toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Needless to say, I am with Paul on this.
I believe that what we lack is not the need, but the way - an frankly, I believe that Paul's solution is a good one. Perfect? Who knows. But it is here and now and backed by hard working, serious and dedicated people. We could all wait until someone finds a million dollars to test 25 alternatives, but (1) what of all the CO2 needlessly released in the meantime and (2) will the new system be so good as to catch that up in the future?
I say go.
And as for free? Community minded friends of the earth? No happening. In the developing workd where 80% of the world's people live, no one has the disposable labor to be able to hand over.
This system needs to produce a revenue stream big enough to pay the poor enough to make and bury the char AND pay those necessary to monitor the production and sequestration. The world will require both. The market doubts. The whole point of the blockchain is to make it absolutely clear that all this is on the up and up. This is neither about simply shifting excess CO2 production to parts of the world that don't produce "enough" nor is it about projecting what might be being sequestered. This is about observing specific people using known technology to remove known amounts of CO2 and then actually put it in the ground.
I say go.
I am in the midst of writing up how we are going to do it here and document what we are doing.
I strongly suggest that any of the rest of you who are making and "losing" char in the soil or otherwise permanently document what you are doing and get it into the system.
| || || |
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders@...
Tomaso, Tom, and many others,
I really like the comments by Tomaso (below) and encourage you to read them (if you have not already done so.) Carbon that is sequestered as biochar should receive financial rewards. My comments are about HOW to do that.
The UNFCC and Gold Standard and other mechanisms for selling carbon credits do not allow for recognition and financial compensation for char into soil. So, for the near and medium future, that avenue is not open to us.
However, VOLUNTARY contributions for carbon OFFSETS (accomplished CO2e reduction but without recognition as carbon CREDITS) is possible. People can put their money wherever they want to spend it. (Governments and large corporations that need official CREDITS cannot.)
The need is for a mechanism of reasonable documentation and proof of carbon being extracted from the atmosphere (plant growth and then pyrolysis yields charcoal) AND THEN the charcoal going into the soil. This is an ideal situation for the use of blockchain (distributed ledger technology, not the application for cryptocoins). Immutable records are created and used with appropriate third-party verification and certification. This is done with appropriate charcoal that becomes available to be sold.
This is precisely what is being implemented in these final months of 2018 for a project in West Bengal, India. The project is called “H500” because it is 500 TLUD char-producing cookstoves in the community of Hingalganj. This project is separate from (but similar to) the TLUD stove project commonly known by the name “Deganga”.
The H500 project (and rights to the carbon offset value) is operated by Juntos Energy Solutions NFP that Paul Anderson founded and manages. The blockchain development work is by Bitmaxim (software entity of James S. Schoner with Anderson sponsorship). The infield operations are conducted by Sapient (of Moulindu Banerjee) in West Bengal.
The initial carbon creation activities (with blockchain support) are already underway, with expected initial offerings for sale of charcoal-specific carbon OFFSETS to be in January 2019.
The destination of the charcoal is yet to be determined. It can be sold for combustion (if used in incense sticks) or it could be sold for biochar objectives. There is no current biochar project in the H500 area, but in neighboring Bangladesh there is success with biochar in fields.
A. I am in contact with Dr. Michael Shafer about the possible use in Thailand of the what Juntos and Bitmaxim are accomplishing with blockchain.
B. Any other applications of the blockchain-for-charcoal methodology will be considered. The essential component is that there must be a verifiable sequenced (a chain) of actions that can be irrefutably recorded. For the H500 and Thailand efforts, it is the creation of charcoal and its eventual disposition.
1. If this fits into the presentations for COP24, feel free to use this information.
2. A presentation about this application of blockchain technology is proposed for the ETHOS conference in the Seattle area on 25 – 27 January 2019, but in the context of financing of TLUD improved cookstoves.
3. Anyone interested in funding a biochar project near Hingalganj is encouraged to contact me.
4. Anyone interested in the purchase of carbon OFFSETS from the stove project and / or the charcoal aspects should contact me.
5. Anyone interested in “entry level” serious investment into the blockchain development (Bitmaxim, not the Juntos project), should contact me.
