Re: Mainstreaming biochar awarenss... still failing?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
As always, thanks for your thoughtful responses to my from the hip comments. Still, I will try to disagree, albeit gently, below, although I will admit that, no, I just banged out my response to the article without a thought to copying it for myself and posterity. Sorry, if they don't publish it, it will gone forever.
Re your thoughts and questions, first, many of your observations both go way beyond my ken and point to the huge divide between developed and developing world. My reference to $2-$3 a tonne is strictly to the expected cost of production in the developing world at facilities such as large timber mills. I know from personal experience that biochar can be produced in the field by small farmers around the world for $165 a tonne or less, approximately $55 a tonne of CO2 sequestered, atomic weight. This price is, I suspect, quite high, as it is the Thai price. I will be in Ghana in December and will have a rural Ghanaian price then. By then, I should also have a Malawian price. My bet is that they will run about $100 a tonne or $35 per tonne of CO2 sequestered.
These are current prices at farm gate. I have no idea how they might be discounted looking into the future nor do I have any idea what various environmental or climate or government schemes in the developed world might make this char worth. Here the stuff is just fancy charcoal. As a practical matter, however, I have never seen carbon capture prices at a commercial scale much below $32 a tonne, the best asserted price I have seen for the dubious practice of pumping liquid CO2 down old oil wells. Whatever the MIT Technology Review may reveal about future possibilities for new technologies, I have not seen any I would invest in yet or that I would bet on operating commercially within a decade. In the interim, there are billions of tonnes of crop waste to char in the developing world at very low costs.
Regards your gentle chiding:
a) There is not a race. There are no other real contenders - and still biochar is largely unknown. In this, I am not kidding. There may be interesting carbon capture R&D taking place, but there is nothing out there now nor is there anything on the horizon. Commercialization of better-than-biochar carbon removal technologies is a distant future prospect, real but distant future - as in gigatonnes of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere. Forests? Oceans? Dead or dying. No future hope.
b) There is no reason for biochar to be a loss-maker. The failure to make markets in decontamination (consider the post-Florence mess of coal ash spill to say nothing of acid discharge from mines around the world), filtration (and not necessarily for drinking but for irrigation), industry (following Haliiburton's switch to biochar as its feedstock for carbon black or biochar nanoparticles for computer cartridges), etc.) is not proof that biochar needs to be loss-making.
c) True, biochar will take off when there are financial incentives. Remember switch grass! But if we wait for the politicians and policy makers, the Greenland icecap will slide into the sea.
d) Biochar is just not THAT complex. Yes, yes, yes. But when you are talking about 90% of the arable land in the world, it is very hard to imagine doing harm by adding biochar. This stuff is not Iowa. Acrisols. Lithosols. Nitisols. A loot of what is farmed is classified as too bad to farm! Add too much biochar? If only. And there are innumerable other ways to use biochar up besides putting it in the soil. Biochar is a great cement additive and cement is a huge climate change problem. Why not figure that one out and add a few million tonnes of char to big building projects? Just bury the stuff. What the hell. Biochar is 20% the volume of urban landfill. Pyrolyze it and bury five times as much for the price. Bury it on top of old dumps and it will collect GHGs for you. Bury it around them and it will soak up leachates. But don't bar its use in all manner of practical, dumb applications because it's complicated.
e) These guys don't have to follow the rapid production of articles. Most of it is what Kuhn called "normal science" that is, the extension of stuff we already know. There are very, very few important breakthroughs that change our understanding of biochar's essential functioning. These get a lot of play and anyone in the world climate space ought to catch them. The rest are for the specialists.
f) So it is difficult to model biochar? This may or may not be true, I am in no position to comment. But what if it is? So what? We pay modellers to model, whether it is hard or not. The real question here is how important are models? To put it differently, do we have to wait for the model before we take action? Yes, that seems to be the case today. We have models that show us that continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere is bad, so we have developed policies to slow our emissions. Unfortunately, although we know perfectly well that there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, without models of how exactly removing CO2 from the atmosphere would help us, we cannot develop policy to support that end.
As we head off the cliff, I must say, that I find this incomprehensible understood as "making no sense in the real world." I understand that it makes perfect political, bureaucratic and funding agency sense, but while as a trained social scientist I "understand" this, I still find it incomprehensible at a gut level.
And I still do not understand why the large "development" organizations with a mandate at least to think about the developing world, do not have biochar promotion policies. Talk about an audience that we have failed to get to.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:27 AM Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote: