using a wide range of policy measures, but I'd hate anyone to misrepresent my enthusiasm for Biochar as some kind of 'cure all' for every crisis we face. I don't think I can be any clearer.

[Eclipse Now]

What about those that argue we'll never have the fuel to collect all the agri-waste from the farm paddocks, haul it 200 km's to the nearest Biochar plant, drive the 200km's back with the Biochar, and then use even more fuel spreading it all back out over the soil?

 

Are any Biochar agricultural enthusiasts looking at the fuel issues in all this, or is fuel just assumed? Imagine you live in a country that in about 5 to 10 years may not be able to import oil for agriculture. (See the Export Land Model). If 10 tons of biomass produce only 1 ton of fuel, how efficiently are we going to be able to collect it? Has anyone considered redesigning the combine harvester to collect both the grain AND agriwaste at the same time to save fuel, then divide it later at a collection point and truck the grain one way and Biomass the other?

 

These integrated system approaches are what nations need to be considering NOW so that we can have a truly sustainable post-oil agriculture, that and closing the one way nutrient flow from our farm soils to food to our tables and toilets then out to sea.

 

Any thoughts on how viable Biochar will be on any massive scales in a post-oil world?

[freeztar]

What about those that argue we'll never have the fuel to collect all the agri-waste from the farm paddocks, haul it 200 km's to the nearest Biochar plant, drive the 200km's back with the Biochar, and then use even more fuel spreading it all back out over the soil?

 

Are any Biochar agricultural enthusiasts looking at the fuel issues in all this, or is fuel just assumed? Imagine you live in a country that in about 5 to 10 years may not be able to import oil for agriculture. (See the Export Land Model). If 10 tons of biomass produce only 1 ton of fuel, how efficiently are we going to be able to collect it? Has anyone considered redesigning the combine harvester to collect both the grain AND agriwaste at the same time to save fuel, then divide it later at a collection point and truck the grain one way and Biomass the other?

 

These integrated system approaches are what nations need to be considering NOW so that we can have a truly sustainable post-oil agriculture, that and closing the one way nutrient flow from our farm soils to food to our tables and toilets then out to sea.

 

Any thoughts on how viable Biochar will be on any massive scales in a post-oil world?

 

While this is off-topic to the thread, I can't resist a reply.

 

I partially agree with you Eclispe Now, but I also think that you might be viewing it in overly-complex ways.

 

To get activated char, it's quite likely that you would need a big facility for that, to produce it in any meaningful amounts for a community. But AC is not necessary for agriculture. From the best of my knowledge, low-temp char is actually best for ag. This can be done locally. For example, farmers growing corn could use the same machinery they currently use, but instead of throwing away, grinding and mulching, or burning the "waste product", they could put it through pyrolysis and locally create a char product with very little capital invested.

 

Also, let's not forget that biofuel is a byproduct of pyrolysis. This should help with transportation factor, yeah? :naughty:

[Eclipse Now]

Maybe I should start a thread on how much biomass a road-train can carry, how much fuel they burn carrying the biomass to the Biochar plant, and... everything to do with farm fuel consumption, trucks, trucking, and other Biochar to fuel efficiency measures.

 

We only have a few years before the terminal decline of oil production sets in. That means globally maybe 3% less oil forever, but regionally and nationally — can you imagine what will happen when oil hits $300 a barrel? Have we all visualised the very nasty and unequal way 3% global oil decline will play out? Basically when peak oil hits a country they stop exporting oil way before they stop producing oil. They can go from their maximum oil exports to importing oil very quickly. (6 years in the UK from 'peak exports' to becoming a net oil importer!)

 

 

 

So if we are tempted to think "Ha, 3% oil decline is EASY to manage" think again. It simply will not play out like that in countries like Australia and America that import so much of our oil. If Australia was suddenly forced to rely on domestic production, we'd hit a Greater Depression overnight... and face the worst kind of oil rationing.

 

I'm at the point where I'm wondering if we have enough oil to transition smoothly into the post oil world? Do we actually have the time to build all these biochar factories?

[Eclipse Now]

For instance, has the summary statement below ever been independently verified by someone like the CSIRO? If so we may have some hope for the rural agricultural sector at least! (The rest of us in the cities can cycle or use short EV trips).

 

10 tons of any woody or plant biomass and turns it into 1 ton of charcoal and 3.2 tons of diesel.

[Michaelangelica]

A great summary of the whole deal

Journal Blog Archive Biochar and Terra Preta

[Eclipse Now]

Yeah, Big Gav's a mate... another Sydney peak oiler.

 

I don't think that article answers the questions about how much fuel this could provide to the farming community though, and how dispersed the Biochar factories would have to be to make it fuel economical. How much biomass can those big-rigs carry to the factory, how far, using how much fuel, and then carry all the biochar and fuel back?

 

How are we going to do farming if oil imports are cut by 50% over the next 10 years? (rationing)

How are we going to continue mining, farming, freight and construction of the next generation of renewable energy systems (including Biochar power-plants) if many nations hit as low as 1/5 their fuel in the same amount of time? (Australia peaked in 2000 and our oil production has plummeted! If we can't import... we're stuffed. Instant Greater Depression, just add water. Well, remove oil. :singer:)

[Michaelangelica]

Yeah, Big Gav's a mate... another Sydney peak oiler.

 

I don't think that article answers the questions about how much fuel this could provide to the farming community though, and how dispersed the Biochar factories would have to be to make it fuel economical. How much biomass can those big-rigs carry to the factory, how far, using how much fuel, and then carry all the biochar and fuel back?

Good question that why i would like to see mobile rigs

Or factories with large amounts of waste to have their own plants

Most council separate green waste now so we could have a plant at every council depot and the char milled fine and given to gardeners to save water, river-run-off-pollution ,and fertiliser. Milled fine it would be more difficlt to burn.

 

I notice my local Land Care Group harvests bags of weeds every week and 'tidies up' things like fallen bits of tree etc. In effect they are harvesting from the land every week. Some charcoal could be given to Land Gare Groups to make up for the lack of regular fires, & therefore charcoal, that the bush used to get.

 

How are we going to do farming if oil imports are cut by 50% over the next 10 years? (rationing)

How are we going to continue mining, farming, freight and construction of the next generation of renewable energy systems (including Biochar power-plants) if many nations hit as low as 1/5 their fuel in the same amount of time? (Australia peaked in 2000 and our oil production has plummeted! If we can't import... we're stuffed. Instant Greater Depression, just add water. Well, remove oil. )

You could of course collect bio-oil from the pyrolysis waste stream.

 

you can use algae and sugar cane.

BUT

Lets hope we have cracked the hydrogen genie by then.

[Michaelangelica]

Yeah, Big Gav's a mate... another Sydney peak oiler.

 

I don't think that article answers the questions about how much fuel this could provide to the farming community though, and how dispersed the Biochar factories would have to be to make it fuel economical. How much biomass can those big-rigs carry to the factory, how far, using how much fuel, and then carry all the biochar and fuel back?

Good question that's why I would like to see mobile rigs.

 

Or factories with large amounts of waste to have their own plants.

 

Most council separate green waste now so we could have a plant at every council depot and the char milled fine and given to gardeners to save water, river-run-off-pollution ,and fertiliser. Milled fine it would be more difficlt to burn.

 

I notice my local Land Care Group harvests bags of weeds every week and 'tidies up' /collects things like fallen bits of tree etc. In effect they are harvesting from the land every week. Some charcoal could be given to Land Care Groups to make up for the lack of regular fires, & therefore charcoal, that the bush used to get.

 

How are we going to do farming if oil imports are cut by 50% over the next 10 years? (rationing)

How are we going to continue mining, farming, freight and construction of the next generation of renewable energy systems (including Biochar power-plants) if many nations hit as low as 1/5 their fuel in the same amount of time? (Australia peaked in 2000 and our oil production has plummeted! If we can't import... we're stuffed. Instant Greater Depression, just add water. Well, remove oil. )

You could of course collect bio-oil from the pyrolysis waste stream.

 

You can use algae and sugar cane.

BUT

Lets hope we have cracked the hydrogen genie by then.

 

If you think bio-char has problems,energy wise, look at this wacky idea from Professor Garaut!

How can people ignore Terra preta so profoundly?

Ross Garnaut has bush answer to climate change

Michael Stutchbury and Christian Kerr | September 30, 2008

On the eve of delivering his final report on climate change, Professor Garnaut said this would include so-called bio-sequestration, which could be as simple as revegetating much of Australia's marginal wheat and grazing land back to its original mulga coverage.

 

This could include a form of rotation in which parts of the revegetation would be chopped down and buried to store the carbon. "In this country there might be huge opportunities for doing that over the next 30 or 40 years," he told The Australian. "It basically could do the job for the next 20 to 30 years."

 

By absorbing carbon, such land restoration could help halve Australian emissions, he said. But this would require a change to the international rules for accounting for carbon use under emissions reduction schemes, which would provide monetary incentives for such measures.

Ross Garnaut has bush answer to climate change | The Australian

[Eclipse Now]

We can crack the water genie to get hydrogen, easy. But it's a non-starter because you take relatively expensive renewable electricity to produce 1/4 the energy in the car. At least batteries are about 50% efficient.

 

 

Maybe, just maybe we'll have government subsidies for farmers and essential trucking industries to do the uber-expensive hydrogen thang, if there's no other way. But I understand it's really going to cost society doing it that way.

 

Hydrogen will always be a premium fuel for the essential sectors, not you and I. We'll get around on dinky little EV's with a 120 km limit (before 5 hour recharge).

