"BAD"+ Charcoal ?

[Michaelangelica]

Pig iron plant in Argentina could cause environmental damage - Ms Alicia

 

BNamericas reported that the possible installation of a pig iron plant by Brazilian producer Vetorial Siderurgia in Argentina's El Chaco province could cause severe environmental damage.

 

Ms Alicia Terada a congresswoman from the province told BNamericas that "The plant would consume 180,000 tonne per year of charcoal from native forests. That would mean the destruction of about 400,000 trees each year.”

 

Ms Alicia said that "And in this case El Chaco province would contribute 100% of the charcoal resulting in major deforestation.”

SteelGuru - News

+

Greenpeace dumps charcoal to protest Iloilo coal plant - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

The right message to give??

[Michaelangelica]

Africa's Oldest National Park In Crisis

 

by Jon Hamilton

 

Listen Now [4 min 10 sec] add to playlist

Map of Virunga National Park

 

The Threat To Virunga

 

Watch a video from National Geographic about the problems facing Virunga National Park.

 

 

Conservationist Emmanuel de Merode Courtesy of WildlifeDirect

 

 

 

Weekend Edition Saturday, July 5, 2008 · One of the world's great wildlife sanctuaries is literally going up in smoke. The hardwood forests of Virunga National Park in Central Africa are being cut down to support a lucrative — and illegal — trade in charcoal. If the destruction continues at its present rate, most of the trees in southern Virunga will be gone in a decade.

 

Virunga, founded in 1925, includes the mountains where the late anthropologist Dian Fossey did her research for the book Gorillas in the Mist. But endangered mountain gorillas, several of which were recently found murdered execution-style, are just part of the story.

More at:-

Africa's Oldest National Park In Crisis : NPR

[Michaelangelica]

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf

 

Some quotes

a

proposal to use soils as a medium

for addressing climate change by

scaling up the use of biochar.

Unfortunately, like other such

schemes to engineer biological

systems, it is based on a

dangerously reductionist view of

the natural world, which fails to

recognize and accommodate

ecological complexity and variation.

PICTURE

Logs cut from Amazon rainforest to be turned into charcoal

near Ulianopolis, Brazil (http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/

forests/ amazon_destruction_speeds_up.htm)

"reductionist' is not how i would see this. For me it has opened up a whole new area of complexity and wonder. I never saw soil in the way I do now-a living dynamic interactive amazingly complex world. The NPK mantra is gone, organic is in.

The juxtaposition of of the photo of chopped amazonian trees is unfair. There are many souces of biochar feed eg from arecent post

Some Sources of waste/fuel for biochar.

Here i can speak only of my own area/county

• Council green "waste" --Locally tonnes and tonnes of green waste and wood offcuts (pallets, off cuts,building waste, flooring etc etc) are collected by the local council(small-outer suburban) on a daily basis.
  
• Storm waste-- A storm recently felled thousands of trees in my area. this ALL went to landfill. Much of my outer suburban area is being "developed" this usaually means taking most of the trees off the site.
  
• Intensive farming waste We have thousands of tonnes of chicken litter produced daily. with the recent(?) drought farmers were not using this for fertiliser.- Again into land-fill. I haven't even looked at pigs or cattle.
  
• Paper Mill waste- wile this is uneconomic as an energy producer, (as it is about 70% water) pyrolising it is preferable to methane producing land-fill --as happens now
  
• Wood-chips-- we cut down thousands of acres of forest, chip them and freight them to Japan for them to make origami (or char?)
  
• Sewerage waste.-- God knows what happens to this. Soon we will have to start harvesting all the water from it. Pyrolysis can do this with some tweaking. Heavy metals? Why? What industry is putting its waste in the sewer?
  
• Algae specially grown
  
• Seaweed- near me a lake is chocked with sea grass. I gather the same thing happens near lakes with urban, nutrient-rich run-off
  
• Plantations Char -After you have charred all the waste, then start growing trees for charcoal (something that has been done and is being done in UK--on a sustainable basis for thousands of years)
  or
  stop making wood-chips out of them. Charcoal is far more valuable to society. What ever happened to the "paperless office"?
  

 

‘Biochar’ advocates,

on the other hand, promote stripping

the land of ‘agricultural and forestry

residues’, which would greatly reduce

humus.

A perversion and corruption and twisting of the idea. Why? what special interest of yours does biochar threaten?

