Date   

Methane from cattle neutralized in healthy pasture?

Eli Fishpaw
 

The discussion of adding biochar to cattle feed to reduce methane, assumes that you are grain feeding, which produces higher amounts of methane than grass fed beef if the grazing is in a healthy pasture.  In this video describing the work of Scientist Walter Jehne, he claims that the water that is transpired out of plants when it interacts with sunlight produces hydroxyl ions (OH) that neutralizes methane (CH4) into H2O + CO2.  The critical factor is a healthy pasture.  Is this correct?  I am not qualified to make that judgement.  
 
 
I have read with enthusiasm the stories of feeding biochar to animal feed that charges the biology in the guts and later dung is consumed by dung beetles' gut to be charged and delivered into the soil.  Can this be done without feeding grains?  If Jehne is right, delivering biochar to soil may still be a motivator.  
 
Eli 


----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@...]
To: <Biochar@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 00:20:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

Hi Mike

 

Your mention of NOx and N20 in the context of methane brings up an interesting possibility: Is it possible for the following reactions to occur?

                        6 N2O + CH4 à CO2 + 4 H2O + 6 N2  …….…… (1)

                        a NOx + b CH4    à b CO2 + c H2O + d N2 …… (2)

 

Is there perhaps a Thermochemist on the Biochar List who could tell us if these reactions can take place under NTP conditions?

 

If these reactions would work in Nature, then Cow Farts and Belches would be a great way to reduce the oxygenated nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere!

 

Note that the Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches came from the Biosphere and is returned to the Biosphere. The Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches is “Carbon Neutral.” This contrasts to the carbon in “Natural Gas”… this is “Fossil Carbon”, which represents “the addition of new Carbon to the Biosphere”; this is “BAD CH4” because it adds to the carbon load in the biosphere.

 

If the above reactions will work in nature, is it possible that a certain amount of CH4 must be in the atmosphere, to prevent Nitrogen Oxides from becoming excessive?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: December 8, 2020 10:00 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

Methane point well taken. Sorry, I was thinking entirely in context of another project. I would consider NOx v. N2O, however, since the warming multiple is so big. (The math is in the footnotes, so you can recalculate easily.) I will get to FAO first thing today providing the site is back to normal.

 

Can't do the late night because of an early meeting many hours away.

 

M

 

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 1:52 PM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Michael,

 

Thanks for those comments.   I await your  re-calculations.

 

Although the methane is noteworthy, I would counter the comments by saying that a 20 year “penalty” is to be reduced if possible, but it is not sufficient to justify delays in using such technologies.    20 yrs out of 80 to the end of the century still leaves the sequestration value to be 60 years favorable, and then for many more additional centuries of sequestration value.  

 

Are you attending the US National Biochar Week that started Monday.   3 hours each day.   11 AM – 2 PM Eastern Time Zone.    Sorry that it is sooooooo late for you in Thailand.       Register (feee) at    www.easternbiochar.org    I have a 10 minute presentation today Tuesday at 12:30 PM Eastern  Time.

 

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 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@... via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:10 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

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

Paul,

 

I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.

 

I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.

 

He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.

 

He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.

 

Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.

 

As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass. 

 

For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.

 

I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.

 

M

 

 

photo

 

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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

 

Social icon

Social icon

Social icon

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

This white paper will be summarized and discussed at a free webinar that is announce in the attachment:  9 AM EST Thursday 10 December 2020.

Please forward this announcement to others who have interest in either our climate crisis or biochar or both.

Climate Intervention

with Biochar

A White Paper about Biochar and Energy (BC&E) for

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Emission Reduction (ER)

First Edition dated 2020-12-07

Distributed from the website  www.woodgas.energy 

 

The white paper’s direct URL is    https://woodgas.energy/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Climate-Intervention-With-Biochar.pdf

 

Executive Summary of Biochar White Paper

Elevator Speech: 

            Major impacts to fight the climate crisis are possible now with the economical use of biochar and energy (BC&E) as a negative emissions technology (NET) for millennial sequestration of gigatons of atmospheric CO2e as a soil enhancement while also being an emission reduction (ER) source for valuable needed heat.  Opportunities for practical, prompt actions are in Part Two of the white paper.

* * *  Part One:  Biochar among the NETs  * * *

            A.  Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves two separate actions:  remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it for at least hundreds of years.  Of the recognized Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), only one good combination is functional now for gigatons of CDR. 

            B.   Natural photosynthesis by plants in forests, fields, wild lands, and oceans (as associated with AR, SCS, and OF) can do at low-cost massive amounts of CO2 removal by creating biomass that is abundant and can even be increased.  

            C.  Pyrolysis of that biomass can produce highly stable carbon for sequestration while also providing vast amounts of valuable heat, being the NET called Biochar and Energy (BC&E). 

            D.  Other technical solutions (DACCS, BECCS, EW and OF) are still in development stages involving sorbents and inorganic chemistry for expensive carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

            E.  It is time to recognize pyrolytic biochar from biomass as a practical way get CDR started immediately.

 * * *  Part Two:  Gigatons of CO2 Removal and Reduction via Biochar  * * *

            F.  Nearly 0.2 Gt CO2/yr currently is being made worldwide into stable carbon:  But it is charcoal produced to be burned for cooking for 2 billion people, not for sequestration.  Section XI. 

            G.  Micro-gasifier BC&E TLUD biomass cookstoves produce biochar equal to approximately 1 t CO2 removal per stove per year.  With carbon offset support, sustainable and even profitable fexpansion could sequester 0.25 Gt CO2e/yr with many SDG benefits for the bottom quintile of socio-economic families with a decrease in the consumption of biomass fuel.  Section XII. 

            H.  Recent (2020 patent application) advances in lower-cost mid-range BC&E char making technology help make scalable CDR solutions possible.  Section XIII.

            I.  Cleaner air is a benefit while sequestering a Gt of CO2e/yr from pyrolysis of crop residues, with co-benefits for SDGs.  Section XV. 

            J.  Biomass disposal via BC&E for fire safety, forestry slash and urban waste.   Section XVI.

            K.  Biomass pyrolysis and electric power production.  Sections XVII.

            L. Heat for housing and industrial process heat.   Sections XVIII and XIX.     

            M.  Co-benefits of Biochar and the financial value of CDR, by biochar    Sections XXI and XXII

            N.  A blockchain-secured carbon accounting and verifiable biochar sequestration recording and mapping system for ER and CDR is operational. Sections IX and XX.

* * *  Part Three:  Conclusions and Actions   * * *

            N.  Summary of CO2 removal via BC&E, reaching up to 9.2 Gt/yr CO2e. Section XXIV         

            O.  A call to action.  “If we cannot promptly implement these comparatively easy, benefit-rich Biochar and Energy (BC&E) initiatives, we will lose the battle to save our planet.”        Paul S. Anderson, PhD, Woodgas Pyrolytics, 7 December 2020 (psanders@... )

 

 

++++++++++++

 

 

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

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 

 


Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Biochar] Save the Date: National Biochar Week Dec 7-11, 2020

Mike Overby
 

Hi Kim

Thanks for opportunity to attend Biochar week. 

 

I am trying to reach out to a speaker- Patrick Barber, Can you provide email?

 

J. Patrick Barber, M.S., P.W.S

 

Mike Overby, PE/CMC

490 El Camino Real
Angel Fire, NM 87710

575-377-4512 

469-222-6455 cell

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kim Chaffee
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 8:12 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Biochar] Save the Date: National Biochar Week Dec 7-11, 2020

 

CAUTION:This email originated from a sender external to Express. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this email could be phishing, please report it by using the “Report Phish” button at the top of your screen.

