Date   

Re: [tluds] [biochar] FW: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS #conference #tlud

Tom Miles
 

It’s germane to the Clean Cookstove groups including ETHOS. 

T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc.
tmiles@...
Sent from mobile. 

On Dec 26, 2019, at 7:54 PM, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:



Tom,   I think that you and I are sending messages to the OLD biochar email address.   This could be a common mistake by others, also.   Do we need to delete the old address from our address books to prevent such errors?

 

Paul   

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: tluds@Biochar.groups.io <tluds@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Miles via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 9:40 PM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves@...>; 'tluds@biochar. groups. io' <tluds@biochar.groups.io>
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [tluds] [biochar] FW: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS

 

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

Paul,

 

I think the biochar Friday is a good idea. Maybe we need to get the word out to a broader list.

 

Tom

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 3:24 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>; tluds@biochar. groups. io <tluds@biochar.groups.io>; Biochar Group <biochar@...>
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: [biochar] FW: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS

 

 

To all,

 

Last Saturday 21 Dec, I sent the message below to  three listservs.   I am  resending it because I have received not one single response about the proposal for Biochar Friday on 24 January 2020 in the Seattle/Kirkland area.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: Anderson, Paul
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 11:14 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>; Biochar Group <biochar@...>; tluds@biochar. groups. io <tluds@biochar.groups.io>
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS

 

Biochar Friday 2020    (The attachment is exactly like the message below, but is in  .docx   format.)

 

Dear all      (but directed to those who deal with Biochar issues and/or who could be attending the ETHOS meeting in Kirkland, Washington on 24 – 26 January 2020),

 

Within the regular attendees of ETHOS there is a “mini-sub-group” with an interest in biochar, especially the production of biochar such as with TLUD cookstoves and barrels and other small pyrolysis devices.  Because we are together each year, it is proposed that we have a separate (but coordinated) meeting about biochar on the Friday (24 January this year) before ETHOS starts. 

 

After some few comments from others via email, I have made the following arrangements for the Biochar Friday group:

 

1.  The Biochar Friday group is to have its first gathering on 24 January 2020. 

 

2.  The meeting room of the Kirkland Inn (connected to the breakfast room) has been reserved for the morning of 24 January.   ETHOS controls that meeting room from noon onward.   (There is no option to meet at Shari’s restaurant.)

 

3.  We will gather at 8:00 AM, with an on-time official start at 9:00 AM.   Tom Miles has offered to provide a summary of the status of international (and USA/North America) biochar activities (not just about the organizations called “Biochar Initiatives.”)   How much time he has will be determined after others have had a chance to make proposals for the use of the time.   One additional topic could be the role of PyCC (Pyrolytic Carbon Capture) to assist the battle against climate change.   Perhaps there will be some panel discussions, depending on who attends.   It will NOT be with academic presentations.   The focus is NOT on the agricultural / soil / micro-fauna / etc. aspects of biochar, but such can be mentioned. 

 

4.  We will ask ETHOS leadership if we can extend our time past noon, up to the time when ETHOS will have its use of the room (usually starting at 1:00 or 1:30 PM).  

 

5.  Because the Woodgas TLUD stoves are makers of charcoal / biochar, they could be featured in the afternoon time reserved for ETHOS, but that is up for discussion.  

 

6.  Upon expiration of any time for Biochar topics in the room, the Biochar Friday group is at liberty to move to another location (not defined).  If the group is small, that will be easy.   If numerous, we can be creative with specialty groups or focus groups. 

 

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

So, the Biochar Friday event is now official.  It is open to everyone.  You can make your travel arrangements to allow your presence at the event.  Remember to register for the ETHOS meeting (at   www.ethoscon.com    , and to reserve your room at the Baymont Inn at Seattle/Kirkland:   425-947-1030  (and say that you are with ETHOS.)

 

There is no charge for Biochar Friday but donations to cover the room rental (AM only) will be accepted at the event (unless we find a sponsor).  

 

This announcement is going to three (3) Listservs but could be forward to others by you:  Biochar group, Stoves Listserv, tluds Listserv.    And ETHOS could send it to its mailing list.   Please reply to your respective listservs, but know that not everyone will see your replies.   Especially if you expect to attend the Biochar Friday, be sure that I receive notification  (  psanders@...  ).  

 

I (we) are looking for some volunteers, but not sure what duties there are to be undertaken.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

__._,_.___


Posted by: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>


Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (2)

 

.

<image002.jpg>

<image002.jpg>

__,_._,___


Re: [tluds] [biochar] FW: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS #conference #tlud

Paul S Anderson
 

Tom,   I think that you and I are sending messages to the OLD biochar email address.   This could be a common mistake by others, also.   Do we need to delete the old address from our address books to prevent such errors?

 

Paul   

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: tluds@Biochar.groups.io <tluds@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Miles via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 9:40 PM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves@...>; 'tluds@biochar. groups. io' <tluds@biochar.groups.io>
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [tluds] [biochar] FW: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS

 

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

Paul,

 

I think the biochar Friday is a good idea. Maybe we need to get the word out to a broader list.

 

Tom

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 3:24 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>; tluds@biochar. groups. io <tluds@biochar.groups.io>; Biochar Group <biochar@...>
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: [biochar] FW: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS

 

 

To all,

 

Last Saturday 21 Dec, I sent the message below to  three listservs.   I am  resending it because I have received not one single response about the proposal for Biochar Friday on 24 January 2020 in the Seattle/Kirkland area.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: Anderson, Paul
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 11:14 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>; Biochar Group <biochar@...>; tluds@biochar. groups. io <tluds@biochar.groups.io>
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Biochar Friday at the start of ETHOS

 

Biochar Friday 2020    (The attachment is exactly like the message below, but is in  .docx   format.)

 

Dear all      (but directed to those who deal with Biochar issues and/or who could be attending the ETHOS meeting in Kirkland, Washington on 24 – 26 January 2020),

 

Within the regular attendees of ETHOS there is a “mini-sub-group” with an interest in biochar, especially the production of biochar such as with TLUD cookstoves and barrels and other small pyrolysis devices.  Because we are together each year, it is proposed that we have a separate (but coordinated) meeting about biochar on the Friday (24 January this year) before ETHOS starts. 

 

After some few comments from others via email, I have made the following arrangements for the Biochar Friday group:

 

1.  The Biochar Friday group is to have its first gathering on 24 January 2020. 

 

2.  The meeting room of the Kirkland Inn (connected to the breakfast room) has been reserved for the morning of 24 January.   ETHOS controls that meeting room from noon onward.   (There is no option to meet at Shari’s restaurant.)

 

3.  We will gather at 8:00 AM, with an on-time official start at 9:00 AM.   Tom Miles has offered to provide a summary of the status of international (and USA/North America) biochar activities (not just about the organizations called “Biochar Initiatives.”)   How much time he has will be determined after others have had a chance to make proposals for the use of the time.   One additional topic could be the role of PyCC (Pyrolytic Carbon Capture) to assist the battle against climate change.   Perhaps there will be some panel discussions, depending on who attends.   It will NOT be with academic presentations.   The focus is NOT on the agricultural / soil / micro-fauna / etc. aspects of biochar, but such can be mentioned. 

 

4.  We will ask ETHOS leadership if we can extend our time past noon, up to the time when ETHOS will have its use of the room (usually starting at 1:00 or 1:30 PM).  

 

5.  Because the Woodgas TLUD stoves are makers of charcoal / biochar, they could be featured in the afternoon time reserved for ETHOS, but that is up for discussion.  

 

6.  Upon expiration of any time for Biochar topics in the room, the Biochar Friday group is at liberty to move to another location (not defined).  If the group is small, that will be easy.   If numerous, we can be creative with specialty groups or focus groups. 

 

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

So, the Biochar Friday event is now official.  It is open to everyone.  You can make your travel arrangements to allow your presence at the event.  Remember to register for the ETHOS meeting (at   www.ethoscon.com    , and to reserve your room at the Baymont Inn at Seattle/Kirkland:   425-947-1030  (and say that you are with ETHOS.)

 

There is no charge for Biochar Friday but donations to cover the room rental (AM only) will be accepted at the event (unless we find a sponsor).  

 

This announcement is going to three (3) Listservs but could be forward to others by you:  Biochar group, Stoves Listserv, tluds Listserv.    And ETHOS could send it to its mailing list.   Please reply to your respective listservs, but know that not everyone will see your replies.   Especially if you expect to attend the Biochar Friday, be sure that I receive notification  (  psanders@...  ).  

 

I (we) are looking for some volunteers, but not sure what duties there are to be undertaken.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

__._,_.___


Posted by: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>


Reply via web post

Reply to sender

Reply to group

Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (2)

 

.

Image removed by sender.
Image removed by sender.

__,_._,___


Re: Waste cardboard, paper, newspaper, as feedstock #feedstock

Ron Larson
 

Shaked From:   cc list

You have raised some interesting new TLUD  issues with the four photos given in your message below.

Your “here” in the text refers back to Josh Kearns who has done much of the best work with improving water quality through “Aqueous Solutions”.  You have found it better apparently to not use the upper 200 liter “chimney”.  Any comments on time and material savings for your single barrel approach?

I don’t recall anyone reporting an input biomass assortment like you show.

This was your first photo - which was quite surprising to me in terms of having pieces running both vertically and horizontally.  Ever have any problems with getting an unintentional path from top to bottom through one of the rolls?   (Having a flat pyrolysis front?)

Are you satisfied with the quality of the char made from cardboard and (I presume) sometimes paper?


I don’t need to show the second photo, which had twigs in the center of a ring of rolled up cardboard - but here looking much more uniform..  Same questions on running OK always?
 


In this third photo, are the whitish pieces bones that you threw in before starting the next run?
The intent was mainly to to show the size and spring of the air holes?
Do the bones come out quite black?  Brittle enough to break apart??




Thanks for sharing this new (to me) loading approach.

I’m envious of the scene in the fourth photo.

To the rest of the biochar list - anyone else?

Ron



On Dec 20, 2019, at 1:05 AM, Shaked From <shakedfrom@...> wrote:

Thank you for the information and references.

just as a side track, my method of charing the materials described has been as in the pictures below:
The kiln I have used is based on the design found here which showed a very clean burn with hardly any visible smoke, very good draw and perfectly charred material.
(I hope this method of placing the pictures in the text box is going to work)
<A77FCBD5-7436-4CFE-AD7B-965FF91DB2B1.jpeg><44E372F0-1DA5-4F75-8628-F59B5D2AF70C.jpeg><5285E853-8ED5-442F-BA6C-24B8B9975059.jpeg><43CE22A9-F9AA-4297-8171-F8466CF92536.jpeg>


Re: A Subtle Attack on Biochar for Carbon Sequestration #wildfire #carbon

Don Coyne <don@...>
 

Thanks Robert, Chars! 😉

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 8:09 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Subtle Attack on Biochar for Carbon Sequestration #carbon #wildfire

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Don,

This recent germane article, which concludes that black carbon in the ocean did not originate mostly on land, has a link to a 2017 paper that may be the one Albert referred to. 

Robert


Re: A Subtle Attack on Biochar for Carbon Sequestration #wildfire #carbon

ROBERT W GILLETT
 
Edited

Don,

This recent germane article, which concludes that black carbon in the ocean did not originate mostly on land, has a link to a 2017 paper that may be the one Albert referred to. 

Robert


Re: Biochar in Soil #biochar #soil #organic matter #organic #biochar #soil

Tom Miles
 

Thanks for highlighting this Bob. The carbon foam project has been underway for a few years. It’s good to see some progress.

 

Tom

 

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2019 4:59 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] Carbon foam #catalysts

 

Merry Christmas All,

Thought I'd drop a lump of hi-tech coal in your stockings. Carbon foam looks like a high-quality biochar from the description by the USFS. The recent winners of the Keeling Curve prize may be using it as a substrate to form catalysts for CO2 capture (see paper by Ma et al. under References). Biochar may yet end up being the biggest solution to global warming, but under a different moniker and in a way most did not anticipate.

Robert Gillett


Re: A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

Frank Strie
 

Yes Don, good links thanks for sharing and pointing every interested reader to such valuable inormation.

Just finished reading this opinion article today and listened to the TEDx talk about the wisdom from the Amazon. (see link below).

There’s another story to tell about climate change. And it starts with water  Judith D Schwartz

For me, as a restoration forester applying methodologies based on ProSilva Forest Management principles the combination of the various forms of carbons with the water, nutrient and light cycles enables us to regenerate sources of shelter, eventually forming moisture and growing cool microclimates. …We do this here in Tasmania and eventually we will be able to get our collaboration with other initiatives like the blue economy. …

The final sentences of the article:
…”Here’s another climate subplot worth mulling overWalter Jehne points out that based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every square metre of Earth’s surface receives an average of 342 watts of solar energy a day. Because of how humans have altered the environment, we now radiate back about 339 watts per square metre – a difference of less than 1%. If we managed our ecology better, how might we make up that three-watt differential? How about if we had a lot more plant cover and a lot less bare ground?

One challenge to reckoning with climate change is that despite all the weather anomalies we’ve been seeing, it’s difficult to confidently link climate change to any one event. This perpetuates the notion that climate change is an abstraction to be pushed off into the future, and leads to cognitive dissonance in that it seems impossible to “prove” what we know to be so. Let me now introduce an alternate definition of climate change: “manifestations of distorted carbon, water and energy cycles”. That doesn’t negate the single story of fossil fuel-borne carbon but broadens it in a way that creates opportunities beyond fighting fossil fuel interests. At this moment of reckless distraction and denial, it is crucial to find meaningful paths forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/03/climate-change-water-fossil-fuel?fbclid=IwAR0nK-jjUpOzcGu1IHNrCKHq4dC9DlHWrsuZZMkReOiBIWKP5CN2Vz1n-Ic

It is the combination of the things we know we can do that is the way that works.
May 2020 bring together ever more Change Agents with combined skills and understanding.
The US Composting Association will get a good discussion happening in only a few weeks from now.
The ripple effect may be seen Down Under before too long.
Cheers to you all
Frank again

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 9:37 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

 

I agree Frank, ever since I read Hans Peter Schmidt 55 Uses of Biochar back in 2013 I have been intrigued by the concept of building things with biochar including soil. https://www.biochar-journal.org/en/ct/2 It will all end up in there anyway. We advocated again for this at ANZBC19 with a number of presentations on biochar in hot & cold mix asphalt as well biochar concrete including 3D Printed Concrete Automated construction. You can download 70% of the presentations from ANZBC19 here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MEkykMe3TlFFYAUkgHD3naDhVxoMJfw8

 

Chars,

 

Don

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frank Strie
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 9:23 AM
To:
main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

 

Considering the seriousness, urgency to be effective, the massive scale, reasons etc., I like to strongly suggest anyone read or listen to the book being read for us,  ‘Carbon Cascades’  - ‘Using Fire to Cool the Earth’ by Albert Bates & Kathleen Draper
The very topics of what is, may and is not effective and why … this  is being explored, reasoned and explained to anyone care to read it with and open mind.
Share what you learned and understand and let’s get into, let’s continue and let’s make the best of PyCCS.

Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Earth (Audible ... - Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com › Burn-Using-Fire-Cool-Earth

 

Amazon.com: BurnUsing Fire to Cool the Earth (Audible Audio Edition): Albert Bates, Kathleen Draper, Tia Rider, Chelsea Green Publishing Company: Audible ...


Best wishes
Frank

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 1:36 AM
To:
main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

 

To be perfectly honest, my immediate reaction to the language here is that this was written by an oil or coal or power industry lobbyist to generate a subsidy for a costly, overhyped and technically probably marginal way to "dispose" of CO2. Yes, it is possible to grab CO2 at the stack, compress it to liquid and pump it into old wells. The language here effectively defines that and that alone as an/the acceptable technology. This is BS. (1) No one knows whether the stuff will stay down there or not. (It is pretty hot down there, after all, and liquid CO2 expands quite forcefully when heated. (2) Liquid CO2 is very slippery and no one knows what the geological consequences of pumping millions of gallons into oil shale will be - perhaps we can have geostability or sequestered carbon, but not both. (3) Just what is the logic of defining as the only acceptable tech a costly, industry specific one that excludes, apparently deliberately, low cost, low tech solutions the results of which have known benefits (e.g., water retention and decontamination, soil restoration, the locking up of heavy metals and so on)?

 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 2:16 AM Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:


Hello -- I'm forwarding to the legislative outreach person at the off of my Representative, Peter Welch, for possible cosponsoring. Vermont is, as a state, cooking up a homegrown "Payment for Ecosystems Services" program, and I'm also forwarding to my state because this Bill better reflects concepts like additinality, and also gives a tax credit for analysis of soils, which can be costly.

Regarding 45Q -- I disagree that it specifically excludes biochar and would argue that it includes it. 45Q requires that carbon be "disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage " I think if you put BC in soils or in a road, it is sequestered as safely as injecting it into a mine. I think the rest of the language supports BC and 45Q.  

[entire 45Q text is here: https://tinyurl.com/u7ahkao ]

I am not a tax expert, and I'd appreciate any more critical opinions on the issue. What puts me off about 45Q is the high minimum amounts needed. The code says:

(d) Qualified facility

For purposes of this section, the term "qualified facility" means any industrial facility or direct air capture facility-

(1) the construction of which begins before January 1, 2024, and-

(A) construction of carbon capture equipment begins before such date, or

(B) the original planning and design for such facility includes installation of carbon capture equipment, and

 

(2) which captures-

(A) in the case of a facility which emits not more than 500,000 metric tons of carbon oxide into the atmosphere during the taxable year, not less than 25,000 metric tons of qualified carbon oxide during the taxable year which is utilized in a manner described in subsection (f)(5),


25,000 metric tonnes is a lot of CO2e. Some companies will make 9,000 metric tonnes of Biochar, but not many.  I would like that reduced in contemplation of smaller facilities and changed to to allow aggregation of several facilities under the same beneficial control.

Thanks for raising the issue. This credit is HUGE if we can get it.
Rob






On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:37 AM, Ron Larson wrote:

The following just came to my attention:

 

 

 which then sends us to:

 

 

 

I think biochar fits, but it may have been designed only around no-till.  It is based in part on the 45Q carbon credit legislation for CDR already in place (that intentionally leaves biochar out).

 

I read this to say that folks on this list could help establish the rules and maybe also help certify.  There’s a tax transferrable aspect.

 

I’ve read the 11 pages twice, but don’t have enough tax expertise to know what might be missing.   There isn’t anything specifically on out-year advantages.  Nothing on energy.  The words “wildfire mitigation” are not there.

 

I see no indication on the timing for introduction by Bennett - but his act probably will have to be introduced within a month or two.  Announced 4 days ago.  No co-sponsors.  Nothing about a House sponsor.

 

Thoughts?   Bennett is my Senator,  I’d like to visit his office and make sure that the biochar community is seen as an ally.  He definitely is looking for input from groups like this list

 

Ron

  


Re: A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

Don Coyne <don@...>
 

I agree Frank, ever since I read Hans Peter Schmidt 55 Uses of Biochar back in 2013 I have been intrigued by the concept of building things with biochar including soil. https://www.biochar-journal.org/en/ct/2 It will all end up in there anyway. We advocated again for this at ANZBC19 with a number of presentations on biochar in hot & cold mix asphalt as well biochar concrete including 3D Printed Concrete Automated construction. You can download 70% of the presentations from ANZBC19 here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MEkykMe3TlFFYAUkgHD3naDhVxoMJfw8

 

Chars,

 

Don

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frank Strie
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 9:23 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

 

Considering the seriousness, urgency to be effective, the massive scale, reasons etc., I like to strongly suggest anyone read or listen to the book being read for us,  ‘Carbon Cascades’  - ‘Using Fire to Cool the Earth’ by Albert Bates & Kathleen Draper
The very topics of what is, may and is not effective and why … this  is being explored, reasoned and explained to anyone care to read it with and open mind.
Share what you learned and understand and let’s get into, let’s continue and let’s make the best of PyCCS.

Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Earth (Audible ... - Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com › Burn-Using-Fire-Cool-Earth

 

Amazon.com: BurnUsing Fire to Cool the Earth (Audible Audio Edition): Albert Bates, Kathleen Draper, Tia Rider, Chelsea Green Publishing Company: Audible ...


Best wishes
Frank

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 1:36 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

 

To be perfectly honest, my immediate reaction to the language here is that this was written by an oil or coal or power industry lobbyist to generate a subsidy for a costly, overhyped and technically probably marginal way to "dispose" of CO2. Yes, it is possible to grab CO2 at the stack, compress it to liquid and pump it into old wells. The language here effectively defines that and that alone as an/the acceptable technology. This is BS. (1) No one knows whether the stuff will stay down there or not. (It is pretty hot down there, after all, and liquid CO2 expands quite forcefully when heated. (2) Liquid CO2 is very slippery and no one knows what the geological consequences of pumping millions of gallons into oil shale will be - perhaps we can have geostability or sequestered carbon, but not both. (3) Just what is the logic of defining as the only acceptable tech a costly, industry specific one that excludes, apparently deliberately, low cost, low tech solutions the results of which have known benefits (e.g., water retention and decontamination, soil restoration, the locking up of heavy metals and so on)?

 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 2:16 AM Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:


Hello -- I'm forwarding to the legislative outreach person at the off of my Representative, Peter Welch, for possible cosponsoring. Vermont is, as a state, cooking up a homegrown "Payment for Ecosystems Services" program, and I'm also forwarding to my state because this Bill better reflects concepts like additinality, and also gives a tax credit for analysis of soils, which can be costly.

Regarding 45Q -- I disagree that it specifically excludes biochar and would argue that it includes it. 45Q requires that carbon be "disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage " I think if you put BC in soils or in a road, it is sequestered as safely as injecting it into a mine. I think the rest of the language supports BC and 45Q.  

[entire 45Q text is here: https://tinyurl.com/u7ahkao ]

I am not a tax expert, and I'd appreciate any more critical opinions on the issue. What puts me off about 45Q is the high minimum amounts needed. The code says:

(d) Qualified facility

For purposes of this section, the term "qualified facility" means any industrial facility or direct air capture facility-

(1) the construction of which begins before January 1, 2024, and-

(A) construction of carbon capture equipment begins before such date, or

(B) the original planning and design for such facility includes installation of carbon capture equipment, and

 

(2) which captures-

(A) in the case of a facility which emits not more than 500,000 metric tons of carbon oxide into the atmosphere during the taxable year, not less than 25,000 metric tons of qualified carbon oxide during the taxable year which is utilized in a manner described in subsection (f)(5),


25,000 metric tonnes is a lot of CO2e. Some companies will make 9,000 metric tonnes of Biochar, but not many.  I would like that reduced in contemplation of smaller facilities and changed to to allow aggregation of several facilities under the same beneficial control.

Thanks for raising the issue. This credit is HUGE if we can get it.
Rob






On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:37 AM, Ron Larson wrote:

The following just came to my attention:

 

 

 which then sends us to:

 

 

 

I think biochar fits, but it may have been designed only around no-till.  It is based in part on the 45Q carbon credit legislation for CDR already in place (that intentionally leaves biochar out).

 

I read this to say that folks on this list could help establish the rules and maybe also help certify.  There’s a tax transferrable aspect.

 

I’ve read the 11 pages twice, but don’t have enough tax expertise to know what might be missing.   There isn’t anything specifically on out-year advantages.  Nothing on energy.  The words “wildfire mitigation” are not there.

 

I see no indication on the timing for introduction by Bennett - but his act probably will have to be introduced within a month or two.  Announced 4 days ago.  No co-sponsors.  Nothing about a House sponsor.

 

Thoughts?   Bennett is my Senator,  I’d like to visit his office and make sure that the biochar community is seen as an ally.  He definitely is looking for input from groups like this list

 

Ron

  


Re: A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

Frank Strie
 

Considering the seriousness, urgency to be effective, the massive scale, reasons etc., I like to strongly suggest anyone read or listen to the book being read for us,  ‘Carbon Cascades’  - ‘Using Fire to Cool the Earth’ by Albert Bates & Kathleen Draper
The very topics of what is, may and is not effective and why … this  is being explored, reasoned and explained to anyone care to read it with and open mind.
Share what you learned and understand and let’s get into, let’s continue and let’s make the best of PyCCS.

Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Earth (Audible ... - Amazon.com

 

https://www.amazon.com › Burn-Using-Fire-Cool-Earth

 

Amazon.com: BurnUsing Fire to Cool the Earth (Audible Audio Edition): Albert Bates, Kathleen Draper, Tia Rider, Chelsea Green Publishing Company: Audible ...


Best wishes
Frank

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 1:36 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

 

To be perfectly honest, my immediate reaction to the language here is that this was written by an oil or coal or power industry lobbyist to generate a subsidy for a costly, overhyped and technically probably marginal way to "dispose" of CO2. Yes, it is possible to grab CO2 at the stack, compress it to liquid and pump it into old wells. The language here effectively defines that and that alone as an/the acceptable technology. This is BS. (1) No one knows whether the stuff will stay down there or not. (It is pretty hot down there, after all, and liquid CO2 expands quite forcefully when heated. (2) Liquid CO2 is very slippery and no one knows what the geological consequences of pumping millions of gallons into oil shale will be - perhaps we can have geostability or sequestered carbon, but not both. (3) Just what is the logic of defining as the only acceptable tech a costly, industry specific one that excludes, apparently deliberately, low cost, low tech solutions the results of which have known benefits (e.g., water retention and decontamination, soil restoration, the locking up of heavy metals and so on)?

 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 2:16 AM Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:


Hello -- I'm forwarding to the legislative outreach person at the off of my Representative, Peter Welch, for possible cosponsoring. Vermont is, as a state, cooking up a homegrown "Payment for Ecosystems Services" program, and I'm also forwarding to my state because this Bill better reflects concepts like additinality, and also gives a tax credit for analysis of soils, which can be costly.

Regarding 45Q -- I disagree that it specifically excludes biochar and would argue that it includes it. 45Q requires that carbon be "disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage " I think if you put BC in soils or in a road, it is sequestered as safely as injecting it into a mine. I think the rest of the language supports BC and 45Q.  

[entire 45Q text is here: https://tinyurl.com/u7ahkao ]

I am not a tax expert, and I'd appreciate any more critical opinions on the issue. What puts me off about 45Q is the high minimum amounts needed. The code says:


(d) Qualified facility

For purposes of this section, the term "qualified facility" means any industrial facility or direct air capture facility-

(1) the construction of which begins before January 1, 2024, and-

(A) construction of carbon capture equipment begins before such date, or

(B) the original planning and design for such facility includes installation of carbon capture equipment, and

 

(2) which captures-

(A) in the case of a facility which emits not more than 500,000 metric tons of carbon oxide into the atmosphere during the taxable year, not less than 25,000 metric tons of qualified carbon oxide during the taxable year which is utilized in a manner described in subsection (f)(5),


25,000 metric tonnes is a lot of CO2e. Some companies will make 9,000 metric tonnes of Biochar, but not many.  I would like that reduced in contemplation of smaller facilities and changed to to allow aggregation of several facilities under the same beneficial control.

Thanks for raising the issue. This credit is HUGE if we can get it.
Rob






On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:37 AM, Ron Larson wrote:

The following just came to my attention:

 

 

 which then sends us to:

 

 

 

I think biochar fits, but it may have been designed only around no-till.  It is based in part on the 45Q carbon credit legislation for CDR already in place (that intentionally leaves biochar out).

 

I read this to say that folks on this list could help establish the rules and maybe also help certify.  There’s a tax transferrable aspect.

 

I’ve read the 11 pages twice, but don’t have enough tax expertise to know what might be missing.   There isn’t anything specifically on out-year advantages.  Nothing on energy.  The words “wildfire mitigation” are not there.

 

I see no indication on the timing for introduction by Bennett - but his act probably will have to be introduced within a month or two.  Announced 4 days ago.  No co-sponsors.  Nothing about a House sponsor.

 

Thoughts?   Bennett is my Senator,  I’d like to visit his office and make sure that the biochar community is seen as an ally.  He definitely is looking for input from groups like this list

 

Ron

  


Re: A Bill To Help Biochar? #policy

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

To be perfectly honest, my immediate reaction to the language here is that this was written by an oil or coal or power industry lobbyist to generate a subsidy for a costly, overhyped and technically probably marginal way to "dispose" of CO2. Yes, it is possible to grab CO2 at the stack, compress it to liquid and pump it into old wells. The language here effectively defines that and that alone as an/the acceptable technology. This is BS. (1) No one knows whether the stuff will stay down there or not. (It is pretty hot down there, after all, and liquid CO2 expands quite forcefully when heated. (2) Liquid CO2 is very slippery and no one knows what the geological consequences of pumping millions of gallons into oil shale will be - perhaps we can have geostability or sequestered carbon, but not both. (3) Just what is the logic of defining as the only acceptable tech a costly, industry specific one that excludes, apparently deliberately, low cost, low tech solutions the results of which have known benefits (e.g., water retention and decontamination, soil restoration, the locking up of heavy metals and so on)?


On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 2:16 AM Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert=mac.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hello -- I'm forwarding to the legislative outreach person at the off of my Representative, Peter Welch, for possible cosponsoring. Vermont is, as a state, cooking up a homegrown "Payment for Ecosystems Services" program, and I'm also forwarding to my state because this Bill better reflects concepts like additinality, and also gives a tax credit for analysis of soils, which can be costly.

Regarding 45Q -- I disagree that it specifically excludes biochar and would argue that it includes it. 45Q requires that carbon be "disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage " I think if you put BC in soils or in a road, it is sequestered as safely as injecting it into a mine. I think the rest of the language supports BC and 45Q.  

[entire 45Q text is here: https://tinyurl.com/u7ahkao ]

I am not a tax expert, and I'd appreciate any more critical opinions on the issue. What puts me off about 45Q is the high minimum amounts needed. The code says:

(d) Qualified facility

For purposes of this section, the term "qualified facility" means any industrial facility or direct air capture facility-

(1) the construction of which begins before January 1, 2024, and-

(A) construction of carbon capture equipment begins before such date, or

(B) the original planning and design for such facility includes installation of carbon capture equipment, and


(2) which captures-

(A) in the case of a facility which emits not more than 500,000 metric tons of carbon oxide into the atmosphere during the taxable year, not less than 25,000 metric tons of qualified carbon oxide during the taxable year which is utilized in a manner described in subsection (f)(5),


25,000 metric tonnes is a lot of CO2e. Some companies will make 9,000 metric tonnes of Biochar, but not many.  I would like that reduced in contemplation of smaller facilities and changed to to allow aggregation of several facilities under the same beneficial control.

Thanks for raising the issue. This credit is HUGE if we can get it.
Rob






On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:37 AM, Ron Larson wrote:
The following just came to my attention:
 
 
 which then sends us to:
 
 
 
I think biochar fits, but it may have been designed only around no-till.  It is based in part on the 45Q carbon credit legislation for CDR already in place (that intentionally leaves biochar out).
 
I read this to say that folks on this list could help establish the rules and maybe also help certify.  There’s a tax transferrable aspect.
 
I’ve read the 11 pages twice, but don’t have enough tax expertise to know what might be missing.   There isn’t anything specifically on out-year advantages.  Nothing on energy.  The words “wildfire mitigation” are not there.
 
I see no indication on the timing for introduction by Bennett - but his act probably will have to be introduced within a month or two.  Announced 4 days ago.  No co-sponsors.  Nothing about a House sponsor.
 
Thoughts?   Bennett is my Senator,  I’d like to visit his office and make sure that the biochar community is seen as an ally.  He definitely is looking for input from groups like this list
 
Ron
  


Re: Seeking information #wanted

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Paul, Thanks for hooking them up. So much to do about such a small thing. Five kg is half a TLUD and it's not as if there are not dozens of top labs at work on char in India!


On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 12:16 PM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Dear Dr. Mukherjee,

 

I invite you to discuss more fully your needs about obtaining suitable biochar.   Production via TLUD stoves (kilns) and the 4C kilns for larger quantities is a major effort that I conduct.   I have just returned from India where I was involved with char (to be used as biochar) production.

 

I and others could assist you to be able to produce at your Institute the needed 4 or 5 kg.   Or you could possibly acquire that amount from my contact at CSIR IMMT.  

 

Do you want to purchase “biochar” that is “raw pure charcoal” or “treated – enhanced charcoal”?    Is it your intention to fly into India some charcoal that has been inoculated or otherwise altered?

 

Interested in assisting you.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of santanu mukherjee via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:27 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io; Biochar-Policy <biochar-policy@...>; Biochar Group <biochar@...>
Subject: [Biochar] Seeking information

 

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

Dear All,

           Our research group (IIT-Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India) urgently need 4/5 kilos of biochar produced from any feedstock/ any procedures. No temperatures/reaction conditions specified but probably would be best to have less ash content (so 600-800 degree production condition would be best but not restricted) as we want to use it for remediation purposes? Please help me in finding the suppliers and associated costs?

 

Please let me know.

 

Thanking You.

Kind Regards,
Dr. Santanu Mukherjee (Dr. agr., Univ of Bonn)
Former Visiting Scientist at Savannah River Ecology Laboratory | University of Georgia (2016-2017)
Former Guest Scientist at Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Juelich, Germany (2011-2016)



Biochar in Soil #biochar #soil #organic matter #organic #biochar #soil

ROBERT W GILLETT
 

Merry Christmas All,

Thought I'd drop a lump of hi-tech coal in your stockings. Carbon foam looks like a high-quality biochar from the description by the USFS. The recent winners of the Keeling Curve prize may be using it as a substrate to form catalysts for CO2 capture (see paper by Ma et al. under References). Biochar may yet end up being the biggest solution to global warming, but under a different moniker and in a way most did not anticipate.

Robert Gillett


Re: Studies on Biochar reducing NPK leaching ? #fruit #orchard #leaching

mikethewormguy
 

Tom

YES..........

Happy Holidays....!

Mike



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: #biomass #climate #climate #biomass

Ron Larson
 

Tomaso and list:

Thanks for one of your comments below.  I’ve been wanting to have this discussion.

This is to follow up on your (below) phrase   “... charcoal out ……..blasphemy for the energy efficiency people…”.    I agree that the charcoal = blasphemy perception exists.  For too many, this applies to biomass in general - not just charcoal.   This to see if this list can help change that perception.  The following is still only ramblings.

Efficiency implies saving.  Charrists are not proposing to save biomass (measured in weight units) - just the opposite.

Biochar and savings are related through lower temperature rise - but global temperature doesn’t seem a parameter that will sell to "energy efficiency people”.

Efficiency also implies lower losses.   This “loss” approach may work as both combustion and pyrolysis (both with an energy flavor) are using a commodity (measured in weight units) that is lost if not utilized.

In the world of energy - one way to start might be to say that all biomass is stored energy - about 18 MJ/kg = 18,000 kJ/kg.   Since there are 3600 seconds in an hour and 1 joule = 1 watt-sec, then:

1 kg of biomass = 18,000 kJ = 18,000 kilowatt-seconds = (18,000 kilowatt-secs) /  (3600 seconds / hour)  = 5 kWh.  (kWh being a better understood energy unit than a Joule)

Now we are talking about saving energy, not saving a weight.  We are in the energy efficiency world.

Biomass that is allowed to convert (rot) back to CO2 (and worse methane), is violating energy efficiency mandates;  energy is being wasted.

One way to prevent this rotting (low efficiency) is through carbonization - making charcoal.  Up to half the initial biomass energy can be saved (50% = high efficiency) in the charcoal =  biochar.

This has problems because the energy is saved, but not being used for traditional energy purposes.

But what about combustion vs carbonization/pyrolysis (no charcoal vs charcoal)?  Why should charcoal = higher efficiency than combustion (as we usually read in the biochar CDR literature)?   I think the answer lies in what happens after charcoal is put in the ground and can be called biochar.  Then we have higher productive soil that needs less water and fertilizers.  We have more biomass in total.  We have more stored energy.   Less lost energy (lost if incoming solar radiation is not put to any use) is higher efficiency.
I think most biochar economic analyses that have compared biochar to combustion have concluded that the biochar makes better economic and CO2 (combining insertion and removal) sense.  But can we use efficiency in monetary units?

Would any of these ramblings be convincing to “energy efficiency people”?

Thoughts?    (Again thanks to Tomaso for his too-true “efficiency" observation that is definitely slowing biochar introduction.)

Ron


On Dec 24, 2019, at 2:48 AM, Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

The origin of the word incinerations is the latin ciner … ash 
 
Incineration means “turning \ burning to ash” … we need to recycle biomass in usable Carbon and energy 
 
Even an old traditional wood boiler could be operated to preserve more Carbon by simply taking the charcoal out before it turns to ash … it is blasphemy for the energy efficiency people but it is a very sensible thing to do when you take a broader perspective
 
T
 
Da: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Per conto di Ron Larson
Inviato: giovedì 19 dicembre 2019 19:47
A: main@Biochar.groups.io
Oggetto: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate
 
Robert,  Hugh et al:
 
              Today’s webinar was one of the best I recall - in part comparing biochar production to other alternatives - including “incineration”.   I strongly urge viewing when it re-appears.  
 
Speaker was a Swedish PhD candidate - looking at biochar from a very broad perspective:  
              Elias Sebastian Azzi (KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden): Overview of biochar deployment in Sweden & related life cycle assessments
              He finds good reason to produce biochar in Sweden - and (by needing more on out-year benefits) I think is not yet sufficiently considering what happens years after placing char in soil (as seen in Terra Preta soils).  
 
              Still - one of the best biochar studies I have ever heard (and will soon read about).
 
              I learned that a lot is happening in Sweden (and other Nordic countries).  Maybe even now ahead of China?
 
Part 2:  Hugh -  could you expand on the ongoing conversations between McKibben and Smolker?  Agreeing or disagreeing on biochar?
 
              Totally agree on our not using the word “incineration”.
 
Robert:
 
              Perhaps the concept and word “renewable” can be used in place of “incineration”.  All that biomass is too valuable to simply combust.
 
Ron
 
 


On Dec 19, 2019, at 9:12 AM, Hugh McLaughlin via Groups.Io <wastemin1@...> wrote:
 
In the past, Bill has not been receptive to any modifications of his message. He crafts it for impact, and lets the facts fall where they may. He has been back and forth on biochar, especially when he crosses paths with Rachael Smolker. You are welcome to try, but be prepared to be corrected. I also do not view the use of biomass as a fuel for power generation as incineration, nor do I think the name change will help. "Biomass Incineration Plants" does not have a user friendly ring to it, in my opinion. Hugh
 
On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 10:29:02 AM EST, Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert@...> wrote: 
 
 
Bill McKibben (one of my neighbors and frequently spotted about town) is on a tear about “biomass plants”
 
This morning he re-tweeted an article about conversion of coal plants to biomass plants. He is friends with Naomi Klein, who just published a book about biomass with the unfortunate title of “Burn”. 
 
Is it safe to say that the “biomass plants” he’s referencing — the ones behind clear-cutting and massive pelletizing —  are incineration plants, designed to maximize electricity output, and produce almost pure ash? 
 
Is it fair and honest to ask Bill (when I see him) to start using the term “incineration” instead of “biomass”? 
 
Is there another term that distinguishes these large wood-fueled incineration power plants from, say, a biomass plant processing sewage sludge into syngas and char?
 
 
Whatever holiday you celebrate, I wish you all a joyous and safe one — and I hope you're fired up about 2020.
 



Re: #biomass #climate #climate #biomass

Kim Chaffee
 

Hi Tom,
I like your term, “thermal decomposition”.  Using the optimal words is very important.  Did you see the email I sent you a few weeks ago?  I’ll resend it now.
Merry Christmas!
Kim


On Dec 24, 2019, at 12:06 PM, Tom Nelson <tom@...> wrote:

Instead of incineration or burning, I like to use the phrase “thermal decomposition”
as it is more descriptive of what our industry actually does. “Pyro” = fire and “lysis” to decompose. Using heat, we break down biomass into its component parts to make new commercial products.

Tom Nelson
Torresak 


On Dec 24, 2019, at 5:21 AM, Mark Ludlow <mark@...> wrote:

Dear Tom,

What good and complete sense you make! 

Mark

 

From: main@biochar.groups.io on behalf of Tom Miles <tmiles@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 10:50 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate
 

Like Hugh, I doubt that McKibben would be interested in a discussion.

 

Naomi Klein’s new book is titled “On fire: the Burning Case for a Green New Deal”.https://naomiklein.org/on-fire/ As far as I can tell it is not about incineration but about climate change in general.

 

The passion for fighting “incineration” is old school and uninformed. We need to adopt a more holistic view and find positive ways of solving the climate conundrum. To paraphrase a famous author, “It is easier to tear down prison walls than to open new doors of understanding.”

 

People who are simply against burning anything apparently do not consume energy of any kind, including products made with energy in any form, edible or otherwise. They personally do not contribute to global climate change but want others to change their habits to improve their environment. How is the electricity that they consume generated? It is likely carbon from the soil in the form of coal which then is loaded into the atmosphere.  Do they drive vehicles that are powered by electricity generated from coal? Wouldn’t they prefer energy generated from renewable sources of energy such as wood?     

 

Biomass and bioenergy are not incineration. There have long been debates and confusion about the term incineration and bioenergy. USEPA uses the term to include all waste combustion devices including power generation however it usually refers to hazardous or municipal waste rather than biomass. Incineration is usually the combustion of wastes (including biomass) with no energy recovery. Incineration requires a whole different set of regulations which include pollutants that are not generated by biomass energy plants.

 

The conversion of renewable carbon in biomass  to energy and minerals (ash) is not “incineration” and shouldn’t be called that. The minerals (ash) and residual carbon from biomass plants were used as soil amendments until the early 2000s when lawyers began diverting the ash to landfills. Today we are diverting some of those mineral and carbon (biochar) residues back into use in soil  in food production (agriculture), landscaping, and pollution control (Stormwater management).  

 

Engineers  design biomass energy plants for maximum efficiency not only for energy recovery but for pollution control. We just modified the operation of a plant in your region to comply with “Maximum Achievable [emission] Control Technology”, or MACT which is an EPA regulation for boiler emissions designed to make energy plants of all kinds as clean as possible.

 

A good example of the efficient conversion of wood wastes and residues is right there in Burlington, Vermont. I know the engineers who designed, built and operated that plant. It has been a test site for advanced thermal conversion processes. Much of the fuel for the Burlington plant initially came from timber stand replacements, where unwanted post-colonial species were being replaced with native species. Perhaps your neighbor had colonial relatives who wasted the native forests of the Northeast which are in the long process of being restored. The unwanted species are converted to energy in several biomass plants. Unfortunately many of those plants are being shut down rather than renewed or improved because they can’t complete with low cost fossil fuels.  

 

Your neighbor may not know, or care, that we grow 25% more wood in the US than we consume. He may not have seen Life Cycle Assessments of biomass energy or biochar with energy recovery. He may not agree with the way our natural resources are managed. In the west we need biomass energy plants to convert hazardous forest residues to energy, instead of consuming our resources to control wildfires. These are residues which cannot be used in building products or other methods of carbon sequestration. The pellet trade uses wood not generally in demand for buildings, paper and other non-energy uses. Much of the wood that is converted to export pellets are hardwoods with no other market or it is from grown on plantations. We also export energy as carbon and nutrients in the form of renewable fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and energy intensive grains such as corn and soybeans.

 

As you can see it is not just about “clearcutting and pellet plants”. We need to find creative integrated solutions that make sense.


Tom

 

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>On Behalf Of Hugh McLaughlin via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 8:13 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate

 

In the past, Bill has not been receptive to any modifications of his message. He crafts it for impact, and lets the facts fall where they may. He has been back and forth on biochar, especially when he crosses paths with Rachael Smolker. You are welcome to try, but be prepared to be corrected. I also do not view the use of biomass as a fuel for power generation as incineration, nor do I think the name change will help. "Biomass Incineration Plants" does not have a user friendly ring to it, in my opinion. Hugh

 

On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 10:29:02 AM EST, Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert@...> wrote:

 

 

Bill McKibben (one of my neighbors and frequently spotted about town) is on a tear about“biomass plants”

 

This morning he re-tweeted an article about conversion of coal plants to biomass plants. He is friends with Naomi Klein, who just published a book about biomass with the unfortunate title of “Burn”.

 

Is it safe to say that the “biomass plants” he’s referencing — the ones behind clear-cutting and massive pelletizing —  are incineration plants, designed to maximize electricity output, and produce almost pure ash? 

 

Is it fair and honest to ask Bill (when I see him) to start using the term “incineration” instead of “biomass”? 

 

Is there another term that distinguishes these large wood-fueled incineration power plants from, say, a biomass plant processing sewage sludge into syngas and char?

 

 

Whatever holiday you celebrate, I wish you all a joyous and safe one — and I hope you're fired up about 2020.


Re: Studies on Biochar reducing NPK leaching ? #fruit #orchard #leaching

Tom Miles
 

NPK + biochar appears to increase yield when biochar makes nutrients available through plant roots and mycorrhizal hyphae, and when biochar reduces nutrient loss through leaching or other factors. The marginal increase in yield would be credited against the total cost of the biochar treatment (char, application, irrigation, etc.). Field trials in Oregon with blueberries had yield results similar to the avocado results reported in Australia even though the soils and circumstances are different. Are there enough biochar field trials on orchard crops, soils, and irrigation to draw any conclusions about benefits?

 

Tom  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of mikethewormguy via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 9:51 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Studies on Biochar reducing NPK leaching ?

 

Tomasco,

 

When the orchard owners calculate their NPK do they do it based on the harvested yield.  In this case, the yield would represent the nutrients mined from the soil.

 

If not than the yield based totals maybe a NPK dosing option with biochar.....

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 


Re: Studies on Biochar reducing NPK leaching ? #fruit #orchard #leaching

mikethewormguy
 

Tomasco,

When the orchard owners calculate their NPK do they do it based on the harvested yield.  In this case, the yield would represent the nutrients mined from the soil.

If not than the yield based totals maybe a NPK dosing option with biochar.....

Mike





Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: #biomass #climate #climate #biomass

Tom Nelson
 

Instead of incineration or burning, I like to use the phrase “thermal decomposition”
as it is more descriptive of what our industry actually does. “Pyro” = fire and “lysis” to decompose. Using heat, we break down biomass into its component parts to make new commercial products.

Tom Nelson
Torresak 


On Dec 24, 2019, at 5:21 AM, Mark Ludlow <mark@...> wrote:

Dear Tom,

What good and complete sense you make! 

Mark

 

From: main@biochar.groups.io on behalf of Tom Miles <tmiles@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 10:50 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate
 

Like Hugh, I doubt that McKibben would be interested in a discussion.

 

Naomi Klein’s new book is titled “On fire: the Burning Case for a Green New Deal”.https://naomiklein.org/on-fire/ As far as I can tell it is not about incineration but about climate change in general.

 

The passion for fighting “incineration” is old school and uninformed. We need to adopt a more holistic view and find positive ways of solving the climate conundrum. To paraphrase a famous author, “It is easier to tear down prison walls than to open new doors of understanding.”

 

People who are simply against burning anything apparently do not consume energy of any kind, including products made with energy in any form, edible or otherwise. They personally do not contribute to global climate change but want others to change their habits to improve their environment. How is the electricity that they consume generated? It is likely carbon from the soil in the form of coal which then is loaded into the atmosphere.  Do they drive vehicles that are powered by electricity generated from coal? Wouldn’t they prefer energy generated from renewable sources of energy such as wood?     

 

Biomass and bioenergy are not incineration. There have long been debates and confusion about the term incineration and bioenergy. USEPA uses the term to include all waste combustion devices including power generation however it usually refers to hazardous or municipal waste rather than biomass. Incineration is usually the combustion of wastes (including biomass) with no energy recovery. Incineration requires a whole different set of regulations which include pollutants that are not generated by biomass energy plants.

 

The conversion of renewable carbon in biomass  to energy and minerals (ash) is not “incineration” and shouldn’t be called that. The minerals (ash) and residual carbon from biomass plants were used as soil amendments until the early 2000s when lawyers began diverting the ash to landfills. Today we are diverting some of those mineral and carbon (biochar) residues back into use in soil  in food production (agriculture), landscaping, and pollution control (Stormwater management).  

 

Engineers  design biomass energy plants for maximum efficiency not only for energy recovery but for pollution control. We just modified the operation of a plant in your region to comply with “Maximum Achievable [emission] Control Technology”, or MACT which is an EPA regulation for boiler emissions designed to make energy plants of all kinds as clean as possible.

 

A good example of the efficient conversion of wood wastes and residues is right there in Burlington, Vermont. I know the engineers who designed, built and operated that plant. It has been a test site for advanced thermal conversion processes. Much of the fuel for the Burlington plant initially came from timber stand replacements, where unwanted post-colonial species were being replaced with native species. Perhaps your neighbor had colonial relatives who wasted the native forests of the Northeast which are in the long process of being restored. The unwanted species are converted to energy in several biomass plants. Unfortunately many of those plants are being shut down rather than renewed or improved because they can’t complete with low cost fossil fuels.  

 

Your neighbor may not know, or care, that we grow 25% more wood in the US than we consume. He may not have seen Life Cycle Assessments of biomass energy or biochar with energy recovery. He may not agree with the way our natural resources are managed. In the west we need biomass energy plants to convert hazardous forest residues to energy, instead of consuming our resources to control wildfires. These are residues which cannot be used in building products or other methods of carbon sequestration. The pellet trade uses wood not generally in demand for buildings, paper and other non-energy uses. Much of the wood that is converted to export pellets are hardwoods with no other market or it is from grown on plantations. We also export energy as carbon and nutrients in the form of renewable fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and energy intensive grains such as corn and soybeans.

 

As you can see it is not just about “clearcutting and pellet plants”. We need to find creative integrated solutions that make sense.


Tom

 

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>On Behalf Of Hugh McLaughlin via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 8:13 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate

 

In the past, Bill has not been receptive to any modifications of his message. He crafts it for impact, and lets the facts fall where they may. He has been back and forth on biochar, especially when he crosses paths with Rachael Smolker. You are welcome to try, but be prepared to be corrected. I also do not view the use of biomass as a fuel for power generation as incineration, nor do I think the name change will help. "Biomass Incineration Plants" does not have a user friendly ring to it, in my opinion. Hugh

 

On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 10:29:02 AM EST, Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert@...> wrote:

 

 

Bill McKibben (one of my neighbors and frequently spotted about town) is on a tear about“biomass plants”

 

This morning he re-tweeted an article about conversion of coal plants to biomass plants. He is friends with Naomi Klein, who just published a book about biomass with the unfortunate title of “Burn”.

 

Is it safe to say that the “biomass plants” he’s referencing — the ones behind clear-cutting and massive pelletizing —  are incineration plants, designed to maximize electricity output, and produce almost pure ash? 

 

Is it fair and honest to ask Bill (when I see him) to start using the term “incineration” instead of “biomass”? 

 

Is there another term that distinguishes these large wood-fueled incineration power plants from, say, a biomass plant processing sewage sludge into syngas and char?

 

 

Whatever holiday you celebrate, I wish you all a joyous and safe one — and I hope you're fired up about 2020.


Re: Studies on Biochar reducing NPK leaching ? #fruit #orchard #leaching

Francesco Tortorici
 

Mike,
In response to your questions, I do not have additional information beyond what is in the reports.  I believe they will be conducting additional trials this year, but do not know the parameters of the research.

I believe the researchers have gained knowledge since these first two years and are building upon that knowledge.

Francesco

We know more about the stars overhead than the soil underfoot.
Leonardo Da Vinci


On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:50 AM mikethewormguy via Groups.Io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Francesco,

Do you know if the yield response to the chicken litter/biochar response was a good investment for the grower....?

Were the plants direct seeded or planted as transplants.....?

If were to repeat this experiment than I would use transplants.  Thus I would be able to add the biochar to the transplant media, as well as, in the planting hole.

Broadcasting biochar over the bulk soil can assist with long term soil health but may not be as affordable and executable as a targeted application for a within season plant responses.

The ROI from a 8 ton per broad acre application may need to be evaluated over multiple seasons. This is more of an AMONG SEASON investment application rather a WITHIN SEASON response application.....

my 2 cents

Mike


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


Re: #biomass #climate #climate #biomass

Paul Guire
 

Hi Frank, Absolutely no doubt their technology is A1, you might know the saying here Vorsprung durch Technik” (Leading through technology)- Audi coined but German engineering lives by it. Helmut is good passionate guy and loves the effect his technology is able to have on the environment. By the sound of it my pennies are safe in his and hopefully eventually your hands. 
I'm due a visit back up to Dörth early next year to review their progress.  

Merry Christmas to Y’all Down Under with a bit of luck and a following wind Biochar is going to have its say in 2020. 

On 24. Dec 2019, at 13:31, Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Thanks for your comment and your question Paul,
I met Helmut Gerber, the founder of PYREG during an intensive 2013  study tour in Europe, involving Terra Preta Sanitation, a week long Biochar School Program at the Ithaka Institute in Switzerland and then during a visit at the PYREG factory in Germany.
We have since provided lots of information and investigation for appropriate project opportunities Down Under in Australia and especially also here in Tasmania. There are good reasons why we should see such a top class technology project being also installed here on our Island. 
We are open to various technological options, depending on the local requirements and feedstocks etc.
Best regards
Frank 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul Guire
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 11:14 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate
 
Frank, Thats a very nice website and suite of products, congratulations. Can I ask what your association/involvement is in Pyreg GmbH, I'm the tiniest of shareholders in that company .
 
Regards. Paul


On 24. Dec 2019, at 12:44, Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:
 

How about this for positive change ?
Cheers 
Frank 
www.terrapretadevelopments.com.au/products 


https://www.amazon.com/Burn-Using-Fire-Cool-Earth/dp/1603587837

<image001.jpg>

A note from the authors

'We have a choice before us now, individually and collectively. Civilizations undergo transformations. We can leave behind the old one that is poorly adapted, and design and build a better society. This book is part of that visioning process. The destructive civilization of the past few centuries was founded on plundering and profiting from prehistoric carbon. The new economy will be carbon-centric, too, but the focus will be on continuous cycling-and a virtuous spiral of improvement. As the planet teeters on a climate precipice and the global economy is running at full speed within a fossil-carbon-induced haze, many people see no viable solutions to looming interconnected disasters. Those few among us who have glimpsed the possibility for a new carbon economy may seem naive. But these are neither moonshots nor science fiction. They are economically viable reconceptions for our global industrial model'.


Editorial Reviews 

Review

“We’re in a climate emergency, and we need to be using an awful lot of different approaches―here’s one that definitely deserves to be explored in full.”Bill McKibben, author of Falter




Burn advances the discussion from fantasies of biochar-based agriculture to normative proposals for many ways the material could theoretically be used as an environmentally attractive, economically competitive resource in many sectors of society. The book opens new avenues of thought, and it will be a valuable reference in the coming decade in helping us to assess the inevitable cascade of ever bigger, riskier, costlier, and zanier proposals for carbon withdrawal.”Dennis Meadows, 2018 laureate, The Earth Hall of Fame Kyoto



“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




“I cannot recommend this book highly enough for going deep into the science of a potentially revolutionary technology that could be capable of stopping dangerous climate change in its tracks. For anyone who wants to know how societies can transform the very fabric of how we run our industries so that we protect and enhance our environment, not destroy it―while contributing to thriving economies―this is literally the manual. It is, in short, a window into the future we could build together. So read it, and start building.”Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, system shift columnist, Motherboard; editor-in-chief, INSURGE Intelligence; research fellow, The Schumacher Institute
 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mark Ludlow
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 9:21 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io; main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate
 
Dear Tom,
 
What good and complete sense you make! 
 
Mark
 
 

From: main@biochar.groups.io on behalf of Tom Miles <tmiles@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 10:50 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate 
 
Like Hugh, I doubt that McKibben would be interested in a discussion.
 
Naomi Klein’s new book is titled “On fire: the Burning Case for a Green New Deal”.https://naomiklein.org/on-fire/ As far as I can tell it is not about incineration but about climate change in general.
 
The passion for fighting “incineration” is old school and uninformed. We need to adopt a more holistic view and find positive ways of solving the climate conundrum. To paraphrase a famous author, “It is easier to tear down prison walls than to open new doors of understanding.” 
 
People who are simply against burning anything apparently do not consume energy of any kind, including products made with energy in any form, edible or otherwise. They personally do not contribute to global climate change but want others to change their habits to improve their environment. How is the electricity that they consume generated? It is likely carbon from the soil in the form of coal which then is loaded into the atmosphere.  Do they drive vehicles that are powered by electricity generated from coal? Wouldn’t they prefer energy generated from renewable sources of energy such as wood?     
 
Biomass and bioenergy are not incineration. There have long been debates and confusion about the term incineration and bioenergy. USEPA uses the term to include all waste combustion devices including power generation however it usually refers to hazardous or municipal waste rather than biomass. Incineration is usually the combustion of wastes (including biomass) with no energy recovery. Incineration requires a whole different set of regulations which include pollutants that are not generated by biomass energy plants. 
 
The conversion of renewable carbon in biomass  to energy and minerals (ash) is not “incineration” and shouldn’t be called that. The minerals (ash) and residual carbon from biomass plants were used as soil amendments until the early 2000s when lawyers began diverting the ash to landfills. Today we are diverting some of those mineral and carbon (biochar) residues back into use in soil  in food production (agriculture), landscaping, and pollution control (Stormwater management).  
 
Engineers  design biomass energy plants for maximum efficiency not only for energy recovery but for pollution control. We just modified the operation of a plant in your region to comply with “Maximum Achievable [emission] Control Technology”, or MACT which is an EPA regulation for boiler emissions designed to make energy plants of all kinds as clean as possible.
 
A good example of the efficient conversion of wood wastes and residues is right there in Burlington, Vermont. I know the engineers who designed, built and operated that plant. It has been a test site for advanced thermal conversion processes. Much of the fuel for the Burlington plant initially came from timber stand replacements, where unwanted post-colonial species were being replaced with native species. Perhaps your neighbor had colonial relatives who wasted the native forests of the Northeast which are in the long process of being restored. The unwanted species are converted to energy in several biomass plants. Unfortunately many of those plants are being shut down rather than renewed or improved because they can’t complete with low cost fossil fuels.  
 
Your neighbor may not know, or care, that we grow 25% more wood in the US than we consume. He may not have seen Life Cycle Assessments of biomass energy or biochar with energy recovery. He may not agree with the way our natural resources are managed. In the west we need biomass energy plants to convert hazardous forest residues to energy, instead of consuming our resources to control wildfires. These are residues which cannot be used in building products or other methods of carbon sequestration. The pellet trade uses wood not generally in demand for buildings, paper and other non-energy uses. Much of the wood that is converted to export pellets are hardwoods with no other market or it is from grown on plantations. We also export energy as carbon and nutrients in the form of renewable fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and energy intensive grains such as corn and soybeans.
 
As you can see it is not just about “clearcutting and pellet plants”. We need to find creative integrated solutions that make sense.

Tom 
 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>On Behalf Of Hugh McLaughlin via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 8:13 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #biomass #climate
 
In the past, Bill has not been receptive to any modifications of his message. He crafts it for impact, and lets the facts fall where they may. He has been back and forth on biochar, especially when he crosses paths with Rachael Smolker. You are welcome to try, but be prepared to be corrected. I also do not view the use of biomass as a fuel for power generation as incineration, nor do I think the name change will help. "Biomass Incineration Plants" does not have a user friendly ring to it, in my opinion. Hugh
 
On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 10:29:02 AM EST, Robert Lehmert via Groups.Io <roblehmert@...> wrote: 
 
 
Bill McKibben (one of my neighbors and frequently spotted about town) is on a tear about“biomass plants”
 
This morning he re-tweeted an article about conversion of coal plants to biomass plants. He is friends with Naomi Klein, who just published a book about biomass with the unfortunate title of “Burn”. 
 
Is it safe to say that the “biomass plants” he’s referencing — the ones behind clear-cutting and massive pelletizing —  are incineration plants, designed to maximize electricity output, and produce almost pure ash? 
 
Is it fair and honest to ask Bill (when I see him) to start using the term “incineration” instead of “biomass”? 
 
Is there another term that distinguishes these large wood-fueled incineration power plants from, say, a biomass plant processing sewage sludge into syngas and char?
 
 
Whatever holiday you celebrate, I wish you all a joyous and safe one — and I hope you're fired up about 2020.
 


3901 - 3920 of 29932