Re: White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec
Paul S Anderson
Thanks for those comments. I await your re-calculations.
Although the methane is noteworthy, I would counter the comments by saying that a 20 year “penalty” is to be reduced if possible, but it is not sufficient to justify delays in using such technologies. 20 yrs out of 80 to the end of the century still leaves the sequestration value to be 60 years favorable, and then for many more additional centuries of sequestration value.
Are you attending the US National Biochar Week that started Monday. 3 hours each day. 11 AM – 2 PM Eastern Time Zone. Sorry that it is sooooooo late for you in Thailand. Register (feee) at www.easternbiochar.org I have a 10 minute presentation today Tuesday at 12:30 PM Eastern Time.
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See www.woodgas.energy
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@... via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]
I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.
I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.
He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.
He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.
Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.
As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass.
For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.
I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote: