Date   

New thread-unknown mechanism of biochar migration in clay soil

Stan Slaughter
 

Friends
I’d like your help in explaining a field observation I had a few years ago. I was double digging in my garden to build raised beds a year after I had tilled in my first application of biochar. My shovel made a vertical full slice through the yellow-ish clay soil we have. The slice exposed a single piece of biochar in the center of the slice face.

What struck me was the “inverse square law” pattern of black color radiating outward from the piece of char. The center of the pattern was the char and the clay showed a dark area around the char gradually diminishing to no black coloration effect over a radius of about 4 inches. I wish i had had the presence of mind to photograph it but did not. Within another year, after another application of char, the entire top 8 inches of the soil was black.

What could be the mechanism for such a precise dispersion pattern?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Stan Slaughter, M.A., Biology
US Composting Council Educator of the Year, 2000
Education and Garden Specialist-
Missouri Organic Recycling
www.missouriorganic.com <http://www.missouriorganic.com/>
Cell- 816-560-5640

On Nov 26, 2018, at 7:54 AM, 'Tomaso Bertoli' tomaso.bertoli@gmail.com [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Let’s go back for one second on the subject – what to ask at COP24 ?



At COP24 we have to specifically ask what we do not have and can not get alone



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.)



Voluntary offsets are available to us like tree planting projects … we can do those without COP24



At COP24 we need to ask for official recognition and financial compensation within existing CO2 programs !



Tomaso



Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Inviato: lunedì 26 novembre 2018 04:49
A: Paul Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Cc: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>; usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>; Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>; Info <info@warmheartworldwide.org <mailto:info@warmheartworldwide.org>>; James S. Schoner <jss@bitmaxim.com <mailto:jss@bitmaxim.com>>
Oggetto: Re: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: [biochar] Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch





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.



M



Michael Shafer
www.warmheartworldwide.org <http://www.warmheartworldwide.org/>
www.twitter.com/warmheartorg <http://www.twitter.com/warmheartorg>
http://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide <http://www.youtube.com/warmheartvideo>


<image001.jpg>

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 <tel:+1%20732-745-9295> | +66 (0)85 199-2958 <tel:+66%20(0)85%20199-2958> | d.michael.shafer@gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer@gmail.com>
www.warmhearworldwide.org <http://www.warmhearworldwide.org/> | Skype: d.michael.shafer53
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand



<~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.facebook.com/d.michael.shafer>
<~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelshaferwarmheart?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile>
<~WRD000.jpg> <http://twitter.com/warmheartorg>


<https://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide/>





<~WRD000.jpg>Latest Tweet: <https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg> I liked a @YouTube <https://twitter.com/YouTube> video https://t.co/RDCv7xOjRE Apachie Helping out Ground Units

Read More <https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg/statuses/1065973106701942785>
Get your own <~WRD000.jpg>email signature <https://www.wisestamp.com/signature-in-email?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own>


On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>> wrote:

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.

Further efforts:
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.

Conclusion:
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.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu><mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/><http://www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>>

From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:02 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>; 'Tom Miles' <usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>>
Cc: 'Albert Bates' <albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>
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 &#92; 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&#92;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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte
If a volunteer organization or a farmers community engages people that manually &#92; 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
Tomaso
Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>>
Inviato: domenica 25 novembre 2018 00:29
A: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>>; Tom Miles <usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com><mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>>>
Cc: Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org><mailto:albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>>
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:

https://www..climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals <https://www.climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals>

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/><http://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/


[cid:image001.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0 <cid:image001.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0>]

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
https://nwcasc.uw.edu/science/project/assessing-the-use-of-biochar-for-drought-resilience-and-crop-productivity/

[cid:image002.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0 <cid:image002.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0>]

Other:
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
Etc.

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.

Ron


On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com><mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com>> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>> 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.


Ron







Tom



From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
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
agricultural applications.

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..

-ab

--
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_ <http://gvix.org_/><http://gvix.org_/>
_http://albertbates.cool_ <http://albertbates.cool_/><http://albertbates.cool_/>
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_ <http://eco2.cool_/><http://eco2.cool_/>

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------




<image004.jpg><image002.jpg><image003.jpg>


Re: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Paul S Anderson
 

Tomaso (and biochar leaders),

You make a very good point about what to seek at COP24 regarding biochar. (Both as the USA biochar delegates and for the international biochar interest.)

The details and wording need to be refined by the delegates. What I am pointing out is that there is being implemented a way to rigorously and appropriately track the char production from SMALL-SIZE charcoal production facilities (cookstoves in homes and troughs and trenches in farmer fields), including its possible disposition into soil as biochar.

And on the VOLUNTARY market, this can be done.

It can probably also be on the VOLUNTARY market for MEDIUM- AND LARGE-SIZE operations. Do they need to show additionality?

The issue for COP24 is that the OFFICIAL entities should recognize biochar into soil as being worthy of official carbon credits, subject to appropriate tracking, verification, and validation and registration/trading/retirement. The official entities are not participating in an area where they should become involved (instead of ignoring the issues of biochar for sequestration of carbon removed from the atmosphere.)

**********
Question 1: Who (what entities) have a vested interest in NOT wanting biochar to be included for carbon financing?

Question 2: Is there a danger that some entity wants to make it illegal to put char into soil? And would that stop the voluntary market?