In fact much of the industry and research focus is on producing fertilizer made from a

combination of charcoal and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer Eprida claim that this could allow coal power plants “to reach target [CO2] reductions without reducing plant efficiencies”.5 This “enriched” biochar is then used as

a slow-release fertilizer. An innovative means for using biomass to create fertilizer, perhaps, but the underlying result is a so-called carbon capture and sequestration technology which will

perpetuate the use of coal and dangerously places absolute faith in the retention of carbon in

soils.

"Much" research? WPDYLO?

 

ACCS strategy that works! No celebration or jumping though hoops, popping champaigne corks This CCS solution "perpetuate the use of coal" and "dangerously places absolute faith in the retention of carbon"

 

There is no question that the carbon in biochar will eventually end up back in the atmosphere at some point in the future

.

Very true, but a little ingenuous and misleading perhaps?

‘Biochar’, like other bio-

sequestration technologies does nothing to stem the flow of fossil carbon into the biosphere.

No, that is the definition/meaning of "sequestration"?

In fact by reducing fertiliser use and run-off, improving soil productivity & eventually water holding capacity it does have a negative carbon effect.

 

A recent field study near Manaus, Brazil (one of the few published in

peer reviewed journals) found that charcoal mixed with synthetic fertilizer enhanced yields more than synthetic fertilizer alone, but the highest reported yields were obtained using solely chicken manure instead. Charcoal alone, actually suppressed plant growth completely after two harvests!3

.

The reference given "3" is for this article:-

Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil

Journal Plant and Soil

Publisher Springer Netherlands

ISSN 0032-079X (Print) 1573-5036 (Online)

Issue Volume 291, Numbers 1-2 / February, 2007

Category Original Paper

DOI 10.1007/s11104-007-9193-9

Pages 275-290

Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences

SpringerLink Date Friday, February 02, 2007

 

PDF (494.3 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Christoph Steiner1 , Wenceslau G. Teixeira2, Johannes Lehmann3, Thomas Nehls1, Jeferson Luis Vasconcelos de Macêdo2, Winfried E. H. Blum4 and Wolfgang Zech1

 

(1) Institute of Soil Science and Soil Geography, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany

(2) Embrapa Amazonia Ocidental, CP 319, Manaus, AM, 69011-970, Brazil

(3) Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

(4) Institute of Soil Research, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), 1180 Vienna, Austria

Received: 16 September 2006 Accepted: 2 January 2007 Published online: 2 February 2007

 

Abstract Application of organic fertilizers and charcoal increase nutrient stocks in the rooting zone of crops, reduce nutrient leaching and thus improve crop production on acid and highly weathered tropical soils.

In a field trial near Manaus (Brazil) 15 different amendment combinations based on equal amounts of carbon © applied through chicken manure (CM), compost, charcoal, and forest litter were tested during four cropping cycles with rice (Oryza sativa L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) in five replicates.

 

CM amendments resulted in the highest (P < 0.05) cumulative crop yield (12.4 Mg ha−1) over four seasons.

Most importantly, surface soil pH, phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) were significantly enhanced by CM.

 

A single compost application produced fourfold more grain yield (P < 0.05) than plots mineral fertilized in split applications.

 

Charcoal significantly improved plant growth and doubled grain production if fertilized with NPK in comparison to the NPK-fertilizer without charcoal (P < 0.05). The higher yields caused a significantly greater nutrient export in charcoal-amended fields, but available nutrients did not decrease to the same extent as on just mineral fertilized plots.

Exchangeable soil aluminum (Al) was further reduced if mineral fertilizer was applied with charcoal (from 4.7 to 0 mg kg−1).

The resilience of soil organic matter (SOM) in charcoal amended plots (8 and 4% soil C loss, mineral fertilized or not fertilized, respectively) indicates the refractory nature of charcoal in comparison to SOM losses over 20 months in CM (27%), compost amended (27%), and control plots (25% loss).

 

Keywords Black carbon - Brazil - Organic agriculture - Oxisol - Terra Preta de Indio

I don't have access to the full article, however the article abstract seems to praise charcoal not bury it (pardon the pun).

[Michaelangelica]

More hyperbole, half truths and distortion from the same authors as above.(Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch.)

Unfortunate, that this sort of emotive guff gets the headlines and the web.

Biochar is a case in point. The highly influential International Biochar Initiative, which seeks funding via the Clean Development Mechanism, is a hybrid of academics and industry. Biochar, essentially charcoal from burning plant material under low oxygen conditions, is being touted as a new way to sequester carbon in soil.