 

I was just hoping that we might have some of the alternative fuel for farmers here, in biochar fuel. (Biochar fuel will not power broader society or fill my 6 cylinder Mitsubishi wagon!)

[Michaelangelica]

Look at this Dingbat

Ross Garnaut has bush answer to climate change | The Australian

The guy who is supposed to present Australia's National and International views on global Warming!!!!!

The Lord Preserve us!!!!!

 

Opps, using Austrian again

DINGBAT = Dingbat:= a stupid person, such as someone who can't figure out what a dingbat is.

Toxic Custard Guide To Australia - Language and slang

[Eclipse Now]

Dingbat is great, but what is opps? With my army background I thought "opps" were something you did at night with Vegemite smeared all over your face. Oooops. Maybe that wasn't meant to be Vegemite, but you never know when you'll need to ward off drop-bears!

[Essay]

At the risk of being "on topic," I'm gonna post this here.

Sorry if I'm just repeating someone else's "news" from another thread, but I think this is....

Cornell Chronicle: Black carbon affects climate predictions

 

A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.

 

A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry.

 

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact. ....

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

...

"It's a mistake to look at soil as one blob of carbon," said Lehmann. "Rather, it has different chemical components with different characteristics. In this way, soil will interact differently to warming based on what's in it."

"...overestimating global warming predictions."

...maybe in this one area, but they're no doubt underestimating in other areas.

Not to be an apologist, but I just don't want quotes like the above to be used as "rock-solid evidence." No doubt it'll only be a few days....

 

Stuff like this is a part of a holistic undertanding of soil/climate dynamics,

yet to be fully discovered, IMHO.

 

~ :shrug:

 

p.s. I wouldn't have run across this link without a bit of web-wandering, motivated by

that great Nat.Geo. Link "Lost Cities of the Amazon."

Expedition Week | Lost Cities of the Amazon | National Geographic Channel

(1-2pm Sunday!)

 

Thanks all!!!

[Michaelangelica]

The Case for Burying Charcoal

 

Research shows that pyrolysis is the most climate-friendly way to consume biomass.

By Tyler Hamilton

 

* Audio »

o Listen - Flash

 

Carbon capture: Heating biomass such as wood pellets (right) in an oxygen-free environment produces char (left) and byproducts such as methane that can be burned.

 

Research shows that turning biomass into char and burying the char is a good way to avoid releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

 

 

Several states in this country and a number of Scandinavian countries are trying to supplant some coal-burning by burning biomass such as wood pellets and agricultural residue. Unlike coal, biomass is carbon-neutral, releasing only the carbon dioxide that the plants had absorbed in the first place.

 

But a new research paper published online in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy argues that the battle against global warming may be better served by instead heating the biomass in an oxygen-starved process called pyrolysis, extracting methane, hydrogen, and other byproducts for combustion, and burying the resulting carbon-rich char.

Technology Review: The Case for Burying Charcoal

:shrug::evil::)

Turning Slash into Cash

 

A portable plant might make it economical to transform huge amounts of logging "waste" into energy -- right in the forest.

Technology Review: Turning Slash into Cash

:):evil::)

Observing Buried Carbon Dioxide

 

A project proves that millions of tons of the sequestered gas can be safely monitored.

Technology Review: Observing Buried Carbon Dioxide

Really?

this is where the BIG money is until farmer's organisations get on the Terra preta bandwagon.

:hihi::evil::hihi:

[Michaelangelica]

Myth 10: all proposed solutions to climate change need to be hi-tech

 

The advanced economies are obsessed with finding hi-tech solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these are expensive and may create as many problems as they solve. Nuclear power is a good example.

But it may be cheaper and more effective to look for simple solutions that reduce emissions, or even extract existing carbon dioxide from the air.

There are many viable proposals to do this cheaply around the world, which also often help feed the world's poorest people.

One outstanding example is to use a substance known as biochar to sequester carbon and increase food yields at the same time.

 

Biochar is an astonishing idea. Burning agricultural wastes in the absence of air leaves a charcoal composed of almost pure carbon, which can then be crushed and dug into the soil.

Biochar is extremely stable and the carbon will stay in the soil unchanged for hundreds of years.

The original agricultural wastes had captured CO2 from the air through the photosynthesis process; biochar is a low-tech way of sequestering carbon, effectively for ever. As importantly, biochar improves fertility in a wide variety of tropical soils.

Beneficial micro-organisms seem to crowd into the pores of the small pieces of crushed charcoal. A network of practical engineers around the tropical world is developing the simple stoves needed to make the charcoal.

A few million dollars of support would allow their research to benefit hundreds of millions of small farmers at the same time as extracting large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

• Chris Goodall's new book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, is published by Profile books, priced £9.99.

The 10 big energy myths | Environment | The Guardian