Paul


Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Tomaso Bertoli <tomaso.bertoli@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:54 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com; Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu>
Cc: usbiochar@gmail.com; 'Albert Bates' <albert@thefarm.org>; 'Info' <info@warmheartworldwide.org>; 'James S. Schoner' <jss@bitmaxim.com>
Subject: R: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: [biochar] Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Let’s go back for one second on the subject – what to ask at COP24 ?

At COP24 we have to specifically ask what we do not have and can not get alone

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.)

Voluntary offsets are available to us like tree planting projects … we can do those without COP24

At COP24 we need to ask for official recognition and financial compensation within existing CO2 programs !

Tomaso

Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Inviato: lunedì 26 novembre 2018 04:49
A: Paul Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Cc: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>; usbiochar@gmail.com<mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>; Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org<mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>; Info <info@warmheartworldwide.org<mailto:info@warmheartworldwide.org>>; James S. Schoner <jss@bitmaxim.com<mailto:jss@bitmaxim.com>>
Oggetto: Re: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: [biochar] Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch


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.

M

Michael Shafer
www.warmheartworldwide.org<http://www.warmheartworldwide.org>
www.twitter.com/warmheartorg<http://www.twitter.com/warmheartorg>
http://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide<http://www.youtube.com/warmheartvideo>

[Immagine rimossa dal mittente. photo]

Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295<tel:+1%20732-745-9295> | +66 (0)85 199-2958<tel:+66%20(0)85%20199-2958> | d.michael.shafer@gmail.com<mailto:d.michael.shafer@gmail.com>


www.warmhearworldwide.org<http://www.warmhearworldwide.org> | Skype: d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand


[Immagine rimossa dal mittente.]<http://www.facebook.com/d.michael.shafer>

[Immagine rimossa dal mittente.]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelshaferwarmheart?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile>

[Immagine rimossa dal mittente.]<http://twitter.com/warmheartorg>




[Immagine rimossa dal mittente.]<https://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide/>
[Immagine rimossa dal mittente.]


[Immagine rimossa dal mittente.]Latest Tweet:<https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg> I liked a @YouTube<https://twitter.com/YouTube> video https://t.co/RDCv7xOjRE Apachie Helping out Ground Units

Read More<https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg/statuses/1065973106701942785>


Get your own [Immagine rimossa dal mittente.] email signature<https://www.wisestamp.com/signature-in-email?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own>


On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>> wrote:
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.

Further efforts:
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.

Conclusion:
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.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu><mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com><http://www.drtlud.com>

From: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:02 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>; 'Tom Miles' <usbiochar@gmail.com<mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>>
Cc: 'Albert Bates' <albert@thefarm.org<mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte
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
Tomaso
Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>>
Inviato: domenica 25 novembre 2018 00:29
A: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>>; Tom Miles <usbiochar@gmail.com<mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com><mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com<mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>>>
Cc: Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org<mailto:albert@thefarm.org><mailto:albert@thefarm.org<mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>>
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:

https://www..climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals<https://www.climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals>

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><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/


[cid:image001.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0]

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
https://nwcasc.uw.edu/science/project/assessing-the-use-of-biochar-for-drought-resilience-and-crop-productivity/

[cid:image002.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0]

Other:
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
Etc.

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.

Ron


On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@trmiles.com<mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com><mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com<mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com>> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>> 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.


Ron







Tom



From: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com><mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
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
agricultural applications.

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..

-ab

--
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_<http://gvix.org_/>
_http://albertbates.cool_<http://albertbates.cool_/>
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_<http://eco2.cool_/>

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------


Re: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

Let’s go back for one second on the subject – what to ask at COP24 ?



At COP24 we have to specifically ask what we do not have and can not get alone



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.)



Voluntary offsets are available to us like tree planting projects … we can do those without COP24



At COP24 we need to ask for official recognition and financial compensation within existing CO2 programs !



Tomaso



Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Inviato: lunedì 26 novembre 2018 04:49
A: Paul Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>
Cc: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com>; usbiochar@gmail.com; Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org>; Info <info@warmheartworldwide.org>; James S. Schoner <jss@bitmaxim.com>
Oggetto: Re: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: [biochar] Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch





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.



M



Michael Shafer
www.warmheartworldwide.org <http://www.warmheartworldwide.org>
www.twitter.com/warmheartorg <http://www.twitter.com/warmheartorg>

http://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide <http://www.youtube.com/warmheartvideo>










Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart


<tel:+1%20732-745-9295> +1 732-745-9295 | <tel:+66%20(0)85%20199-2958> +66 (0)85 199-2958 | <mailto:d.michael.shafer@gmail.com> d.michael.shafer@gmail.com


<http://www.warmhearworldwide.org> www.warmhearworldwide.org | Skype: d.michael.shafer53


61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand




<http://www.facebook.com/d.michael.shafer>

<http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelshaferwarmheart?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile>

<http://twitter.com/warmheartorg>




<https://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide/>







<https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg> Latest Tweet: I liked a <https://twitter.com/YouTube> @YouTube video https://t.co/RDCv7xOjRE Apachie Helping out Ground Units

<https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg/statuses/1065973106701942785> Read More

<https://www.wisestamp.com/signature-in-email?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own> Get your own email signature

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> > wrote:

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.

Further efforts:
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.

Conclusion:
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.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> > Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> <http://www.drtlud.com>

From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:02 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> ; 'Tom Miles' <usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com> >
Cc: 'Albert Bates' <albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org> >
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 &#92; 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&#92;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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte
If a volunteer organization or a farmers community engages people that manually &#92; 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
Tomaso
Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> > <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> >>
Inviato: domenica 25 novembre 2018 00:29
A: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> >>; Tom Miles <usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com> <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com <mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com> >>
Cc: Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org> <mailto:albert@thefarm.org <mailto:albert@thefarm.org> >>
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:

https://www..climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals <https://www.climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals>

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> <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/


[cid:image001.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0]

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
https://nwcasc.uw.edu/science/project/assessing-the-use-of-biochar-for-drought-resilience-and-crop-productivity/

[cid:image002.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0]

Other:
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
Etc.

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.

Ron


On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com> <mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com> > [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> >> 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.


Ron







Tom



From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> > <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> >>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> >
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
agricultural applications.

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..

-ab

--
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_<http://gvix.org_/>
_http://albertbates.cool_<http://albertbates.cool_/>
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_<http://eco2.cool_/>

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------


Re: Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

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.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmhearworldwide.org | Skype: d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
  

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders@...> wrote:
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.

Further efforts:
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.

Conclusion:
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.

Paul

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
Website:   www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

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
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte
 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
 Tomaso
 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:

       https://www.climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals

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/


[cid:image001.png@...]

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
https://nwcasc.uw.edu/science/project/assessing-the-use-of-biochar-for-drought-resilience-and-crop-productivity/

[cid:image002.png@...]

Other:
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
Etc.

 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.

Ron


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.


Ron







Tom



From: biochar@...biochar@...> <biochar@...biochar@...>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@...biochar@...>
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
agricultural applications.

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..

-ab

--
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_<http://gvix.org_/>
_http://albertbates.cool_<http://albertbates.cool_/>
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_<http://eco2.cool_/>

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------




Blockchain, biochar, and COP24 RE: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Paul S Anderson
 

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.

Further efforts:
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.

Conclusion:
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.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 5:02 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com; 'Tom Miles' <usbiochar@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Albert Bates' <albert@thefarm.org>
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte
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
Tomaso
Da: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Inviato: domenica 25 novembre 2018 00:29
A: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>; Tom Miles <usbiochar@gmail.com<mailto:usbiochar@gmail.com>>
Cc: Albert Bates <albert@thefarm.org<mailto:albert@thefarm.org>>
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:

https://www.climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals

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/


[cid:image001.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0]

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
https://nwcasc.uw.edu/science/project/assessing-the-use-of-biochar-for-drought-resilience-and-crop-productivity/

[cid:image002.png@01D484AF.DBECF5F0]

Other:
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
Etc.

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.

Ron


On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@trmiles.com<mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> 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.


Ron







Tom



From: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com> <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>
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
agricultural applications.

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..

-ab

--
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_<http://gvix.org_/>
_http://albertbates.cool_<http://albertbates.cool_/>
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_<http://eco2.cool_/>

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------


Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch [2 Attachments]

Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

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

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte

 

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

 

Tomaso

 

Da: biochar@...
Inviato: domenica 25 novembre 2018 00:29
A: biochar ; Tom Miles
Cc: Albert Bates
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 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 

 

 

Other:  

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

Etc.

 

 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.

 

Ron

 

 

On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@... [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.

 

 

Ron

 

    



Tom  

 

 

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: 
biochar@...
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 
agricultural applications.

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..

-ab

-- 
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_
http://gvix.org_
_
http://albertbates.cool_
_
http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_
http://eco2.cool_

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------

 

 


Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Ron Larson
 

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 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 


Other:  
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
Etc.

 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.

Ron


On Nov 21, 2018, at 1:45 PM, tmiles@... [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.


Ron

 

    

Tom  

 

 

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@...
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 
agricultural applications.

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.

-ab

-- 
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_
_http://albertbates.cool_
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------




Re: [Stoves] Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users' Perspective

Paul S Anderson
 

Great to see research and reports of this quality for TLUD stoves and for making of Biochar in a developing country.

 

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: Stoves On Behalf Of tmiles@...
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:42 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' ; biochar@...
Subject: [Stoves] Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users' Perspective

 

Kenya/Sweden thesis: Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users' Perspective

 

Energy plays a significant role in a country’s development. Usage of an improved stove that produces biochar could help to reduce the pressure of deforestation, amend soil productivity, and provide cleaner technology for cooking. In Kwale, a county located on the south coast of Kenya, firewood is still used as the primary cooking fuel followed by charcoal. This research aims to investigate the improvements for a Top-lit UpDraft (TLUD) biochar-producing gasifier stove, which the users aspired through co-designing. Transformative mixed methods were used as the research design to empower the users’ involvement in the Biochar and smallholder farmers in Kenya – improved use efficiency of farm-level organic resources in relation to energy, crops and soil project. Triangulation was used to process the collected data through structured user observations, a focus group discussion, and a semi-structured interview. Between two stakeholders, TLUD gasifier stove users and the manufacturer, there was a difference of opinion for the main priority. Ease of use was the main concern for the users while the manufacturer put forward energy efficiency. Further, the users desired for an increase in the stove’s dimension as its capacity to produce biochar would increase.

 

https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1264317/FULLTEXT01.pdf


Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users' Perspective

Tom Miles
 

Kenya/Sweden thesis: Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users' Perspective

 

Energy plays a significant role in a country’s development. Usage of an improved stove that produces biochar could help to reduce the pressure of deforestation, amend soil productivity, and provide cleaner technology for cooking. In Kwale, a county located on the south coast of Kenya, firewood is still used as the primary cooking fuel followed by charcoal. This research aims to investigate the improvements for a Top-lit UpDraft (TLUD) biochar-producing gasifier stove, which the users aspired through co-designing. Transformative mixed methods were used as the research design to empower the users’ involvement in the Biochar and smallholder farmers in Kenya – improved use efficiency of farm-level organic resources in relation to energy, crops and soil project. Triangulation was used to process the collected data through structured user observations, a focus group discussion, and a semi-structured interview. Between two stakeholders, TLUD gasifier stove users and the manufacturer, there was a difference of opinion for the main priority. Ease of use was the main concern for the users while the manufacturer put forward energy efficiency. Further, the users desired for an increase in the stove’s dimension as its capacity to produce biochar would increase.

 

https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1264317/FULLTEXT01.pdf


Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling C

mikethewormguy
 

Cynthia...... Thanks for your wisdom.....


Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Wow!


On Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 3:37 AM Cynthia Jasman cjasman@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:
 

“What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.”
        I agree, Michael.  We need sales to show utility.  It seems whatever simple idea works, experts can’t t sell it, instead want to immediately add more good thoughts to the initial idea instead of actually selling the first good simple idea to get it working in real life with real people buying in, not demonstration sizes, but actual real volume.
     Examples of steps needing political sales:
     1. If large amounts of biomass were burned in a  big trench flame cap method and quenched or snuffed, it would be a good thing.  Cutting, chipping, picking up and distribution to managed fire trench would all be a good sell, reduce volume, store carbon.  Just leave it in the ground, build another trench once filled.  Repeat.

     2.  Once established, some trenches could use quenching liquids from feed lots with sanitary costs charged.  This combination, choosing feedlot urine for example and making the feedlot pay for distribution and safety disposal.  Sell that idea.  Some trench’s left alone with char for other uses.

     3.   Once that is established and working, trenched product could be mined and sold with organic labeling instead of trying to compete with inorganic chemicals by testing everything, I would only test for toxic metals and toxic organic screen, make sure finish mix is below minimum levels. Sell the idea of safe organic material, use material in city lots and take pictures before and after, continue selling to people the idea, the reality of the existing steps.  Tours with school children.  Talks with slides to nursing homes, an underused group.  Captive audience, workers bored, even half page picture flyers next to droolers, O’s and Q’s are read by visiting family gratefully.  My congresswoman and her two sisters visit every nursing home and sing old songs for 10-15 minutes.  It is unbelievable how effective that is with family just to know she came.  We need to sell each small idea one at a time, and share feedback.
       4.   Methane capture for fueling trucks that pick up the original biomass for trench burning could be added and that good idea sold to our body politic as a good thing replacing diesel on trenching equipment.
       Realistically, at best each of those steps would take a minimum of 3 to 5 years to get appropriate land, equipment, manpower, supervision and safety, and have continued  free advertising to sell each existing process well before introducing some possible next add-on step.  Each of these steps if halted would still be a good thing.
       We need to learn to sell, bite size.  Each worker in the plant needs to be sold on what a good thing they are doing.
          Cynthia
        


On Nov 22, 2018, at 12:10 AM, 'd.michael.shafer@...' d.michael.shafer@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 

Great if you could get it to go in NYC. My previous experience with the City Council, neighborhood politics, etc. leads me to think that this is another great possibility that the City will not be able to handle.

Spent years trying simply to reach Bloomberg, the most daring and forward looking mayor since LaGuardia, to propose biomass energy from the City's dead trees. Currently all collected and chipped. Some used as mulch. Almost $20 million worth landfilled. 

Too radical for NYC, environmental and cost savings notwithstanding. 

This is, I think, the real challenge we face. Like you and Mike and many others on this list, we know char works and we know that the tech isn't rocket science. What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.

M

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 9:23 PM 'Tomaso Bertoli' tomaso.bertoli@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:
 

In our Region there is a reasonably simple yet efficient plant that uses “dry” digestion facility that generates CH4 for the national pipelines and electric generation from the domestic food waste … supporting a population of nearly 1 million people

 

60000 ton of green waste become 8,5 million kWh and 2 million cubic meters of CH4 and fully digested and stable compost for the vineyards  

 

For an aerial view of the plant

http://www.ladige.it/territori/lavis-rotaliana/2018/06/02/faedo-biodigestore-cadino-diventa-regionale

 

Da: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Inviato: martedì 20 novembre 2018 06:57
A: biochar <biochar@...>
Oggetto: Re: [biochar] Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times

 

 

And generally produces a lot of it, as do many ill-managed "composting" operations. 

 

Here is another great idea with serious "negative externalities" if the potential risks are not accounted for in design. 

 

Considering the CH4 and NOx emissions even of good composting, we might want to reconsider the climate consequences of composting all of the City's garbage unless we can design a system better than that in place at its current landfill destination.

 

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 3:47 PM Anand Karve adkarve@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:

 

Waste food can be used for producing methane. Yours Karve

 

On Tue 13 Nov, 2018, 09:42 mikethewormguy@aol..com [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups..com wrote:

 

Kim,

 

The short answer.......create a market for food residue compost before creating capacity to make it.

 

Market creation.......As a way to improve urban storm water management, one could propose to increase the Soil Organic Matter (SOM) content in every green space in and around  the city to greater than 15%.....    Increasing the SOM also increases water holding capacity and results in less runoff.......    Start with Central Park.......

 

Also change the language used from waste to resource......   Words have power......

 

my 2 cents........

 

Mike

 

 

 

 


FW: Nordic Biochar Network Newsletter 02/2018

Tom Miles
 

First Annual Nordic Biochar Network Meeting in Helsinki Dec 11

 

Contact Kathrin Weber

mail@...

www.nordicbiochar.org

 

 

From: news@...
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:22 AM
To: 'Nordic Biochar Network'
Subject: Nordic Biochar Network Newsletter 02/2018

 

 

NBN

Newsletter 02/2018 I November 2018

 

Header Image

Join the network's first meeting

So far, our network has been an idea and some motivated people working on it. Now we are ready to take the next step and have our first meeting. The Finnish Biochar Association holds their annual gathering on December 11th in Helsinki and has offered to host a discussion about the Nordic network there as well. We want to meet and discuss the shape and future of the Nordic Biochar Network. This is a great opportunity for you to get involved in the network and at the same time check out Finland's activities on biochar.

 

Hope to see you in Helsinki!

Kathrin Weber

 

What has happened so far

Mapping of biochar activities

Slowly, but continuously, our webpage continues to grow. We have added a few more sections and most importantly the first results of the biochar survey that we started before the summer and that many of you participated in. Thanks to Elias Azzi (KTH), you can look at these results in the form of a map, which you find on our homepage

image

Check out the map

 

What is currently going on

image

More planning and mapping

 

The map is work in progress and so is the homepage. We continue to survey biochar activities in the Nordic countries and if you haven't found yourself on the map yet, you should let us know.
There will soon be a "biochar blog" on the homepage as well, in which we will collect and write about different biochar-related topics. I encourage you to contribute here, with ideas, requests or your own blog entry.

 

Contact

 

What will happen next

Biochar meetings

There are two great networking opportunities coming up. As mentioned above, the Finnish Biochar Network holds their annual meeting on December 11th in Helsinki. During this meeting, we will get together and discuss the Nordic Biochar Network. Don't miss this chance. Register before November 26th via the FBA's webpage.

 

In addition, the Norwegian Biomass Association (NOBIO) and Greenhouse are inviting to a networking meeting to discuss biochar activities in Norway. The meeting will place on November 27th in Oslo. You can get the invitation (in Norwegian) from our website.

image

Register for the Finnish Biochar Seminar

Check out the biochar meeting in Oslo

 

 

 

 


Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times

Cynthia Jasman
 

“What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.”
        I agree, Michael.  We need sales to show utility.  It seems whatever simple idea works, experts can’t t sell it, instead want to immediately add more good thoughts to the initial idea instead of actually selling the first good simple idea to get it working in real life with real people buying in, not demonstration sizes, but actual real volume.
     Examples of steps needing political sales:
     1. If large amounts of biomass were burned in a  big trench flame cap method and quenched or snuffed, it would be a good thing.  Cutting, chipping, picking up and distribution to managed fire trench would all be a good sell, reduce volume, store carbon.  Just leave it in the ground, build another trench once filled.  Repeat.

     2.  Once established, some trenches could use quenching liquids from feed lots with sanitary costs charged.  This combination, choosing feedlot urine for example and making the feedlot pay for distribution and safety disposal.  Sell that idea.  Some trench’s left alone with char for other uses.

     3.   Once that is established and working, trenched product could be mined and sold with organic labeling instead of trying to compete with inorganic chemicals by testing everything, I would only test for toxic metals and toxic organic screen, make sure finish mix is below minimum levels. Sell the idea of safe organic material, use material in city lots and take pictures before and after, continue selling to people the idea, the reality of the existing steps.  Tours with school children.  Talks with slides to nursing homes, an underused group.  Captive audience, workers bored, even half page picture flyers next to droolers, O’s and Q’s are read by visiting family gratefully.  My congresswoman and her two sisters visit every nursing home and sing old songs for 10-15 minutes.  It is unbelievable how effective that is with family just to know she came.  We need to sell each small idea one at a time, and share feedback.
       4.   Methane capture for fueling trucks that pick up the original biomass for trench burning could be added and that good idea sold to our body politic as a good thing replacing diesel on trenching equipment.
       Realistically, at best each of those steps would take a minimum of 3 to 5 years to get appropriate land, equipment, manpower, supervision and safety, and have continued  free advertising to sell each existing process well before introducing some possible next add-on step.  Each of these steps if halted would still be a good thing.
       We need to learn to sell, bite size.  Each worker in the plant needs to be sold on what a good thing they are doing.
          Cynthia
        


On Nov 22, 2018, at 12:10 AM, 'd.michael.shafer@...' d.michael.shafer@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 

Great if you could get it to go in NYC. My previous experience with the City Council, neighborhood politics, etc. leads me to think that this is another great possibility that the City will not be able to handle.

Spent years trying simply to reach Bloomberg, the most daring and forward looking mayor since LaGuardia, to propose biomass energy from the City's dead trees. Currently all collected and chipped. Some used as mulch. Almost $20 million worth landfilled. 

Too radical for NYC, environmental and cost savings notwithstanding. 

This is, I think, the real challenge we face. Like you and Mike and many others on this list, we know char works and we know that the tech isn't rocket science. What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.

M

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 9:23 PM 'Tomaso Bertoli' tomaso.bertoli@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:
 

In our Region there is a reasonably simple yet efficient plant that uses “dry” digestion facility that generates CH4 for the national pipelines and electric generation from the domestic food waste … supporting a population of nearly 1 million people

 

60000 ton of green waste become 8,5 million kWh and 2 million cubic meters of CH4 and fully digested and stable compost for the vineyards  

 

For an aerial view of the plant

http://www.ladige.it/territori/lavis-rotaliana/2018/06/02/faedo-biodigestore-cadino-diventa-regionale

 

Da: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Inviato: martedì 20 novembre 2018 06:57
A: biochar <biochar@...>
Oggetto: Re: [biochar] Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times

 

 

And generally produces a lot of it, as do many ill-managed "composting" operations. 

 

Here is another great idea with serious "negative externalities" if the potential risks are not accounted for in design. 

 

Considering the CH4 and NOx emissions even of good composting, we might want to reconsider the climate consequences of composting all of the City's garbage unless we can design a system better than that in place at its current landfill destination.

 

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 3:47 PM Anand Karve adkarve@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:

 

Waste food can be used for producing methane. Yours Karve

 

On Tue 13 Nov, 2018, 09:42 mikethewormguy@aol..com [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:

 

Kim,

 

The short answer.......create a market for food residue compost before creating capacity to make it.

 

Market creation......As a way to improve urban storm water management, one could propose to increase the Soil Organic Matter (SOM) content in every green space in and around  the city to greater than 15%.....    Increasing the SOM also increases water holding capacity and results in less runoff.......    Start with Central Park.......

 

Also change the language used from waste to resource......   Words have power.....

 

my 2 cents........

 

Mike

 

 

 

 


Re: Natural Climate Solutions

Kathleen Draper
 

Rick – it will be available for pre-order on Amazon after the new year (I think). We’ve just sent back final edits last week and they are still working on the cover desing. The early reviews are promising and there is early interest for translations (but we shall see). Here is one of the “blurber’ reviews for the back cover:

 

For anyone interested in solutions to climate change, this book is absolutely essential reading. It represents the latest, most innovative thinking and experimentation on removing carbon from the atmosphere. What’s delightfully startling is the authors’ detailed, example-laden argument that we can use carbon to regenerate landscapes while also producing an astounding array of products—from concrete to plastics to batteries to paper—that function better by incorporating the universe’s most versatile element. Written in a clear, entertaining style, _Burn _is an incendiary contribution.

Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow, Post Carbon Institute—

 

Albert and I have a growing list of influencers (e.g. media, venture capitalists, etc.) we would like to send a signed copy to, to if any of you have suggestions for that, please let us know. We need names and full addresses. You can send them off-line to me.

 

Cheers,

Kathleen

 

 


Re: Natural Climate Solutions

4RDKBTATWOF4I7VUHH2D2CLOXA@...
 

With so many domains for biochar to contribute to carbon sequestration, it seems that special legislation should be passed for tax credits for biochar alone, similar to the solar power credit. That would boost the industry and reduce global warming. Lumping biochar together with so many other natural climate solutions for the sake of carbon credits puts us on a slow train to obscurity and risks overlooking these manifold applications. 

It might work like this: Customers could receive a tax credit when they purchase from certified manufacturers, as verified by transaction records submitted annually by the manufacturers. 

This circumvents the need to prove all the knock-on effects of biochar's application to soil. It would assume only that a significant amount of carbon from the char remains sequestered, with the understanding that this is an industry that needs a leg up and will renew the economy.

I pre-ordered Burn, Kathleen. I think you have thought this out much more than my little brainstorm here. Perhaps if the Greens take control or Tom Steyer becomes POTUS, this could actually happen.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Bob Gillett


Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Albert,

This is fantastic, but boy does this reinforce my concern that we aren't doing a very good job of getting the word out. I mean, dude, this is a story and this should have been headline news. I read the news and the environmental news pretty carefully, but all this is, pardon my saying so, news to me.

I think that this sort of paper should have been announced loudly and widely.

What about a suggested headline such as:  RESEARCH SHOWS NATURAL SOLUTIONS CAN OFF-SET TOTAL HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS 

Again, pardon my lame effort, since this is not what i do for a living and I have not had the opportunity to read the article (and don't attend global gatherings in distant places), but here is what a simple press release might have looked like - to the Guardian, Time, Huffington Post, Journal, Washington Post, etc.


For Immediate Release

 

Contact               Firstname Lastname, Title. 732-555-5555

Another Name, Title. 732-555-5554

                             

RESEARCH SHOWS NATURAL SOLUTIONS CAN OFF-SET TOTAL HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS

              

ANYTOWN HERE, NJ – Dr. Bronson Griscom, Director, Forest Carbon Science at the Nature Conservancy, estimates that natural pathways - biochar, forests and wetlands - can remove 37.4 gigatons of CO2 equivalent from the atmosphere annually, 2.4 gigatons more than the 35 gigatons human activity releases. According to Griscom, humans can stop, even reverse, climate change.

 

Albert Bates, Director of the Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology and Global Ecovillage Network, and founder of the Gaia University observes Griscom’s work means that “…we can return the atmosphere to the way it was before fossil fuels destabilized our future.

 

The world understands the need to restore forests and wetlands. Griscom’s contribution is to introduce biochar, a special charcoal made from crop and other biomass wastes. Producing biochar removes large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere inexpensively and easily. Unlike new carbon removal technologies that are untested, expensive and decades from commercialization, biochar production is established and has great growth potential.

 

Dr. Griscom’s research, presented at COP23 in Bonn, extends work published in 2017 by Griscom and seven other scientists in the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences. They reviewed global data on human CO2 equivalent emissions and the natural resources capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. (Griscom, Bronson, Justin Adams, Peter Ellis, Richard Houghton, Guy Lomax, Daniela Miteva, William Schlesinger et al. "Natural climate solutions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 44 (2017): 11645-11650.

 

##   

I mean, the worst they can do is to spike it.

M

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 8:33 PM Albert Bates albert@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:
 

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
agricultural applications.

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.

-ab

--
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_
_http://albertbates.cool_
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------


Re: Natural Climate Solutions

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Amen and thank you Kathy and Albert!

So many cool things to do with char! 

I would add one that is really important here in the developing world: decontaminant. It is, of course, imperfect, but with millions of square kilometers of land contaminated with industrial chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals and mine waste, there is no other low cost, reasonably effective, readily available alternative.

My two cents.

M

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 9:03 AM kdraper2@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:
 

In our upcoming (newly retitled) book “Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Earth; How We Can Harness Carbon to Help Solve the Climate Crisis”, Albert Bates and I outline a simplified carbon math format for various carbon sources and sinks. We believe that some of the previously published reports were overly focused on putting biochar in soils which unduly limits what can be carbonized (i.e. sources) and beneficially used in soils. It also limits where stable carbon can be utilized for long term sequestration (i.e. sinks). Most reports never address the up and coming uses such as building materials, livestock feed, etc. and we believe this could be equal to or perhaps even greater than soils as a repository for carbon when economics are factored in.

 

The carbon math in the book is not meant to be PhD level analysis and is by no means inclusive of all potential sources and sinks. Rather it is a prospective framework with some speculative estimates based on peer reviewed literature on alternative uses of biochar. It could potentially be used by industries, cities or countries to create their own ball-park estimates for where they could start converting organic waste streams into long term carbon sinks. The idea is to both reduce their carbon footprints while creating new revenue streams via biochar based products.

 

As we all know, there is much work to be done, but we hope those in the forum and beyond will take these suggestions to the next level allowing biochar to develop further, faster and make a material impact on rebalancing atmospheric carbon. [Book is due out in Feb 2019]

 

Cheers

Kathleen

 

 

 

Global best practices for biochar in agriculture, landscaping, reforestation, construction and more: https://www.biochar-journal.org/en

 

New articles about climate farming, wine growing and ecology in our Ithaka Journal: http://www.ithaka-journal.net/?lang=en

Biochar blogging at: http://fingerlakesbiochar.com/blog/ 

 


Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Great if you could get it to go in NYC. My previous experience with the City Council, neighborhood politics, etc. leads me to think that this is another great possibility that the City will not be able to handle.

Spent years trying simply to reach Bloomberg, the most daring and forward looking mayor since LaGuardia, to propose biomass energy from the City's dead trees. Currently all collected and chipped. Some used as mulch. Almost $20 million worth landfilled. 

Too radical for NYC, environmental and cost savings notwithstanding. 

This is, I think, the real challenge we face. Like you and Mike and many others on this list, we know char works and we know that the tech isn't rocket science. What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.

M

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 9:23 PM 'Tomaso Bertoli' tomaso.bertoli@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:
 

In our Region there is a reasonably simple yet efficient plant that uses “dry” digestion facility that generates CH4 for the national pipelines and electric generation from the domestic food waste … supporting a population of nearly 1 million people

 

60000 ton of green waste become 8,5 million kWh and 2 million cubic meters of CH4 and fully digested and stable compost for the vineyards  

 

For an aerial view of the plant

http://www.ladige.it/territori/lavis-rotaliana/2018/06/02/faedo-biodigestore-cadino-diventa-regionale

 

Da: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Inviato: martedì 20 novembre 2018 06:57
A: biochar <biochar@...>
Oggetto: Re: [biochar] Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times

 

 

And generally produces a lot of it, as do many ill-managed "composting" operations. 

 

Here is another great idea with serious "negative externalities" if the potential risks are not accounted for in design. 

 

Considering the CH4 and NOx emissions even of good composting, we might want to reconsider the climate consequences of composting all of the City's garbage unless we can design a system better than that in place at its current landfill destination.

 

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 3:47 PM Anand Karve adkarve@... [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:

 

Waste food can be used for producing methane. Yours Karve

 

On Tue 13 Nov, 2018, 09:42 mikethewormguy@aol..com [biochar] <biochar@... wrote:

 

Kim,

 

The short answer.......create a market for food residue compost before creating capacity to make it.

 

Market creation......As a way to improve urban storm water management, one could propose to increase the Soil Organic Matter (SOM) content in every green space in and around  the city to greater than 15%.....    Increasing the SOM also increases water holding capacity and results in less runoff.......    Start with Central Park.......

 

Also change the language used from waste to resource......   Words have power.....

 

my 2 cents........

 

Mike

 

 

 

 


Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Tom Miles
 

The challenge of course is how you monetize the other values. The market value is still going to be what someone in a given location is willing to pay for a given quantity and quality of BIOCHAR. The climate study suggests values of USD $0.012 to $0.12/lb. Soil health, water quality, food security, reduction of other input costs for all uses, value added to crops, climate resilience, remediation and restoration, energy recovery all need to make up the gap between the cost of production and the carbon value. What will customers pay to convert 188 million tons of dead wood in California to BIOCHAR for carbon+?

T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc.
Sent from mobile. 

On Nov 21, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Rick Wilson rick012@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 

Tom, these are you numbers from long time ago.  We just need to prove other value in use to pay for the $80-100/CY.  Stay tuned, we are right there next year.  Rick


On Nov 21, 2018, at 7:52 PM, tmiles@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:


So we buy the book and at a minimum, sequester 37 billion tons of carbon per year. That would require 15 billion tonnes of biochar per year from 74 billion tonnes of biomass. If we make 1 billion tonnes of biochar, from 5 billion tons of biomass, to sequester 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2e we will have mitigated 7% of the goal. 

 

Lucas van Zweiten in Australia has demonstrated over ten years that the effect of recurrent applications of biochar is cumulative and that there is a net gain from adding carbon to the soil as biochar. The net effect should be greater than the 7% not to mention the improvements in  soil, water etc. 

 

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   

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:31 PM
To: biochar@yahoogroups..com
Subject: Re: [biochar] Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

 

  

Here is what the younger generation are thinking,  https://www.facebook.com/groups/FNQClimateForum/permalink/710172789347600/

 

On 22 Nov 2018, at 9:54 am, Jerry Adams jadams@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported on the catastrophic impacts of global warming more than 1..5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels (http://www.ipcc.ch/). The Arctic, the "canary in the coal mine," has already warmed more than 2 degrees. If we totally stop using all fossil fuels today, a political impossibility, we still would not stop catastrophic climate change. We need something in addition to reduction in the use of fossil fuels.. We need massive sequestration of CO2.

If we reduce the use of fossil fuels by 80%, an IPCC goal, and ALSO sequester 37 billion tons of CO2 per year through biochar, forests, grasslands, and wetlands, then we have a chance at avoiding some of the most catastrophic and permanent climate changes. How long do we have to reverse the damage before "runaway" warming takes over? (https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/) Fifty years? Thirty years? Many climatologists say we have, at most, a dozen years. (https://www..smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/world-was-just-issued-12-year-ultimatum-climate-change-180970489/)

This is the context for our situation. 

Jerry Adams


On 11/21/2018 2:45 PM, tmiles@... [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.     

 

What are the potential benefits of 1 billion tons of biochar per year? 

 

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. 

 

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). 

 

Tom  

 

 

 

From: biochar@...  
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@...
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 
agricultural applications.

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.

-ab

-- 
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_
_http://albertbates.cool_
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------

 

 

 




Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

Rick Wilson
 

Tom, these are you numbers from long time ago.  We just need to prove other value in use to pay for the $80-100/CY.  Stay tuned, we are right there next year.  Rick

On Nov 21, 2018, at 7:52 PM, tmiles@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:


So we buy the book and at a minimum, sequester 37 billion tons of carbon per year. That would require 15 billion tonnes of biochar per year from 74 billion tonnes of biomass. If we make 1 billion tonnes of biochar, from 5 billion tons of biomass, to sequester 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2e we will have mitigated 7% of the goal. 

 

Lucas van Zweiten in Australia has demonstrated over ten years that the effect of recurrent applications of biochar is cumulative and that there is a net gain from adding carbon to the soil as biochar. The net effect should be greater than the 7% not to mention the improvements in  soil, water etc. 

 

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   

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:31 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Re: Natural Climate Solutions for the US--Major New Paper Endorses Bioch

 

  

Here is what the younger generation are thinking,  https://www.facebook.com/groups/FNQClimateForum/permalink/710172789347600/

 

On 22 Nov 2018, at 9:54 am, Jerry Adams jadams@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported on the catastrophic impacts of global warming more than 1..5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels (http://www.ipcc.ch/). The Arctic, the "canary in the coal mine," has already warmed more than 2 degrees. If we totally stop using all fossil fuels today, a political impossibility, we still would not stop catastrophic climate change. We need something in addition to reduction in the use of fossil fuels. We need massive sequestration of CO2.

If we reduce the use of fossil fuels by 80%, an IPCC goal, and ALSO sequester 37 billion tons of CO2 per year through biochar, forests, grasslands, and wetlands, then we have a chance at avoiding some of the most catastrophic and permanent climate changes. How long do we have to reverse the damage before "runaway" warming takes over? (https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/) Fifty years? Thirty years? Many climatologists say we have, at most, a dozen years. (https://www..smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/world-was-just-issued-12-year-ultimatum-climate-change-180970489/)

This is the context for our situation. 

Jerry Adams


On 11/21/2018 2:45 PM, tmiles@... [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.     

 

What are the potential benefits of 1 billion tons of biochar per year? 

 

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. 

 

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). 

 

Tom  

 

 

 

From: biochar@...  
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:00 AM
To: biochar@...
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 
agricultural applications.

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.

-ab

-- 
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Global Ecovillage Network • Gaia University
_http://gvix.org_
_http://albertbates.cool_
_http://medium.com/@albertbates_
_http://eco2.cool_

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)
Facebook/WhatsApp/WeChat/LinkedIn/GooglePlu_s_

-------------------------

 

 

 



7161 - 7180 of 31132