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@...psanders@...> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:02 AM
To: biochar@...; 'Tom Miles' <usbiochar@...>
Cc: 'Albert Bates' <albert@...>
Subject: R: [biochar] Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch
We should also focus on scalability and appropriateness of technology and massive horizontal scalability
This video https://youtu.be/j5jo4yC6H1g is quite long but shows very well a small sized operation of circular bioeconomy based on sustainable plantations, biomass, biochar, tar, wood vinegar cycled back in the soil and farming operations
If you are in a hurry just skip the introduction and look the Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage part of the story https://youtu.be/j5jo4yC6H1g?t=490
At any scale piro-gassification can improve the wellbeing of a community
1. Earth troughs, kon-tikis, … flame cap / flame curtain (FC) > reduce emission – produce biochar
2. Community and home Stoves 10-100 Kg per day > produce energy - reduce emission – produce biochar
3. Batch units – such as the one in the video 500 - 1000 Kg per day > produce energy - reduce emission – produce biochar
4. Continuous units (such as the one produced by BiokW, carbofex, pyreg ) – 100-1000 Kg per hour > produce energy - reduce emission – produce biochar
5. Larger plants 1000 – 10000 Kg per hour > produce energy - reduce emission – produce biochar – biorefinery
All these processes are self-sustainable without compensation for the positive externalities they generate on the Global Climate
1. reduced emissions from decomposing \ or infield burning of biomass (estimated at 1550 ton of CO2eq for each 1000 ton of biomass that is gasified or burned rather than rotten\decomposed on the ground)
2. substitution of carbon emissions from fossil fuels displaced by the bioenergy generated in the process
3. sequestration of carbon in the form of biochar (3 times of CO2eq the dry weight of the biochar to stay on the safe side)
Nevertheless the positive externalities are produced through the avoided emissions of CO2eq and the sequestration of CO2eq therefore they should be compensated like any other externality at market price
No one will move only for the compensation, I’ll quote the recent email from Tom to challenge the reasoning
Can we afford to sequester carbon with biochar? The recent study assumed costs of $10, $50 and $100/Mg CO2. If it takes 400 kg of biochar to sequester a tonne of CO2 then $100 puts the value of the biochar at about $0.25/kg or $0.12/lb ($240/ton, $30/CY). That’s 30%-40% of the current US market value or about $80-$100/CY. Tom
No one should make biochar just to sequester CO2 … it make no economic sense
Yet anyone making and using biochar should be able to certify the process and participate in the CO2 emissions market currently trading around 15-20 euro / ton
If a volunteer organization or a farmers community engages people that manually \ physically ollect 1000 ton of waste biomass from the local Urban and Perurban Forests (parks, rivers, … ) generating 1550 ton of avoided emissions
They should be able to trade those avoided emissions and gain what ever the value like any other market operator earning little over 23’000 euro
If a farmer purchases or home produces 350 tons of biochar to use in her fields permanently sequestering 1000 ton of CO2 earning something like 15’000 euro
For the farmer the reason to put the biochar in the soil is not the CO2 credit … she will look at water retention, pH, SOM, … but nevertheless she should be compensated at market price for the Sequestration externality
This, in my opinion, is what you should explain and ask at COP24
Da: biochar@...biochar@...> <biochar@...biochar@...>>
Inviato: domenica 25 novembre 2018 00:29
A: biochar <biochar@...biochar@...>>; Tom Miles <usbiochar@...<mailto:usbiochar@...>>
Cc: Albert Bates <albert@...albert@...>>
Oggetto: Re: [biochar] Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Ronal W. Larson included below]
Tom cc List and Albert
This to respond to your query below "What should we pitch?" (at COP24).
I am partly responding also after visiting this site:
which is devoted to improved selling of climate change policy. They make one main point - have people in your photos. Unfortunately, that site has few pictures of biochar. So trying to kill 2 birds with one stone, here is a start - based on my perceptions about biochar of the likely biases of COP24 attendees.. I am also emphasizing that IBI should send anything on biochar we like for any reason to this climatevisuals.org<http://climatevisuals.org> group
In my initial priority order
1. Terra Preta (photos from Rio conference - in Manaus) - this would be my first choice to emphasize
2. Stockholm (From webinar - emphasizing total energy - CHP)
3. New Chinese aggressive 5-year biochar plan - smoke avoidance
4. Japanese work (for a century?) on saving older dying trees (before and after);
also trip photos on char from rice husks seen during Kyoto Conference
5. Any field showing different plant heights with and without biochar; this is an example that is great but would be better with more of the 2007 story
I found this on Google, but is also at: http://davidandersen.co.uk/blog/biochar-and-the-environment/
This next one tells a great story, but might be improved with a human person in photo as well. Also found in Google search. Cite is
We should probably use the Google image list with specific words like "Stockholm" or "China" or "Japan". Google looks better than Yahoo.
