Re: More: RE: Comparing biochar with 5 competitors #CDR


d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Paul and Ron, 

Considering only the portion of the Abstract that Paul highlighted,  may I ask why land competition is associated so strongly with biochar that it becomes a negative?

Otherwise,  Paul,  I agree with your suggestions,  especially those that eliminate possible replications unless the reasoning is clearly spelled out. 

M


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019, 1:43 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:
 

Ron,

 

The table needs some “presentation” work.   (Sorry, I cannot do it because I leave in 2 days to Kenya for the big cookstove CCA Forum, and then work on char-making stoves and projects there until 16 Nov.)

 

Suggestions:

A.  Show the labels with numbers / letters of all columns and rows to make easy referencing (without seeing the spreadsheet format)

 

B.  Each ROW to have a thematic name and then the cells explain how each approach handles that theme.

 

C. Put in notes of the unfavorable aspects of approaches, such as if the approach needs input of energy (vs. creates energy).

 

D.  The “Energy” theme for Biochar is stated as   “Cogeneration”   but would be more realistic as   “Thermal”   or  “Heating”   so as not to mislead about the ability to make electricity (except in industrially large systems which typically want all the energy and leave little charcoal behind as biochar.)

 

E.  How do you define  “Reduced residue burning.”   Is that the same as “Reduction of excessive / unwanted biomass” (which is what fire hazard reduction includes.   And that reduction  is more than just “invasive species (removal)”

 

F.  Is “Improving soils” redundant with “Nutrient and improving crop yield”   AND with “Remediating soils and improving water quality” (which could be split because of the importance of water quality).

 

G.  Some notes on costs and benefits are needed!!!!!!!!!!!    Isn’t biochar the  very least expensive (as well as having so many benefits.)?

 

H.  Include comments about the impacts of each approach to the SDGs and the NCPs.  (spelled out in Abstract below).

 

************

I am working on ways to have biochar activities with the char that comes from the TLUD stoves.   Some keen interest and activities on  this in Kenya.   Biochar is certainly on my list and on my mind for the coming trip to Kenya.

***************

Here is the Abstract.   We do need to get free access to the full publication.   Has anyone read the whole thing yet?   Emphasis in yellow added because of the negative connotation that I think could be unjustified and should be challenged.

 

Abstract

Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.

 

*************

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2019 11:52 PM
To: biochar <biochar@...>
Subject: [biochar] Comparing biochar with 5 competitors [2 Attachments]

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

 

[Attachment(s) from Ronal Larson included below]

List:

 

This just sent to the CDR list.

 

Ron



Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@...>

Subject: Re: [CDR] Alexander Popp - new articles

Date: October 26, 2019 at 10:46:50 PM MDT

To: Wil Burns <wil@...>, "Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@...)" <carbondioxideremoval@...>

 

Wil, and list,  cc Prof.  Smith

 

There have been a few later comments on this thread -  but none along the lines of this one.  So I have gone back to Wil's first alert on this new paper.  

 

Hopefully this matrix below will help with comparisons.  The abstract is at http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16109/ - unfortunately not yet with a non-fee version of the full paper.  

 

   The article covers 6 different CDR bio-based approaches (given in the first row of the screen shot below, but re-ordered to emphasize biochar).   I believe DAC would look a lot like BECCS - except it also takes energy rather than supply it.   This matrix is largely based on the way the “Smith team” has presented their results,  but there is a likely better ordering of both the rows and the columns.

 

 Coming will be an attempt to also tie these to the 17 SDGs.  The paper also covers another list of 18 categories all related to biomass-based CDR - which I will try to summarize soon similarly.  I strongly recommend these two cites:

 

 

For biochar,  I’ve added 5 benefit categories, to the 9 given by Smith et al.    I have only added 2 benefits (# 13 and #14) after showing 3 other benefits claimed for one or more of the other 5 approaches.  Are these justified?   What have I missed for biochar?    Should there be more than 6 columns?

 

This comparison (and the paper) says nothing about $ costs and benefits.  These all need to go into such economics.

 

 I have not attempted to similarly add for the other 5 approaches,  so hope others will.   Glad to send the Excel spread sheet if anyone also wants to play this game.

 

Obviously (being biased),  I am trying to show that biochar at least has a numerical advantage over the five others.   I hope to hear especially whether any of these additions seems inappropriate.

 

 

Ron

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



On Oct 22, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Wil Burns <wil@...> wrote:

 


From: Google Scholar Alerts <scholaralerts-noreply@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 1:20:26 PM
To: Wil Burns <wil@...>
Subject: Alexander Popp - new articles

 

Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals

P Smith, J Adams, DJ Beerling, T Beringer, KV Calvin… - Annual Review of …, 2019

Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation 
or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, 
terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and …

Twitter

Facebook

 

 

 

 

Join main@Biochar.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.