 

Indeed, the draft negotiating texts for the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December already include support for biochar. [3] “Even if biochar did sequester carbon effectively, which is far from clear, to contribute to mitigating climate change, we would need to char vast quantities of wood and plant matter, a demand that threatens the earth’s remaining biodiversity as well as communities living on so-called marginal lands,” argues Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch. [4] “Biochar, like other forms of black carbon, actually contributes to warming when it becomes airborne. In one recent Quebec field test, 30% of the biochar dust blew away during transport and as it was being spread over the fields and tilled into the soil. [5] This hasn’t been thought through at all.”

The ACTivist magazine - White Roofs, Black Dust And Slippery Slopes

 

Still more debating tricks, lack of logic and informed opinion here

http://asen.org.au/news/2009/03/26/asen-signs-onto-international-declaration-‘biochar’-a-new-big-threat-to-people-land-and-ecosystems/

Their comments in red, mine in blue

Proposals for ‘climate change mitigation’ through large-scale adoption of ‘biochar’ are a dangerous form of geo-engineering based on unfounded claims.

No not true.

A lobby group (the International Biochar Initiative) made up largely of startup ‘biochar’ and agrofuel companies and academics, many of them with related commercial interests, are behind the push for ‘biochar’. Their extremely bold claims are not founded in scientific understanding.

No not true.

+ It is not yet known whether charcoal in soil represents a ‘carbon sink’ at all. Industrial charcoal is very different from Terra Preta, the highly fertile and carbon-rich soils found in Central Amazonia which were created by indigenous peoples hundreds and even thousands of years ago. ‘Biochar’ companies and researchers have not been able to recreate Terra Preta.

No not true. charcoal is mostly carbon. if you bury it in a hole it stays there and sequesters CO2- probably for eons. This is basic chemistry. Yet you accuse 'biochar enthusiasts',of being 'unscientific'?

 

While no one has claimed to have replicated Brazillian terra preta, many have reported the usual good effects of adding char. increased crop yiedls, less water and fertiser use, less agricultural run off. The Amazonian Indians were adapting their soil to cope with specific environmental and local concerns (Tropical rainforest where it rains every afternoon and leaches soil nutrients). People in other parts of the world have learnt from the Brazillian indians.

People in Scandinavia may never duplicate BTP but they will gain insights into soil biochemistry if they research and play with charcoal or better char+oganic carbon +clay; +or- fertiliser; + or- humates &biological agents.

+ ‘Biochar’ advocates are promoting ‘targets’ which would require the use of 500 million hectares or more of land to be used for producing charcoal plus energy. Industrial monocultures of fast growing trees and other feedstocks for the pulp and paper industry and for agrofuels are already creating severe social and environmental impacts which worsen climate change. This very large new demand for ‘biochar’ would greatly exacerbate these problems.

No not true. Which particular advocate are we talking about and why do you assume he/she talks for everybody interested in this concept/idea? You make an untrue stement and then extrapolate it "This very large new demand" making it sound much worse. This is just a debater's trick. Try to be honest. This is too important to be playing power games.'

+ There is a risk that ‘biochar’ could in future be used to promote the development of genetically engineered (GE) tree varieties specifically engineered for ‘biochar’ production or to try and extend the range of fast-growing trees, both of which could have very serious ecological impacts.

As above, You make an untrue stement and then extrapolate it making it sound much worse.

+ There is no consistent evidence that charcoal can be relied upon to make soil more fertile. Industrial charcoal production at the expense of organic matter needed for making humus could have the opposite results.

No not true.

[Michaelangelica]

Ron Larson from the biochar policy listserv (Yahoo), has kindly given me permission to reproduce his reply to the RS Report. I have been unable to find afull web text of the report myself

Biochar-policy list:

 

There has been a lot of discussion on the Royal Society (RS) “analysis” of Biochar. I like most everything everyone has said about this report – and apologize for going over some old ground. Here I want to concentrate on the back-up citations (and lack thereof) that they use to justify their conclusions – the RS citations are as poor as those BFW uses. I intend this to be a partial answer to Nando's question on what we can do about the report. I have started this to help in the rebuttal of BFW's points – but frankly found little help from the Royal Society.

 

For the convenience of others, I include everything on Biochar that I could find – with notes following each. I would welcome others chiming in (especially to disagree).

 

p xii: “Techniques that sequester carbon but have land-use implications (such

as biochar and soil based enhanced weathering) may be

useful contributors on a small-scale although the

circumstances under which they are economically viable

and socially and ecologically sustainable remain to be

determined.”

[RWL: This (single) summary sentence is certainly not a strong endorsement, but it is not a complete slam either. It is an adequate summary of what the report says about Biochar – but not at all a valid statement of present knowledge on Biochar production.]

 

p 11: “In contrast to bioenergy with CO2 sequestration,

there is relatively little peer-reviewed literature about

biomass for sequestration, though there appears to be

growing interest in the biochar process (discussed later

in this section).”

[RWL: I will try to look further, but am guessing the RS authors just didn't think they needed to look very hard for Biochar citations. There is indeed a fair number of references on BECs – but those are older and not as much happening now I think. (But I haven't yet tried to prove this.)

…....

 

[RWL: This next section 2.22. starts with the word “Biochar”, but contains a lot more – that has made for big errors in many places. Section 2.2.1 was on Land use management, afforestation, reforestation and avoidance of deforestation (which arguably all forest-related biochar should be including as well) – and Section 2.2.3 was on weathering. The point in this section title is that they have mixed up Biochar with a lot of totally unrelated topics! (Below I have inserted paragraph numbers like (1) – so that we on this list can communicate about them more easily.

 

p11 2.2.2 Biochar and biomass-related methods

 

(1) “As terrestrial vegetation grows it removes large quantities

of carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis.

When the organisms die and decompose, most of the carbon

they stored is returned to the atmosphere. There are four

ways in which the growth of biomass may be harnessed

to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2 (Keith 2001).

1. Land Carbon Sinks. Carbon may be sequestered in situ

in soil or as standing biomass, as discussed above in

Section 2.2.1.

2. Bioenergy & Biofuels. Biomass may be harvested and

used as fuel so that CO2 emissions from the fuel’s use

are (roughly) balanced by CO2 captured in growing

the energy crops. The use of bioenergy and biofuels

(Royal Society 2008a) is considered to be a means of

reducing emissions, rather than geoengineering and

is not considered further here.

3. Bioenergy with CO2 capture and sequestration (BECS).

Biomass may be harvested and used as fuel, with

capture and sequestration of the resulting CO2; for

example, one may use biomass to make hydrogen or

electricity and sequester the resulting CO2 in geological

formations.

4. Biomass for sequestration. Biomass may be harvested

and sequestered as organic material, for example, by

burying trees or crop wastes, or as charcoal (biochar).

Bioenergy with CO2 sequestration (BECS) builds directly

on existing technology for bioenergy/biofuels and for CCS,

and inherits the advantages and dis advantages of both of

these technologies. There is no doubt that it is technically

feasible, and there are already some small real-world

examples (Keith 2001; Obersteiner et al. 2001; IPCC 2005).

It is again not necessarily or normally regarded as

geoengineering, and has been reviewed in some detail

by the IPCC (2005). However, BECS has much in common

with some other methods considered here, and has

therefore been included for comparison purposes,

but is not reviewed in detail (see Table 2.3).”

 

[RWL1: Note that all of the previous long paragraph (with 6 references) has nothing to do with Biochar – and they continue to get all mixed up in the following.}

 

(2) Sequestration of biomass and biochar have been

proposed as a method for intervening in the natural

cycle so that some or all of the carbon fixed by organic

matter can be stored in soils or elsewhere for hundreds

or thousands of years. For example, it has been proposed

to bury wood and agricultural waste both on land and

in the deep ocean to store the carbon rather than

allow decomposition to return it to the atmosphere

(Submission: Mark Capron; Submission: Newcastle

University; Submission: Ning Zeng; Strand & Benford

2009). In contrast to bioenergy with CO2 sequestration,

there is relatively little peer-reviewed literature about

biomass for sequestration, though there appears to be

growing interest in the biochar process (discussed later

in this section).

[RWL2: This whole paragraph is also non-Biochar. The last sentence re “growing interest” says to me they had already decided to ignore Biochar – too little past interest to put much time on the topic. None of these three additional references are on Biochar I believe (can't check – since they are not in the lsit of references. I think they are all related to burial of “pure” biomass (not char).]

 

(3) “ Methods involving burying biomass in the land or deep

ocean will require additional energy consumption for

transport, burying and processing. Most seriously, the

processes involved may disrupt growth, nutrient cycling

and viability of the ecosystems involved. In the deep

ocean, for example, organic material would be

decomposed and the carbon and nutrients returned to

shallow waters, since oxygen is generally present (unless

sufficient material were deposited to create anoxic

conditions, which would constitute a major ecosystem

perturbation). Full assessments are not yet available to

assess the costs and benefits involved but it seems unlikely

that this will be a viable technique at any scale that could

usefully reduce atmospheric carbon”.

[RWL3: Still haven't started Biochar (still on burial)– but they seem to be using this last negative sentence elsewhere as it relates to Biochar.

 

(4) Biochar (charcoal) is created when organic matter

decomposes, usually through heating, in a low- or zero

oxygen environment (Lehmann et al. 2006; Submission:

Peter Read; Submission: UK Biochar Research Centre).

Known as pyrolysis, the decomposition process produces

both biochar and biofuels (syngas and bio-oil). As the

carbon atoms in charcoal are bound together much more

strongly than in plant matter, biochar is resistant to

decomposition by micro-organisms and locks in the carbon

for much longer time periods. The range of potential raw

materials (‘feedstocks’) for creating biochar is wide,

including, for example, wood, leaves, food wastes, straw,

and manure, and it is also claimed that addition of biochar

to soils can improve agricultural productivity. Biochar is

therefore sometimes proposed as an answer to a number

of different problems, since it draws down and locks up

atmospheric carbon, it can improve crop yields, and

it creates biofuels, a renewable energy source. How

effectively it achieves each of these goals, at what costs,

and with what wider impacts, will determine the influence

biochar can have as a geoengineering technology.

[RWL4: The three references here are probably OK – but we can't easily get at two of them. Nothing wrong with this paragraph – but the last sentence sounds like they will decide negatively. The remainder of this section does not try to answer each of these questions.]

 

 

(5) One of the key questions regarding biochar is whether it is

better to ‘bury or burn?’. It remains questionable whether

pyrolysing the biomass and burying the char has a greater

impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels than simply

burning the biomass in a power plant and displacing

carbon-intensive coal plants (Keith & Rhodes 2002;

Metzger et al. 2002; Strand & Benford 2009). Submissions

to this study (UK Biochar Research Centre) suggest that

biochar production may in some circumstances be

competitive with use of the biomass as fuel.

[RWL5: The first three references are totally on non-Biochar topics – from persons who hae never written on Biochar. This is therefore totally bogus arguing. These three references are on BECs. The last “submission” is likely to be positive – but no way to tell here. (One can ask for copies – and I will.)

 

(6) The residence time of carbon converted to biochar in soils,

and the effect on soil productivity of adding large loadings

of char is uncertain (Submission: Biofuelwatch). It is

known, for example from archaeological sites that charcoal

can have a residence time of hundreds or thousands of

years in soils. However, the conditions of pyrolysis may

affect both the yield of char and its long-term stability in

the soil (Submission: UK Biochar Research Centre) and

further research is required.

[RWL6: Here is the bogus citation from BFW. (Note that BFW also cites Lehmann and Read repeatedly – but never to prove their point. ) The RS could have cited IBI, the CSIRO report, or maybe the last “submission” - and learned that ONLY BFW is talking questionable lifetimes. Note there is no mention here anywhere of Terra Preta soils. Similarly there are plenty of papers out there talking of huge “loadings”, and ONLY BFW arguing a problem. (RS has ignored the previous two citations [ Lehmann and Read.] This shows a poor research job by some unknown and un-named author who doesn't know the Biochar subject matter. So far we have two respected (but ignored on every topic) Biochar experts (Lehmann and Read), a “submission” of unknown [to me] author and character (cited three times) and 4 bogus references.]

 

(7) Proponents of biomass for sequestration argue that very

large rates of sequestration are in principle achievable.

For example, Lehmann et al. (2006), quote a potential

carbon sink of 5.5 to 9.5 GtC/yr by 2100, larger than the

present day fossil fuel source (and approaching 10% of

global primary production by plants). Such fluxes suppose

that there will be enormous growth in the resources

devoted to the production of biofuels, and that some

large fraction of this carbon would be converted to

biochar. The use of crops for renewable fuels on such a

scale would very likely conflict with the use of agricultural

land for the production of food and/or biofuels.

[RWL7: The use of terms like “will very likely” is exactly the approach of BFW. No citations. They totally ignore Lehmann when they later decide how much Biochar can contribute.]

 

 

(8) As summarised in Table 2.4 biomass for sequestration

could be a significant small-scale contributor to a

geoengineering approach to enhancing the global

terrestrial carbon sink, and it could, under the right

circumstances, also be a benign agricultural practice.

However, unless the sustainable sequestration rate

exceeds around 1 GtC/yr, it is unlikely that it could make

a large contribution. As is the case with biofuels, there

is also the significant risk that inappropriately applied

incentives to encourage biochar might increase the

cost and reduce the availability of food crops, if growing

biomass feedstocks becomes more profitable than

growing food.

[RWL8: Table2.4 is given below. (Other tables follow that also refer to Biochar - about the same flavor.) There is no description I could find of who did the “voting” on these numbers – which I take exception to below. The term “small-scale” totally ignores (without explanation) the previous paragraph large numbers given by Lehmann. The term “benign” denies the existence of strong productivity increases - that again ONLY BFW denies – and are proved by the (incontrovertible) terra preta soil evidence (factor of 300% difference there). Last sentence- no citations or proof on the food vs fuel argument – which Biochar advocates (like me) feel are sure to tilt the other way, given the already-proven productivity increases.]

 

(9) Biochar and other forms of sequestered biomass have not

yet been adequately researched and characterised, and so

should not be eligible for carbon credits under the

UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until there is a reliable

system in place for verifying how much carbon is stored,

and the wider social and environmental effects have been

determined. Substantial research will be required to

achieve these conditions for methods other than BECS

[RWL9: This is straight out of the BFW play book (BFW being Biochar's only detractor with a written document). CSIRO came to the opposite conclusion with about 50 times as many references as used here.

The UNCCD and numerous countries did (including Australia – a world leader in the research the author of this section knows nothing about). The idea that there is no reliable system for verification would be laughable if not so sad.

The whole concept of a world-wide soil crisis that can be alleviated with Biochar is totally missing in this paragraph and the whole study. (Also missing is any sense of a climate urgency.)

The last sentence, implying that BECS alone needs no research, is truly amazing – and clearly identifies the prejudices of the author of these nine short paragraphs.

 

 

Table 2.4. Biochar summary evaluation table (slightly revised formatting)

Biochar

“Effectiveness = Low Limited by plant productivity and conflicts over land use with agriculture and biofuels

Burning biochar (in place of fossil fuels) may be preferable to burying it

[RWL: Their justifications show they aren't thinking wastes (the term “waste” is never mentioned – as with BFW, who can only conceive of cutting down virgin forests.). They are not considering the increased productivity of the soil that will help both agriculture and biofuels. They have made no case for the second statement – which is based on three references that had nothing to do with Biochar. There is no mention anywhere of N2O control, lower fertilizer consumption, etc, etc.

I would personally rank Biochar “High” on effectiveness.]

 

Affordability= Low Similar to biofuels (NB costs of fertilisers and transportation).

[RWL: No evidence given anywhere on Biochar costs – they have pulled this conclusion out of the blue. There is not even a comparison to BECS – which certainly seems much higher cost and much higher risk. The inclusion of both fertilisers and transportation costs should be viewed as positives for Biochar.

I rank Biochar “Medium” on Affordability – except in developing countries where even a small wage can be significant – where I rank Biochar “High”.]

 

Timeliness = Low Slow to reduce global temperatures (CDR method)

Substantial prior research required to investigate efficacy and impacts

[RWL: “CDR=Carbon Dioxide Removal”. The RS gives all CDR methods a low ranking in regard to temperatures – and Biochar is certainly slower than some things one could do to reduce temperature (all of which would lead to continuing ocean acidification, etc.) Biochar appears to me to be the fastest of the CDR approaches. IBI shows one wedge in less than 25 years – which is hugely fast.

The word “substantial” is meaningless if we took the climate problem seriously. We have huge numbers of trained soil scientists and farmers (half the world's population?) ready to go – unlike the trained staff for most technologies.

I would rank Biochar “High” in the CDR-timeliness category (the only one that should be under discussion) and “Medium” when compared to the other (faster) approaches.]

 

Safety = Medium Potential land-use conflicts (food versus growth of biomass for fuel).

Long-term effects on soils not yet known.

[RWL: The first rationale is identical to the first given above (land-use conflicts) – and just as bogus.

The long-term effects of Biochar in soils are adequately known – based on millennia of experience with terra preta in the Amazon and centuries of experience in Japan. There have been a very few reports of reduced productivity – but these are sure to disappear as soil scientists work with this new (to them) product, with soils and plants common to each part of the world.

I rank Biochar “High” in the Safety category.

 

 

Section 2.4 Discussion (p 19)

 

[RWL: The following paragraph is preceded by several not dealing with Biochar.]

 

(2.4) “Methods such as BECS, biomass burial and biochar, which

use biomass to sequester carbon, appear to have relatively

low cost, with moderate and predictable environmental

impacts and low-to-medium risk of unanticipated effects.

However, unless deployed on a very large scale, the carbon

sequestration potential is moderate, and there would be

competition with biofuels and agriculture for use of

available land. However the carbon sequestered by

biomass burial and biochar has value as fuel, and it could

be preferable to use this and displace fossil fuels such as

coal, at least until abundant low-carbon energy becomes

available. Land use management (afforestation and

reforestation) for carbon sequestration purposes is a low

risk approach that in addition to having climate benefits

could also provide economic, social and other environmental

benefits. The carbon sequestration potential is however

small to moderate.

 

[RWL2.4: The first sentence is more positive than the earlier descriptions – perhaps because Biochar is again (unfortunately) linked with two other quite dissimilar approaches (neither BECS nor burial have any productivity benefits and both are much riskier). The other sentences are repetitive of earlier statements. No credit is given to Biochar for being a valuable way to manage the afforestation and reforestation approaches to achieve greater sequestration (that is – as a forest or plantation gets older, its sequestration potential can be maintained by coupling with Biochar).]

 

Table 2-9

[RWL2-9: The third row of Table 2-9 compares Biochar with 8 other options, for a one-wedge (1 GT C/yr) application saying about it first that the categories of a) cost, :eek_big: impact of anticipated environmental effects, and c) risk of unanticipated environmental effects all ranked as “Medium”. I would rank the last two as “Low”.

The “ultimate constraint” is given as “Supply of agricultural / forestry waste

The Maximum sequestration potential was given as 10 to 50 ppm of CO2. This may have come from a quite pro-Biochar cross-cutting geo-engineering reference by Tim Lenton (not cited in connection with Biochar, so Lenton's pro-Biochar position is never made known). I think 10 ppm is much too low; 50 ppm was only exceeded by 50-150 ppm for BECS – which seems absurdly high.

The final column gave a valuable reference: Gaunt & Lehmann (2008) – but no statement is made about the pro-Biochar conclusions of this paper.]

 

Section 5 - Discussion

[RWL – 5 Section 5 is termed “Discussion”, with a key feature being a comparison table (Table 5-1) and graph. Biochar is listed as warranting a “2” (in a range of 1 to 5, with 5 being best and 2 being “poor”) for four categories: Effectiveness, Affordability, Timeliness, Safety. This was third worst total out of twelve technologies. My rankings would have been three 4's and a 5, for a total of 17 (moved to highest). The RS' largest total was 15 – for “CCS at Source”, followed by two 14's for “afforestation” and “aerosols”.

 

They also plotted the first (Effectiveness) and second (Affordability” against each other. Biochar came in next to last (second closest to the origin). My scoring would have Biochar tied with :”stratospheric aerosols” (which I would have placed near the bottom.

 

I give these details to show that I think Biochar never had a chance in these rankings. The rankings were made by some unknown group – that seems not to have had familiarity with the Biochar benefits (I think Biochar was the only one on the list with two (much less three) big economic streams (besides the presumed cost reimbursement for the geoengineering aspect) and neither feature of Biochar was even mentioned.

 

Other:

[RWL: In section 5.3.1 on technical feasibility and risks, they said:

 

“CDR techniques that sequester carbon but have land-use

implications (such as biochar and soil-based enhanced

weathering) may make a useful contribution, but this may

only be on a small scale, and research is required to find out

the circumstances under which they would be economically

viable and socially and ecologically sustainable.”

[RWL: Research will be useful, but I think the potential is already well established – especially from the terra preta evidence. The words “may make” and “research is required” show a lack of experience in the Biochar area.]

 

In Section 5.4.1, on Governance, they say:

 

“The commercial sector has already demonstrated an

interest in geoengineering and active investment in the

development of some methods is now occurring (eg,

biochar, ocean fertilisation, cloud enhancement and air

capture). Such activities create the risk that geoengineering

activity may be driven by profit motives rather than climate

risk reduction. Provision will be needed in governance

frameworks for international authorisation, monitoring,

verification and certification so as to reduce risks and

deficiencies that may result.”

[RWL: It appears here that existing start-up commercial activity is a negative (an influence by BFW?). I'll bet that Biochar is already in front of the three other technologies in terms of commercial interest – even though the newest entry to the field, with possibly only two Biochar companies even 3 years ago?]

 

 

In Box 5.1 Research priorities (p 63), they write:

 

“Biochar: Effectiveness and residence time of carbon in soils,

effects on soil productivity, influence of conditions of pyrolysis

on yield and stability. Resource requirements (eg, land, feedstock)

and implications for other land-uses. Potential co-benefits of biochar

for water, biodiversity, soil fertility, agricultural production;

 

[RWL: I have no complaints about these research priorities, but think that emphasis is missing on large scale field trials. I believe enough is known in all these areas to justify inclusion in Copenhagen. The RS places a surprisingly small emphasis on the question of climate urgency.

 

In Section 6.1 labeled “The Future of Geoengineering”, there is a box also labeled “The Future of Geengineering”, with Biochar specifically mentioned in entry 1.2 under Recommendation 1:

 

“1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering

methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation

should not be formally accepted as methods for

addressing climate change under the UNFCCC

flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon

residence time and impacts have been determined

and found to be acceptable.”

[RWL: I feel that Biochar is far from “untested” (given especially the terra preta evidence – on ALL of the criteria given (effectiveness, residence time, and impacts). I cannot recall hearing of a single negative impact that should/could be a show-stopper.]

Similarly for Section 6.2 on “Method”:

 

“Techniques that sequester carbon but have land-use

implications (such as biochar and soil based enhanced

weathering) may make a useful contribution at a small

scale but require further assessment of their life cycle

effectiveness, economic viability, and social and

ecological sustainability.”

[RWL: This is almost the same (unsupported) litany as in Section 6.1 – and the same answers can be given. The RS staff have obviously done little research; they offer no citations or logic for their conclusions – which in fact are contradicted by the references they do cite.]

 

[RWL: For the next several subsections, there is no specific mention of Biochar – but there is some guidance on avoiding some technologies - guidance that was not utilized in the point scoring.]

 

From Section 6.7 on R&D: “The economic

viability and social and ecological sustainability of those

CDR techniques that sequester carbon but do have

land-use implications (such as biochar and soil based

enhanced weathering) should also be investigated.”

[RWL: This seems to imply that the land-use implications are negative, where the overwhelming evidence is that large soil productivity gains are available – whereas CCS and BECS – with obvious concerns on legal liability is given a free pass. ]

 

 

Other (Omissions):

 

1. [RWL: Biochar can play a huge role in control of N2O and CH4, but there is no mention of this big advantage (in fact there is likelihood the authors didn't even know of this advantage of Biochar. as can be seen in this quote from p1:

 

“Note that while it would theoretically also be possible for

geoengineering methods to remove greenhouse gases

other than CO2 from the atmosphere (eg, methane (CH4),

nitrous oxide (N2O)), most if not all of the methods

proposed so far focus on CO2 which is long-lived, and

present at a relatively high concentration, and so these are

the focus in this report.”

and from p 9:

“Reducing the emissions of other greenhouse gases such

as CH4, N2O or ground level O3 is also of great importance

for addressing climate change (eg, Richardson et al. 2009).

Geoengineering methods for removing these gases from

the atmosphere for this purpose are in principle possible

but have not yet been developed, and so are not

considered in this report.”

[RWL: If a Biochar-knowledgeable individual had been active in preparing this analysis, they would surely have found a way to acknowledge this major capability of Biochar (and water and nutrient retention, waste disposal, etc) in these two sentences (and similar on pgs 52 and 61).]

 

I have run out of time to look for other omissions, but believe there are plenty. The number of valid citations for the Biochar paragraphs is much lower than that for the other major Geoengineering technologies. Perhaps Biochar was just added as a late afterthought. That is the way it reads. Ron Larson, 4 September, 2009

[newbiocharland]

You must read this

“The Biochar Revolution” with “The Biochar Solution”

The Biochar Revolution collects the results and best practical advice that these entrepreneurs have to offer to the biochar community. When practice and theory advance to the point where they meet in the middle, then we will truly see a biochar revolution.