Also emphasize low-cost approaches in developing countries (TLUD stove in Bangladesh and India; Hans-Peter work in Nepal)
Also policies (Colorado bill - on forest health; recent Governor Jerry Brown on California reaching net carbon zero by 2045)
Some way to show huge number of biochar peer-reviewed papers
Review biochar company websites - all trying to sell biochar; emphasize any that have been IBI (or USBI et al) supporters
Also try to show massive growth of biochar companies - must be 10X other CDR approaches.
Also show range of energy-production options with biochar (Cool Planet on biofuels; cook stoves for thermal energy; electricity is easiest, but can add combined heat and power
More on non-soil biochar
Willing to spend more time on this, if this is what you are looking for. What do we know is possible way to present this at this meeting? (A table?, video?, handouts?)
See few more inserts below.
On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@...tmiles@...> [biochar] <biochar@...biochar@...>> wrote:
We have 8 International Biochar Initiative delegates going to COP24 in Poland next month (who know more about climate change than I do). What should we pitch? Can we put these estimates in perspective? Please correct the math and express it in terms that we can understand.
The Vision of the International Biochar Initiative is to produce 1 billion tonnes (1,000 Tg) of biochar per year in 50 years. That vision was derived from the Griscom study that Albert cites. How does it compare with the various estimates of potential? It looks like this study estimates US biochar mitigation potential to be 95 Tg CO2e/yr (95 million tonnes) which would require about 38 million tonnes of biochar (2.5 kg CO2e/kg biochar), or about 200 million tonnes of biomass, of the 1 billion tonnes of biomass available in the US.
[RWL: The group called HCA is attending and will be pushing for something about 10X larger.
What are the potential benefits of 1 billion tons of biochar per year?
[RWL: I think this conference will believe the benefits are there. They will generally not believe that biochar can have the least costs or a large scale.
At 10 t/ha 1 billion tonnes could treat or restore 100 million ha of farmland which could potentially benefit 50 million (2 ha) smallholder farmers per year.
[RWL: I think we could justify a 10X factor here - including idle waste land and some pasture land.
It would require about 5 billion tons of biomass at typical conversion efficiencies (20%) but heat energy recovered (33%) could displace 22.5 billion GJ of fossil fuels or about 500 million tons of oil equivalent (42 GJ/tonne).
[RWL: A big issue will be whether biochar can use ocean resources - also another 50-60 Gt C/yr of annual productivity.
It will take many years to prove biochar can get to these 10X numbers - but the majority of the COP24 group will be pushing for their non-biochar preferences - and they will have positive costs, much in excess of biochar's negative costs.
I think I am supporting Albert here. I need to look at the new Griscom material.
From: biochar@...biochar@...> <biochar@...biochar@...>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
Subject: [biochar] Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch
This paper narrows the scope of the Nature Conservancy study published
in PNAS in 2017. That paper was global, while this one focuses on the
USA. We (Global Ecovillage Network) invited the lead author of the first
paper, Bronson Griscom, to make a presentation and be part of the panel
at our side event at COP23 in Bonn. I was also on that panel, presenting
on the potential of biochar when not limited to crop residues or
Griscom told our audience that the maximum drawdown potential of all
natural pathways, over and above what they already accomplish, could be
as much as 37.4 gigatons of CO2-equivalent at a 2030 reference year. All
human activity today releases about 35 gigatons, so Griscom said,
essentially, we can neutralize that with biochar, forests, and wetlands.
Combined with emission reductions we can return the atmosphere to the
way it was before fossil fuels destabilized our future.
The original PNAS paper is: Griscom, Bronson W., Justin Adams, Peter W.
Ellis, Richard A.. Houghton, Guy Lomax, Daniela A. Miteva, William H.
Schlesinger et al. "Natural climate solutions." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 44 (2017): 11645-11650..
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
The Farm POB 90 Summertown TN 38483-0090 USA
931-964-4324 (o) • 52-1998-116-5532 (mex) • 931-242-3796 (usa) •
44-782-764-6237 (uk) • 13-867-154-171 (prc)