Yes, Nando.

Kim



On Dec 7, 2020, at 6:40 AM, Nando Breiter <nando@...> wrote:



Will the National Biochar Week talks be recorded and viewable later for anyone who cannot attend when they are streamed?



CarbonZero Sagl
CP 15
6999 Astano
Switzerland

+41 76 303 4477 cell / WhatsApp
skype: ariamedia

 

 

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 8:55 PM Tom Miles <tmiles@...> wrote:

.

<image001.jpg>

 


--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Closing the Carbon Cycle Webinar Series to Feature ChemCatBio Director

Tom Miles
 

Closing the Carbon Cycle Webinar Series to Feature ChemCatBio Director

DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sent this bulletin at 12/09/2020 02:49 PM EST

On Friday, December 11, 2020, from 2 p.m.–3 p.m. EST, Joshua Schaidle, Catalytic Carbon Transformation Platform Lead at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Director of the Chemical Catalysis for Bioenergy Consortium (ChemCatBio), will present the webinar, Assessing the Technical and Economic Feasibility of Electricity-Driven CO2 Reduction.

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEERE/bulletins/2b0645a?reqfrom=share


Closing the Carbon Webinar Series Week 2

Tom Miles
 

Dear Colleagues,  

This week INL will host the next two seminars in our Closing the Carbon Cycle Webinar Series. Registration links are provided below. We will also be updating the series with additional seminars in January after the holidays. Please join us!

 

Sincerely,

Lynn 

 

Lynn Wendt

Senior Research Scientist

Idaho National Laboratory

Email: Lynn.Wendt@...

 

 

 

New Closing the Carbon Cycle Webinar Series!

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) will host a new multi-laboratory webinar series celebrating the joining of decarbonization technologies with zero-carbon and renewable energy sources to support a thriving bioeconomy. Carbon dioxide and biomass utilization can play a large role in providing the platform carbon “molecule” or “building block” for infrastructure compatible fuels for heavy-duty transportation and industrial process heat, in addition to commodities such as olefins, chemical intermediates, and other materials. This webinar series will explore recent advancements in carbon utilization and upgrading strategies. 


Upcoming Events

On December 10th at 12:00 –1:00 p.m. MST, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Principal Investigators Dong Ding, Ph.D. and Luis Dias Aldana, Ph.D. will present “Emerging electrochemical approaches to transform CO2 into conversion-ready intermediates.

Register for the December 10th event here!

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6804375398671224333

 

Profile Picture

 

Dong Ding, Ph.D.

Group Lead, Chemical Processing, INL

Thursday, December 10, 2020

12:00 – 12:30 p.m. MST

 

Profile Picture

 

Luis Diaz Aldana, Ph.D.

Electrochemical Engineer, INL

Thursday, December 10, 2020

12:30 – 1:00 p.m. MST

 


On December 11th at 12:00 –1:00 p.m. MST, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Joshua Schaidle will present “Assessing the Technical and Economic Feasibility of Electricity-Driven CO2 Reduction.

Register for the December 11th event here!

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4580896805494081549

 

Joshua Schaidle, Ph.D.

Director for the Chemical Catalysis for Bioenergy Consortium, NREL

Friday, December 11, 2020

12:00 – 1:00 p.m. MST

 

Each webinar will end with a Q&A session; comments and questions are welcome. Additional webinars will be announced on an ongoing basis. We look forward to your participation.


Previous Events

On December 3rd at 12:00 MST, INL Principal Investigator Lynn Wendt opened the webinar series with an introduction of the role of Integrated Energy Systems in Closing the Carbon Cycle. Following this, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Principal Investigator Lesley Snowden-Swan will present “Techno-Economic Analysis of Synthetic Fuels Pathways Integrated with Light Water Reactors.

Please reach out to Lynn at Lynn.Wendt@... for a recording of the event.

 

 

Lynn Wendt

Senior Research Scientist, INL

Thursday, December 3, 2020

12:00 – 12:15 p.m. MST

Leslie Snowden-Swan

Principal Investigator, PNNL

Thursday, December 3, 2020

12:15 – 1:00 p.m. MST

 

 


Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Dear Michael:
  You know:  they have infra red, (heat sensing) systems to locate a human out in the dark: why can't we reverse that process to trap heat electronically, for later or stored use?   

That's my thought and I'm sticking with it...

Cheers



David R Derbowka             Chief Executive Officer

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 
eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |



On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:39 PM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:
Frank,

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
Social icon Social icon Social icon
App Banner Image
App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate.
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon.

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond.

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks)
and
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char).

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/


Re: Forest Service begins making biochar at wildfire recovery site

Rocky
 

Tom,

Do you agree with that 80 - 90% sequestration rate? That sounds really high.

Rocky

On Dec 9, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles@...> wrote:

Capital Press
ESTACADA, Ore. — An excavator rumbled over a pile of dead tree branches, limbs and woody debris in the Mt. Hood National Forest east of Estacada, Ore., where the Riverside Fire began Sept. 8 and quickly enveloped 138,054 acres.
Next to the pile sat the Tigercat 6050 carbonator, a tank-like mobile machine designed to convert organic biomass such as forest brush and slash into biochar, a carbon-rich soil amendment with serious potential for Northwest farms.
“Black gold,” remarked Kraig Kidwell, regional timber contracting officer for the U.S. Forest Service, as he grabbed a handful of grainy, jet-black biochar. “We’re taking a waste product and creating something usable.”
Kidwell watched alongside Phil Monsanto, West Zone silviculturist for the national forest, as the excavator dropped several loads of slash into the open top of the carbonator, flames barely visible as they peeked out of the vessel.
To the best of anyone’s knowledge, it is the first time federal land managers have incorporated making biochar as part of a wildfire cleanup project.
“We have so much of this slash, we just wanted to find other ways to manage it,” Monsanto said.
The Riverside Fire, named for the nearby Clackamas River, was one of several large wildfires that ravaged Western Oregon after Labor Day, fueled by bone-dry conditions and ferocious winds. Firefighters now have the blaze mostly contained, though not before losing at least 57 homes.
In addition to property damage, the fire has left normally lush hillsides in the forest canyon dangerously barren and prone to landslides and rock slides.
Along the Clackamas River Highway, crews have been cutting down hazardous trees as part of the recovery effort. The logs may be sold for timber, though the smaller-diameter brush cannot be processed at local mills, leaving the Forest Service with few options for it.
Slash may be used to make wood chips, though with so much burned material the cost of production quickly outweighs any potential profits. Oftentimes it is simply burned in big piles, though that too has some drawbacks, such as emitting plumes of smoke into the air.
Biochar could offer a solution on both fronts.
The Tigercat 6050 works by burning the slash in an oxygen-free environment — a process known as pyrolosis — with a large air-blower recirculating air to trap emissions.
“I’ve been aware of the technology,” Monsanto said. “We were impressed by its potential.”
Monsanto estimated between 80% and 90% of carbon is sequestered in biochar. Studies show biochar also improves the water-holding capacity of coarse-textured soils.
Earlier this year, Elder Demolition, a commercial demolition contractor based in Portland, purchased a Tigercat 6050 carbonator as a way to recycle wood from homes and buildings.
Jeff Elder, the company’s vice president, said most of their recovered wood was previously sent to the WestRock paper mill in Newberg, which shut down permanently in 2016.
“Recycled wood is so hard to get rid of,” Elder said. “All these mills are shutting down, so nobody is taking it anymore.”
The Mt. Hood National Forest contracted with Elder for recovery services beginning in early November, with approval from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
After starting at Timothy Lake near Mt. Hood, the Elder Demolition crew moved to a wood pile at a truck weigh station along the highway destroyed by the fire. The carbonator averages roughly 4% yield, meaning that for every 100 yards of brush it burns, it produces 4 yards of biochar.
Kidwell said the markets for biochar, admittedly, are still developing. While the product’s benefits are mostly understood, the issue boils down to basic economics — not many outfits are producing biochar, which in turn makes it cost-prohibitive for most farmers.
In 2019, the{span} average price{/span}{span} for biochar{/span}{span} in the U.S. was $1.29 per pound.{/span}{span} By comparison, nitrogen fertilizer costs 35-44 cents per pound. {/span}
Incorporating biochar into more forest fire rehabilitation projects could help boost supplies and make it more affordable, Kidwell said.
“If someone doesn’t start doing this, it’s not going to happen,” he said.

https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/forest-service-begins-making-biochar-at-wildfire-recovery-site/article_691de1b6-34bf-11eb-b393-ab6ccecca049.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share



10th December - Green Carbon Webinar

Tom Miles
 

Dear all,

 

Our next session will start on 10th December (Thursday) at 3 PM – Central European Time / 2 PM – Greenwich Mean Time / 9 AM New York, US / 7.30 PM Delhi, India.

This session will feature a premiere for us as we will have our first panel discussion.

The online discussion will focus on “Climate Intervention with Biochar” based on the new White Paper written by Paul Anderson – which is available for free at https://woodgas.energy/

Discussants:

                Paul Anderson Woodgas Pyrolytics Inc., USA. - https://woodgas.energy/

                Cecilia Sundberg – KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden - https://www.kth.se/profile/cesu

                Hugh McLaughlin Next Char LLC, USA - https://www.nextchar.com/hugh-mclaughlin/

The panel will encourage participation from the audience within the live discussion.

Instructions to join the webinar:

  • The webinar will use the free ‘Zoom’ software (instructions further below)
  • You can use the following link to join the webinar

Webinar: https://ed-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/87141468337

                             Password: 1W9p%Ja8

 

  • You can add our webinar to your calendar by clicking on the link below or importing the iCalendar (.ics) file from the attachment

https://ed-ac-uk.zoom.us/meeting/tZMsc-isqDMpGdNZtXz67P-mmhxRGXVGupF9/ics?icsToken=98tyKuGvrz8rHtKdsxqARpwEBY-gd-jwplxejadzpgvdGXYEUk77O-paAJVHJv_F

·       Previous presentations can be found at www.greencarbonwebinar.org/videos or directly on YouTube under ‘Green Carbon Webinar’

  • Feel free to distribute invitations to anyone who might be interested, but please keep the webinar link and password confidential to avoid unregistered participants

 

How to use Zoom:

In case you will be joining from a network computer: make sure that you have the permission to install the Zoom application on your computer as this is often restricted in larger networks.

 

Following the link above, you will be asked to download the Zoom application file to be able to use the videoconferencing application (see attached picture):

 

Image

 

After double-clicking the downloaded file, follow the Zoom assistant and launch the application (see attached picture):

 

Image

 

You should then be part of the joint meeting.

 

Please make sure your microphone and webcam is turned off once you joined the meeting to minimise disruption and drops in transmission speed.

 

If any problems occur please visit https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting or send me an e-mail.

 

If you do not wish to receive emails regarding the webinar, please reply with ‘Unlist’ to this email.

 

Best wishes,

Christian Wurzer

PhD student

UK Biochar Research Centre

University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Researchgate , LinkedIn

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

Latest publication freely available at: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1cCBE3QUFZCT4c - Feedstock doping using iron rich waste increases the pyrolysis gas yield and adsorption performance of magnetic biochar for emerging contaminants

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


Forest Service begins making biochar at wildfire recovery site

Tom Miles
 

Capital Press

ESTACADA, Ore. — An excavator rumbled over a pile of dead tree branches, limbs and woody debris in the Mt. Hood National Forest east of Estacada, Ore., where the Riverside Fire began Sept. 8 and quickly enveloped 138,054 acres.

Next to the pile sat the Tigercat 6050 carbonator, a tank-like mobile machine designed to convert organic biomass such as forest brush and slash into biochar, a carbon-rich soil amendment with serious potential for Northwest farms.

“Black gold,” remarked Kraig Kidwell, regional timber contracting officer for the U.S. Forest Service, as he grabbed a handful of grainy, jet-black biochar. “We’re taking a waste product and creating something usable.”

Kidwell watched alongside Phil Monsanto, West Zone silviculturist for the national forest, as the excavator dropped several loads of slash into the open top of the carbonator, flames barely visible as they peeked out of the vessel.

To the best of anyone’s knowledge, it is the first time federal land managers have incorporated making biochar as part of a wildfire cleanup project.

“We have so much of this slash, we just wanted to find other ways to manage it,” Monsanto said.

The Riverside Fire, named for the nearby Clackamas River, was one of several large wildfires that ravaged Western Oregon after Labor Day, fueled by bone-dry conditions and ferocious winds. Firefighters now have the blaze mostly contained, though not before losing at least 57 homes.

In addition to property damage, the fire has left normally lush hillsides in the forest canyon dangerously barren and prone to landslides and rock slides.

Along the Clackamas River Highway, crews have been cutting down hazardous trees as part of the recovery effort. The logs may be sold for timber, though the smaller-diameter brush cannot be processed at local mills, leaving the Forest Service with few options for it.

Slash may be used to make wood chips, though with so much burned material the cost of production quickly outweighs any potential profits. Oftentimes it is simply burned in big piles, though that too has some drawbacks, such as emitting plumes of smoke into the air.

Biochar could offer a solution on both fronts.

The Tigercat 6050 works by burning the slash in an oxygen-free environment — a process known as pyrolosis — with a large air-blower recirculating air to trap emissions.

“I’ve been aware of the technology,” Monsanto said. “We were impressed by its potential.”

Monsanto estimated between 80% and 90% of carbon is sequestered in biochar. Studies show biochar also improves the water-holding capacity of coarse-textured soils.

Earlier this year, Elder Demolition, a commercial demolition contractor based in Portland, purchased a Tigercat 6050 carbonator as a way to recycle wood from homes and buildings.

Jeff Elder, the company’s vice president, said most of their recovered wood was previously sent to the WestRock paper mill in Newberg, which shut down permanently in 2016.

“Recycled wood is so hard to get rid of,” Elder said. “All these mills are shutting down, so nobody is taking it anymore.”

The Mt. Hood National Forest contracted with Elder for recovery services beginning in early November, with approval from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

After starting at Timothy Lake near Mt. Hood, the Elder Demolition crew moved to a wood pile at a truck weigh station along the highway destroyed by the fire. The carbonator averages roughly 4% yield, meaning that for every 100 yards of brush it burns, it produces 4 yards of biochar.

Kidwell said the markets for biochar, admittedly, are still developing. While the product’s benefits are mostly understood, the issue boils down to basic economics — not many outfits are producing biochar, which in turn makes it cost-prohibitive for most farmers.

In 2019, the{span} average price{/span}{span} for biochar{/span}{span} in the U.S. was $1.29 per pound.{/span}{span} By comparison, nitrogen fertilizer costs 35-44 cents per pound. {/span}

Incorporating biochar into more forest fire rehabilitation projects could help boost supplies and make it more affordable, Kidwell said.

“If someone doesn’t start doing this, it’s not going to happen,” he said.

https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/forest-service-begins-making-biochar-at-wildfire-recovery-site/article_691de1b6-34bf-11eb-b393-ab6ccecca049.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share


Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

Gustavo Peña
 

This is Gustavo from El Salvador, I´m producing electricity in a small gasifier, soon with the help of some americans I will scaleup my idea, I will write only to you, not to the group, because most of them don't take my ideas seriously, if you send me a whatsapp contact it will be easier for us to stay in touch
this is my number +503 7988 7698

Best regards

Gustavo Peña
Inversiones Falcon
El Salvador, Centro América
Tel: (503) 2451 9605



El mar, 8 de dic. de 2020 a la(s) 23:39, d.michael.shafer@... (d.michael.shafer@...) escribió:
Frank,

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
Social icon Social icon Social icon
App Banner Image
App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate.
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon.

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond.

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks)
and
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char).

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/


Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

Gustavo Peña
 

Good morning, since I´m not an expert in producing biochar I will be very brief, since I met Paul Anderson my interest in gasifiers never stops, I have made some designs, designs that I almost never share because some of you are so professionals that will never notice my work, but for mi using a KON TIKI  kiln is almost like asking me to go to hell once in a while, burning myself is not in my agenda, the secondary effects of heating your body even twice a week will have bad results, people that use this is having a big benefit by making some biochar, but risking their own health is not a good idea.
I usually don't replied for the same reason I point in the beginning of this note, I just love to read some good comments and keep them to myself, I have a gasifier kiln design that many people is using in central america, now there is a group of american people that will finance a new prototype, if this people is trying to help me to improve my design is because I doing something in the right direction, the Covid19 has stopped for now our project but, as soon as this people come to El Salvador I will send you updated results, just to finish this note, I will never use a kiln that will risk my health not even in the name of science, check my modest design that I producing for some NGO´s in Central America, we are getting ready to make biochar from water Hyacinth, my friends in Africa have developed that 1 square meter will give us 1 kg of biochar, we will tried to replicate their experience, I don't want to keep you bored, but if you want to see some of my ideas check the attached files. 

Best regards, God bless you all.

Gustavo Peña
Inversiones Falcon
El Salvador, Centro América
Tel: (503) 2451 9605



El mié, 9 de dic. de 2020 a la(s) 06:39, Paul S Anderson (psanders@...) escribió:

Geoff,

 

In different words, I am supportive of your comments that pyrolysis of  even 1% of yearly world biomass growth solve the climate problem.  My calculations are in Box 2 of Section V of my white paper at www.woodgas.energy/resources   on
Climate Intervention with Biochar..

 

[Extract]

Box 2.  Available biomass supply:

     A.  “Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ (exajoules) of solar energy and 120 Gt (gigatons) of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (World Bioenergy Association (2016)).  About half of that plant growth is in oceans, and [as an assumption] about half to three-quarters of the land-based growth is inaccessible in current conditions of terrain and location, leaving 30 to 60 Gt of biomass accessible for many uses, including pyrolysis into biochar if society decides that climate change can be combated with BC&E and decides to manage the biomass.

     B.  That same document identified the annual global supply to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass] in 2012, with an expected near tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].  This indicates there can be decades of increasing CDR by actively employing BC&E drawdown before we reach the planetary limit of annual biomass supply.

     C.  There are further considerations:

            1.  Much of biomass growth in…….

 

In 24 hours from now (9 AM Eastern Time – New York) I present a webinar about the entire white paper.    Free registration is at   www.greencarbonwebinar.org   

 

The BIG issue is the climate crisis and how we can use biochar to help with some serious solutions and actions.

 

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 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:45 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

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

First you gotta catch the bugger, building something to catch and direct all the heat is going to cost a multiple of the cost of your kiln, then you have to figure what you can do with it, - heat can be used to boil water and the steam to run a generator, but you have very little need for electricity unless your vehicle uses electricity so you can recharge it, - probably 5 years to be able to do that and will use other technology to catch the heat, based on perhaps thermo couple technology - you don’t want to get into using pyrolisis gases because they are too dirty, - the technology to filter them is expensive, time constraining and currently subject to enormous maintenance costs unless you have a fixed location.

Whatever, the heat of combustion by biolife etc will be the same, just slower, so it is not your problem, - if you can cook some sausages etc. or heat some shower water, that puts you way ahead, the wood would have heated/oxidised anyway, the difference is you made some Biochar, - the which would not have happened, so you are already streets ahead because that natural process, the which is of a magnitude several times what the human race is doing, cycles all it’s carbon back. - what you are doing and everybody that doesn’t listen to the Fussbuckets. (I use buckets instead of budgets to exaggerate the scale) is sipping into that enormous flow of returning CO2 to the atmosphere to replace some of the excess from clear felling and fossil fuel mining, the which has added so much, so incredibly much that we are in danger of making our own planet unlivable for US.

Having studied this stuff since the 1970’s and seen so many different analisees, I can confidently say that if we can divert 10% of the natural carbon return cycle to carbon sequestration, All our problems will be resolved within the lifetimes of many on this list.

Really, 1% is Big, don’t let someone who demands 20% stop you, just invite them to do what they want themselves, and let you get on with your 1%.

 

What most of the puritans that demand you can’t do anything except how they say do not understand, is that to get 20% efficiency you will have to spend more than 20 times as much in most cases, so in the big opportunity areas, - like crop burning, their demands kill the whole thing.

I really think that this reality needs repeating again and again and again until the armchair “experts” understand the consequences of what they demand, - no carbon sequestrated, - yes they say they do “BUT” they don’t understand at a visceral level, so their intellect dominates their common sense.

 

The place for more efficiency is in the big cities, there is a waste problem that can be turned into an asset, there they should focus where the hard problems are and efficiencies justified.

Hope you find that supportive Michael, huge thunderstorm coming so I should send this before the power goes.

 

Cheers,

Geoff.

 

On 9 Dec 2020, at 3:38 pm, d.michael.shafer@... wrote:

 

Frank,

 

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

 

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



photo

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org  | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

 

Social icon

Social icon

Social icon

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image   

 

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate. 
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon. 

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond. 

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) 
and 
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). 

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: 
main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/

 

 

 


Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

Paul S Anderson
 

Geoff,

 

In different words, I am supportive of your comments that pyrolysis of  even 1% of yearly world biomass growth solve the climate problem.  My calculations are in Box 2 of Section V of my white paper at www.woodgas.energy/resources   on
Climate Intervention with Biochar..

 

[Extract]

Box 2.  Available biomass supply:

     A.  “Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ (exajoules) of solar energy and 120 Gt (gigatons) of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (World Bioenergy Association (2016)).  About half of that plant growth is in oceans, and [as an assumption] about half to three-quarters of the land-based growth is inaccessible in current conditions of terrain and location, leaving 30 to 60 Gt of biomass accessible for many uses, including pyrolysis into biochar if society decides that climate change can be combated with BC&E and decides to manage the biomass.

     B.  That same document identified the annual global supply to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass] in 2012, with an expected near tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].  This indicates there can be decades of increasing CDR by actively employing BC&E drawdown before we reach the planetary limit of annual biomass supply.

     C.  There are further considerations:

            1.  Much of biomass growth in…….

 

In 24 hours from now (9 AM Eastern Time – New York) I present a webinar about the entire white paper.    Free registration is at   www.greencarbonwebinar.org   

 

The BIG issue is the climate crisis and how we can use biochar to help with some serious solutions and actions.

 

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 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:45 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

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

First you gotta catch the bugger, building something to catch and direct all the heat is going to cost a multiple of the cost of your kiln, then you have to figure what you can do with it, - heat can be used to boil water and the steam to run a generator, but you have very little need for electricity unless your vehicle uses electricity so you can recharge it, - probably 5 years to be able to do that and will use other technology to catch the heat, based on perhaps thermo couple technology - you don’t want to get into using pyrolisis gases because they are too dirty, - the technology to filter them is expensive, time constraining and currently subject to enormous maintenance costs unless you have a fixed location.

Whatever, the heat of combustion by biolife etc will be the same, just slower, so it is not your problem, - if you can cook some sausages etc. or heat some shower water, that puts you way ahead, the wood would have heated/oxidised anyway, the difference is you made some Biochar, - the which would not have happened, so you are already streets ahead because that natural process, the which is of a magnitude several times what the human race is doing, cycles all it’s carbon back. - what you are doing and everybody that doesn’t listen to the Fussbuckets. (I use buckets instead of budgets to exaggerate the scale) is sipping into that enormous flow of returning CO2 to the atmosphere to replace some of the excess from clear felling and fossil fuel mining, the which has added so much, so incredibly much that we are in danger of making our own planet unlivable for US.

Having studied this stuff since the 1970’s and seen so many different analisees, I can confidently say that if we can divert 10% of the natural carbon return cycle to carbon sequestration, All our problems will be resolved within the lifetimes of many on this list.

Really, 1% is Big, don’t let someone who demands 20% stop you, just invite them to do what they want themselves, and let you get on with your 1%.

 

What most of the puritans that demand you can’t do anything except how they say do not understand, is that to get 20% efficiency you will have to spend more than 20 times as much in most cases, so in the big opportunity areas, - like crop burning, their demands kill the whole thing.

I really think that this reality needs repeating again and again and again until the armchair “experts” understand the consequences of what they demand, - no carbon sequestrated, - yes they say they do “BUT” they don’t understand at a visceral level, so their intellect dominates their common sense.

 

The place for more efficiency is in the big cities, there is a waste problem that can be turned into an asset, there they should focus where the hard problems are and efficiencies justified.

Hope you find that supportive Michael, huge thunderstorm coming so I should send this before the power goes.

 

Cheers,

Geoff.

 

On 9 Dec 2020, at 3:38 pm, d.michael.shafer@... wrote:

 

Frank,

 

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

 

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



photo

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

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

 

Social icon

Social icon

Social icon

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image   

 

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate. 
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon. 

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond. 

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) 
and 
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). 

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: 
main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/

 

 

 


Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

Geoff Thomas
 

First you gotta catch the bugger, building something to catch and direct all the heat is going to cost a multiple of the cost of your kiln, then you have to figure what you can do with it, - heat can be used to boil water and the steam to run a generator, but you have very little need for electricity unless your vehicle uses electricity so you can recharge it, - probably 5 years to be able to do that and will use other technology to catch the heat, based on perhaps thermo couple technology - you don’t want to get into using pyrolisis gases because they are too dirty, - the technology to filter them is expensive, time constraining and currently subject to enormous maintenance costs unless you have a fixed location.
Whatever, the heat of combustion by biolife etc will be the same, just slower, so it is not your problem, - if you can cook some sausages etc. or heat some shower water, that puts you way ahead, the wood would have heated/oxidised anyway, the difference is you made some Biochar, - the which would not have happened, so you are already streets ahead because that natural process, the which is of a magnitude several times what the human race is doing, cycles all it’s carbon back. - what you are doing and everybody that doesn’t listen to the Fussbuckets. (I use buckets instead of budgets to exaggerate the scale) is sipping into that enormous flow of returning CO2 to the atmosphere to replace some of the excess from clear felling and fossil fuel mining, the which has added so much, so incredibly much that we are in danger of making our own planet unlivable for US.
Having studied this stuff since the 1970’s and seen so many different analisees, I can confidently say that if we can divert 10% of the natural carbon return cycle to carbon sequestration, All our problems will be resolved within the lifetimes of many on this list.
Really, 1% is Big, don’t let someone who demands 20% stop you, just invite them to do what they want themselves, and let you get on with your 1%.

What most of the puritans that demand you can’t do anything except how they say do not understand, is that to get 20% efficiency you will have to spend more than 20 times as much in most cases, so in the big opportunity areas, - like crop burning, their demands kill the whole thing.
I really think that this reality needs repeating again and again and again until the armchair “experts” understand the consequences of what they demand, - no carbon sequestrated, - yes they say they do “BUT” they don’t understand at a visceral level, so their intellect dominates their common sense.

The place for more efficiency is in the big cities, there is a waste problem that can be turned into an asset, there they should focus where the hard problems are and efficiencies justified.
Hope you find that supportive Michael, huge thunderstorm coming so I should send this before the power goes.

Cheers,
Geoff.

On 9 Dec 2020, at 3:38 pm, d.michael.shafer@... wrote:

Frank,

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
Social iconSocial iconSocial icon

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate. 
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon. 

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond. 

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) 
and 
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). 

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/





Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

Frank Strie
 

Yes Michael,
How about next to an apple / Fruit orchard, Hazelnut Grove, in an Olive Grove, sloping Vineyard etc. etc. Talk is cheap and doing it counts more than poking around…
Anyone interested to know, when it comes to stationary and high tech / industrial scale projects would be able to see what else we have on offer under our Business webpage under products.
After 6 years the current KON-TIKI-TAS kiln models are all still batch processes from 300 litre,  1000litre  and 1,850 litre per batch.
In 2021 we intend to also have a 100 litre mini model and a seriously larger Jumbo model as a continuous flow will various “ bells and whistles” and world first features.
We will be able to handle materials of all sorts and in all sorts of locations and all sorts of scales, all depending on the business case and local regional situation and needs.
So far we are happy to know all our clients have a reason why they like to do business with us.
To get a sludge and biosolids pyrolysis plant project and a wood-power co-generation plant become reality takes time and commitment to detail from the word go.
To me the little 300 litre  KON-TIKI-TAS Compact kiln model is to me and our clients in Tassie and Queensland the  equivalent to the forever popular, versatile little red swiss army knife.  
Smart Cart, Heat & Wind Shield for optimum gas combustion and operator protection, a optional swing over stainless steel cooking plate and BBQ and even the optional up to 25kg Meat Rotisserie.
The KTT – Teepee Water Boiler & Heat  exchanger is in the wings. This will enable people in remote and problematic places to help themselves from char production (for all sorts of uses), and cooking, boiling and BBQing etc.  The greatest benefit will be when people in emergency situations can produce clean, healthy filtered water by  combining the various grades and sizes of clean chars as filtration medium.  Biochar Water Filtration systems as the well designed, built, trialled, demonstrated and proven by Josh Kearns and his team of Aqsolutions  
https://www.aqsolutions.org as  Ecological Transition Engineering defines the path to sustainability.
We combine work as productive fun leading to sustainability
Frank again

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 4:39 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Frank,

 

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

 

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



photo

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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

 

Social icon

Social icon

Social icon

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate.
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon.

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond.

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks)
and
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char).

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/


Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Frank,

Just a quick comment about a point that you make in passing but that I have to field constantly: what about all the wasted heat? Well, here's the question: Just what are you supposed to do with it in the middle of the woods? I mean, seriously, I stand around with all this heat beating off my face and ask myself with every burn, can't you think of anything useful to do with this? Now, of course, there may be smarter, more inventive folks out there, but for better or worse, I have never met them.

Question for all of you: What do you do with the waste heat from a forest waste burner in the midst of the forest?



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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 9:43 AM Frank Strie <frank.strie@...> wrote:

Hello Don,
I notice you wrote your comment, question and concerns as CEO of ANZBIG,  not as a  trader of various Biochar related products / by-products in the Australian market place.
You  tried to point to / or to quote some statement from 2018 by HPS of the Ithaka Institute, but can’t remember the title but stated a number of 35 years…  
If that number was actually true and not out by a decade or so, this kind of statement could very well be taken out of context.
In fact I was in contact with HPS as late as last week and we are very much in agreement of the usefulness and potential of this mobile, flexible, entrance level, proof of concept process now adopted and practiced in way over 70 countries.
Like a spate, axe, chainsaw, angle-grinder, rifle, knife, a matchstick, drip torch etc there are things to consider where, when, what is appropriate.
Kelpie Wilson in the United States has and is addressing many of the issues associated with the things of concern and considerations. The US Forest Service will have many links, papers and presentations available why the support flame cap and flame curtain kilns, even 40 foot containers that produce at the moment just 5% to 8% char/ pyrogenic carbon.

The ‘chicken & egg’ what came first question is complex and rather than trying to spent valuable time in explaining what is and what is not here and now, I will  continue with what needs to be done to get things moving forward from the micro to the macro, here on our patch, this island and beyond.

RE:
“… concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks)
and
the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char).

Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released.”



Our ‘glocal’ knowledge network (me included) are very concerns about the annually increasing, unprecedented export of unused biomass energy and releases of particulates that turn evening to red coloured sunsets and circulate earth a number of times before turning snow and glaciers black. Work is progressing, that is clear.
Sincerely
Frank Strie
Terra-Preta Developments
BIT – Biochar Initiative Tasmania and more  

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Don Coyne
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 10:29 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Biochar production is a system and staged process RE: [Biochar] Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

 

Hi Frank et al, 

Frank, I respect what you have done and the clever way you modified the Kon-tiki originally designed by the Japanese and modified by Hans Peter & Paul Taylor. I also think it's clever the way you worked out how to process the char to a saleable product that I'm sure brings back loyal customers. My concerns with the Kon-tiki have always been the fire risk (naked flame, sparks) and the inefficient loss of gas and heat to atmosphere (in most cases 5x the biomass to get one part char). Hans Peter mentioned in an IBI Webinar in 2018 (can't remember title) that it would take 35 years for a Kon-tiki to be carbon neutral due to the emissions being released. What are your thoughts on these matters and do you stop production or require special permit during the summer months to keep going? 

I saw that Paul Taylor & Stephen Joseph developed a hood with a chimney on it for the Kon-tiki which looked safer and perhaps more effective? My intention is not to be negative because I know it's a better way than burning off or landfilling biomass but I think it's a discussion that we need to have an industry and branding of safe and effective production and use of biochar in Australia and New Zealand. 

Chars,

Don Coyne
CEO @ ANZBIG
https://anzbig.org/


Re: White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

Rick Wilson
 

Kevin, my quick calcs show that the free energy of reaction for N2O and Methane is negative, which means that thermodynamically it can occur.
Thermodynamics only tells you if it can occur energetically, not if the reaction will occur.  
Reaction kinetics determines the rate of reaction, at which speed it occurs. 

Looks like a catalyst is needed for the reaction to take place.  


Rick

On Dec 8, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 
Hi Mike
 
Your mention of NOx and N20 in the context of methane brings up an interesting possibility: Is it possible for the following reactions to occur?
                        6 N2O + CH4 à CO2 + 4 H2O + 6 N2  …….…… (1)
                        a NOx + b CH4    à b CO2 + c H2O + d N2 …… (2)
 
Is there perhaps a Thermochemist on the Biochar List who could tell us if these reactions can take place under NTP conditions? 
 
If these reactions would work in Nature, then Cow Farts and Belches would be a great way to reduce the oxygenated nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere!
 
Note that the Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches came from the Biosphere and is returned to the Biosphere. The Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches is “Carbon Neutral.” This contrasts to the carbon in “Natural Gas”… this is “Fossil Carbon”, which represents “the addition of new Carbon to the Biosphere”; this is “BAD CH4” because it adds to the carbon load in the biosphere.
 
If the above reactions will work in nature, is it possible that a certain amount of CH4 must be in the atmosphere, to prevent Nitrogen Oxides from becoming excessive?
 
Best wishes,
 
Kevin
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: December 8, 2020 10:00 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec
 
Methane point well taken. Sorry, I was thinking entirely in context of another project. I would consider NOx v. N2O, however, since the warming multiple is so big. (The math is in the footnotes, so you can recalculate easily.) I will get to FAO first thing today providing the site is back to normal.
 
Can't do the late night because of an early meeting many hours away.
 
M
 
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 1:52 PM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:
Michael,
 
Thanks for those comments.   I await your  re-calculations.
 
Although the methane is noteworthy, I would counter the comments by saying that a 20 year “penalty” is to be reduced if possible, but it is not sufficient to justify delays in using such technologies.    20 yrs out of 80 to the end of the century still leaves the sequestration value to be 60 years favorable, and then for many more additional centuries of sequestration value.   
 
Are you attending the US National Biochar Week that started Monday.   3 hours each day.   11 AM – 2 PM Eastern Time Zone.    Sorry that it is sooooooo late for you in Thailand.       Register (feee) at    www.easternbiochar.org    I have a 10 minute presentation today Tuesday at 12:30 PM Eastern  Time.
 
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  
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy  
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves. 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@... via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:10 AM
To: 
main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Paul, 
 
I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.
 
I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.
 
He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.
 
He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.
 
Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.
 
As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass. 
 
For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.
 
I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.
 
M

 

photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart 
www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand 
 
Social icon
Social icon
Social icon
 

App Banner Image

 
App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image   
 
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:
This white paper will be summarized and discussed at a free webinar that is announce in the attachment:  9 AM EST Thursday 10 December 2020.
Please forward this announcement to others who have interest in either our climate crisis or biochar or both.
Climate Intervention
with Biochar
A White Paper about Biochar and Energy (BC&E) for
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Emission Reduction (ER) 
First Edition dated 2020-12-07
Distributed from the website  www.woodgas.energy  
 
 
Executive Summary of Biochar White Paper
Elevator Speech:  
            Major impacts to fight the climate crisis are possible now with the economical use of biochar and energy (BC&E) as a negative emissions technology (NET) for millennial sequestration of gigatons of atmospheric CO2e as a soil enhancement while also being an emission reduction (ER) source for valuable needed heat.  Opportunities for practical, prompt actions are in Part Two of the white paper.
* * *  Part One:  Biochar among the NETs  * * * 
            A.  Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves two separate actions:  remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it for at least hundreds of years.  Of the recognized Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), only one good combination is functional now for gigatons of CDR.  
            B.   Natural photosynthesis by plants in forests, fields, wild lands, and oceans (as associated with AR, SCS, and OF) can do at low-cost massive amounts of CO2 removal by creating biomass that is abundant and can even be increased.   
            C.  Pyrolysis of that biomass can produce highly stable carbon for sequestration while also providing vast amounts of valuable heat, being the NET called Biochar and Energy (BC&E).  
            D.  Other technical solutions (DACCS, BECCS, EW and OF) are still in development stages involving sorbents and inorganic chemistry for expensive carbon capture and storage (CCS).  
            E.  It is time to recognize pyrolytic biochar from biomass as a practical way get CDR started immediately.
 * * *  Part Two:  Gigatons of CO2 Removal and Reduction via Biochar  * * * 
            F.  Nearly 0.2 Gt CO2/yr currently is being made worldwide into stable carbon:  But it is charcoal produced to be burned for cooking for 2 billion people, not for sequestration.  Section XI.  
            G.  Micro-gasifier BC&E TLUD biomass cookstoves produce biochar equal to approximately 1 t CO2 removal per stove per year.  With carbon offset support, sustainable and even profitable fexpansion could sequester 0.25 Gt CO2e/yr with many SDG benefits for the bottom quintile of socio-economic families with a decrease in the consumption of biomass fuel.  Section XII.  
            H.  Recent (2020 patent application) advances in lower-cost mid-range BC&E char making technology help make scalable CDR solutions possible.  Section XIII.
            I.  Cleaner air is a benefit while sequestering a Gt of CO2e/yr from pyrolysis of crop residues, with co-benefits for SDGs.  Section XV.  
            J.  Biomass disposal via BC&E for fire safety, forestry slash and urban waste.   Section XVI.
            K.  Biomass pyrolysis and electric power production.  Sections XVII. 
            L. Heat for housing and industrial process heat.   Sections XVIII and XIX.     
            M.  Co-benefits of Biochar and the financial value of CDR, by biochar    Sections XXI and XXII
            N.  A blockchain-secured carbon accounting and verifiable biochar sequestration recording and mapping system for ER and CDR is operational. Sections IX and XX.
* * *  Part Three:  Conclusions and Actions   * * * 
            N.  Summary of CO2 removal via BC&E, reaching up to 9.2 Gt/yr CO2e. Section XXIV          
            O.  A call to action.  “If we cannot promptly implement these comparatively easy, benefit-rich Biochar and Energy (BC&E) initiatives, we will lose the battle to save our planet.”        Paul S. Anderson, PhD, Woodgas Pyrolytics, 7 December 2020 (psanders@... )
 
 
++++++++++++
 
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy  
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves. 
 



Re: Farmer who built a Kon-Tiki that was tractor mounted and fitted with spreader.

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

If you guys have a tractor, you already have the means to solve the biggest problem, quenching. Carry your burner into the woods, then go back for a tank of water. I say burner because a Kon-tiki won't give you the volume you want for the effort and carbon footprint. If you want to make a difference in the forest, you need to be able to handle a lot of waste. I would go with Kelpie's new design. The ability to carry in water, however, is critical because otherwise you are going to burn up a lot of good stuff trying to put anything out in the forest. Snuffing anything worth the volume is hard, especially if there is any chance of O infiltration from below.

M



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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:26 AM Norm Baker <ntbakerphd@...> wrote:
Dick;

I have no plan, just some ideas I stole from newspaper clipping. I too own a tractor with a 3-point hitch and you are correct that it would be dangerous to use the Kon-Tiki attached.

I can imagine that the Kon-Tiki is burned separately from the tractor where the feedstock is located. Then it is quenched and loaded with appropriate nutrients. The Kon-Tiki is mounted on a trailer arrangement of some sort, carefully balanced, and then is hooked up to the tractor, and attached to the PTO for spreading on soil. 

Norm


Re: White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Well, Kevin, if my dad were alive, I am sure that he would get a kick out of parcing your equations. Me? Not a chance.

On the other hand, I love the observation that cow farts are carbon neutral since it does play havoc with the "vegan planet" warrior attacks (that I dislike simply because I dislike all ideological harangues).

M



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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

Hi Mike

 

Your mention of NOx and N20 in the context of methane brings up an interesting possibility: Is it possible for the following reactions to occur?

                        6 N2O + CH4 à CO2 + 4 H2O + 6 N2  …….…… (1)

                        a NOx + b CH4    à b CO2 + c H2O + d N2 …… (2)

 

Is there perhaps a Thermochemist on the Biochar List who could tell us if these reactions can take place under NTP conditions?

 

If these reactions would work in Nature, then Cow Farts and Belches would be a great way to reduce the oxygenated nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere!

 

Note that the Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches came from the Biosphere and is returned to the Biosphere. The Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches is “Carbon Neutral.” This contrasts to the carbon in “Natural Gas”… this is “Fossil Carbon”, which represents “the addition of new Carbon to the Biosphere”; this is “BAD CH4” because it adds to the carbon load in the biosphere.

 

If the above reactions will work in nature, is it possible that a certain amount of CH4 must be in the atmosphere, to prevent Nitrogen Oxides from becoming excessive?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: December 8, 2020 10:00 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

Methane point well taken. Sorry, I was thinking entirely in context of another project. I would consider NOx v. N2O, however, since the warming multiple is so big. (The math is in the footnotes, so you can recalculate easily.) I will get to FAO first thing today providing the site is back to normal.

 

Can't do the late night because of an early meeting many hours away.

 

M

 

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 1:52 PM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Michael,

 

Thanks for those comments.   I await your  re-calculations.

 

Although the methane is noteworthy, I would counter the comments by saying that a 20 year “penalty” is to be reduced if possible, but it is not sufficient to justify delays in using such technologies.    20 yrs out of 80 to the end of the century still leaves the sequestration value to be 60 years favorable, and then for many more additional centuries of sequestration value.  

 

Are you attending the US National Biochar Week that started Monday.   3 hours each day.   11 AM – 2 PM Eastern Time Zone.    Sorry that it is sooooooo late for you in Thailand.       Register (feee) at    www.easternbiochar.org    I have a 10 minute presentation today Tuesday at 12:30 PM Eastern  Time.

 

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 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@... via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:10 AM
To:
main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

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

Paul,

 

I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.

 

I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.

 

He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.

 

He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.

 

Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.

 

As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass. 

 

For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.

 

I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.

 

M


 

photo

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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

 

Social icon

Social icon

Social icon

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

This white paper will be summarized and discussed at a free webinar that is announce in the attachment:  9 AM EST Thursday 10 December 2020.

Please forward this announcement to others who have interest in either our climate crisis or biochar or both.

Climate Intervention

with Biochar

A White Paper about Biochar and Energy (BC&E) for

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Emission Reduction (ER)

First Edition dated 2020-12-07

Distributed from the website  www.woodgas.energy 

 

The white paper’s direct URL is    https://woodgas.energy/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Climate-Intervention-With-Biochar.pdf

 

Executive Summary of Biochar White Paper

Elevator Speech: 

            Major impacts to fight the climate crisis are possible now with the economical use of biochar and energy (BC&E) as a negative emissions technology (NET) for millennial sequestration of gigatons of atmospheric CO2e as a soil enhancement while also being an emission reduction (ER) source for valuable needed heat.  Opportunities for practical, prompt actions are in Part Two of the white paper.

* * *  Part One:  Biochar among the NETs  * * *

            A.  Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves two separate actions:  remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it for at least hundreds of years.  Of the recognized Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), only one good combination is functional now for gigatons of CDR. 

            B.   Natural photosynthesis by plants in forests, fields, wild lands, and oceans (as associated with AR, SCS, and OF) can do at low-cost massive amounts of CO2 removal by creating biomass that is abundant and can even be increased.  

            C.  Pyrolysis of that biomass can produce highly stable carbon for sequestration while also providing vast amounts of valuable heat, being the NET called Biochar and Energy (BC&E). 

            D.  Other technical solutions (DACCS, BECCS, EW and OF) are still in development stages involving sorbents and inorganic chemistry for expensive carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

            E.  It is time to recognize pyrolytic biochar from biomass as a practical way get CDR started immediately.

 * * *  Part Two:  Gigatons of CO2 Removal and Reduction via Biochar  * * *

            F.  Nearly 0.2 Gt CO2/yr currently is being made worldwide into stable carbon:  But it is charcoal produced to be burned for cooking for 2 billion people, not for sequestration.  Section XI. 

            G.  Micro-gasifier BC&E TLUD biomass cookstoves produce biochar equal to approximately 1 t CO2 removal per stove per year.  With carbon offset support, sustainable and even profitable fexpansion could sequester 0.25 Gt CO2e/yr with many SDG benefits for the bottom quintile of socio-economic families with a decrease in the consumption of biomass fuel.  Section XII. 

            H.  Recent (2020 patent application) advances in lower-cost mid-range BC&E char making technology help make scalable CDR solutions possible.  Section XIII.

            I.  Cleaner air is a benefit while sequestering a Gt of CO2e/yr from pyrolysis of crop residues, with co-benefits for SDGs.  Section XV. 

            J.  Biomass disposal via BC&E for fire safety, forestry slash and urban waste.   Section XVI.

            K.  Biomass pyrolysis and electric power production.  Sections XVII.

            L. Heat for housing and industrial process heat.   Sections XVIII and XIX.     

            M.  Co-benefits of Biochar and the financial value of CDR, by biochar    Sections XXI and XXII

            N.  A blockchain-secured carbon accounting and verifiable biochar sequestration recording and mapping system for ER and CDR is operational. Sections IX and XX.

* * *  Part Three:  Conclusions and Actions   * * *

            N.  Summary of CO2 removal via BC&E, reaching up to 9.2 Gt/yr CO2e. Section XXIV         

            O.  A call to action.  “If we cannot promptly implement these comparatively easy, benefit-rich Biochar and Energy (BC&E) initiatives, we will lose the battle to save our planet.”        Paul S. Anderson, PhD, Woodgas Pyrolytics, 7 December 2020 (psanders@... )

 

 

++++++++++++

 

 

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

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 


Re: White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Dear Geoff,

This is an interesting take on the whole methane thing. To be honest, it never occurred to me that my troughs and trenches were emitting lots of methane until pushed about this by Hans Pieter with the weight of the IPCC behind him. I had always assumed that all that nice flame was methane burning as it is in the stack of my TLUDs. And as for time and EFs, I am entirely with you on avoiding getting laughed at. I take cover behind the EPA's published Global Warming Potential (GWP) figures that are all 100 year numbers. I have been attached for being too conservative for using their methane GWP of just 25, but better that than going too far. I think that one thing that all this raises is the question of one's own timeframe. As Paul Anderson pointed out to me recently, 20 years may seem like a long time when you are selling carbon emission reduction credits in the here and now, but in anything less immediate, what's 20 years? Seriously, trees take 20 years to grow what...? if you are thinking about carbon emission reductions or carbon capture via biochar over the next century, what's 20 years?

M




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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
Hi Michael, Naturally there is a lot of debate on the methane issue, - it tends to be over emphasized by conservationists and under emphasized by the Gas miners..

The amount of how much stronger has gone up from single digit to (the highest i have seen) 90 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2, nontheless, it does seem to be more on the higher side than lower from article to article whereas the time it remains at significant levels in the atmoshere seems to be averaging about 12 years, lately.
Tricky things to measure of course and vary from place to place, so I tend to use lower figures when writing letters on it, as one can not be ridiculed as easily, imho, if using lower figures, yet on the other hand one doesn’t want to pretend it is not a problem.

With methane from flame cap kilns, if the kiln is working correctly, - ie no smoke and flame all over, it is hard to see how much methane at all would not be combusted, - it has heat and oxygen and relatively low combustion temperature.
Perhaps when one must use a wind shield, the input air could go through a slot caused by cutting around 3 sides and bending the ‘tongue’, Inwards, always in the same direction all around the circle, so the air goes clockwise or anti clockwise and forms a spiral, thus achieving more mixing and more dwell time of the gas forming the shield.
Presumably the direction of the spin should be opposite in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere, depending on the direction of the spiral formed when you empty a bathtub and a spiral forms around the plug hole, although just how important that is I have no idea, - it seems to be important to Cyclones, - what Americans call Hurricanes, but could also be called Anticyclones, in the northern hemisphere.

Cheers,
Geoff. 

I  
On 8 Dec 2020, at 4:09 pm, d.michael.shafer@... wrote:

Paul,

I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.

I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.

He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.

He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.

Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.

As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass. 

For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.

I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart
www.warmheartworldwide.org  | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
Social iconSocial iconSocial icon
App Banner Image
App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image   

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

This white paper will be summarized and discussed at a free webinar that is announce in the attachment:  9 AM EST Thursday 10 December 2020.

Please forward this announcement to others who have interest in either our climate crisis or biochar or both.

Climate Intervention

with Biochar

A White Paper about Biochar and Energy (BC&E) for

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Emission Reduction (ER)

First Edition dated 2020-12-07

Distributed from the website  www.woodgas.energy 

 

The white paper’s direct URL is    https://woodgas.energy/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Climate-Intervention-With-Biochar.pdf

 

Executive Summary of Biochar White Paper

Elevator Speech: 

            Major impacts to fight the climate crisis are possible now with the economical use of biochar and energy (BC&E) as a negative emissions technology (NET) for millennial sequestration of gigatons of atmospheric CO2e as a soil enhancement while also being an emission reduction (ER) source for valuable needed heat.  Opportunities for practical, prompt actions are in Part Two of the white paper.

* * *  Part One:  Biochar among the NETs  * * * 

            A.  Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves two separate actions:  remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it for at least hundreds of years.  Of the recognized Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), only one good combination is functional now for gigatons of CDR. 

            B.   Natural photosynthesis by plants in forests, fields, wild lands, and oceans (as associated with AR, SCS, and OF) can do at low-cost massive amounts of CO2 removal by creating biomass that is abundant and can even be increased.  

            C.  Pyrolysis of that biomass can produce highly stable carbon for sequestration while also providing vast amounts of valuable heat, being the NET called Biochar and Energy (BC&E).  

            D.  Other technical solutions (DACCS, BECCS, EW and OF) are still in development stages involving sorbents and inorganic chemistry for expensive carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

            E.  It is time to recognize pyrolytic biochar from biomass as a practical way get CDR started immediately.

 * * *  Part Two:  Gigatons of CO2 Removal and Reduction via Biochar  * * *

            F.  Nearly 0.2 Gt CO2/yr currently is being made worldwide into stable carbon:  But it is charcoal produced to be burned for cooking for 2 billion people, not for sequestration.  Section XI. 

            G.  Micro-gasifier BC&E TLUD biomass cookstoves produce biochar equal to approximately 1 t CO2 removal per stove per year.  With carbon offset support, sustainable and even profitable fexpansion could sequester 0.25 Gt CO2e/yr with many SDG benefits for the bottom quintile of socio-economic families with a decrease in the consumption of biomass fuel.  Section XII. 

            H.  Recent (2020 patent application) advances in lower-cost mid-range BC&E char making technology help make scalable CDR solutions possible.  Section XIII.

            I.  Cleaner air is a benefit while sequestering a Gt of CO2e/yr from pyrolysis of crop residues, with co-benefits for SDGs.  Section XV. 

            J.  Biomass disposal via BC&E for fire safety, forestry slash and urban waste.   Section XVI.

            K.  Biomass pyrolysis and electric power production.  Sections XVII. 

            L. Heat for housing and industrial process heat.   Sections XVIII and XIX.     

            M.  Co-benefits of Biochar and the financial value of CDR, by biochar    Sections XXI and XXII

            N.  A blockchain-secured carbon accounting and verifiable biochar sequestration recording and mapping system for ER and CDR is operational. Sections IX and XX.

* * *  Part Three:  Conclusions and Actions   * * *

            N.  Summary of CO2 removal via BC&E, reaching up to 9.2 Gt/yr CO2e. Section XXIV          

            O.  A call to action.  “If we cannot promptly implement these comparatively easy, benefit-rich Biochar and Energy (BC&E) initiatives, we will lose the battle to save our planet.”        Paul S. Anderson, PhD, Woodgas Pyrolytics, 7 December 2020 (psanders@... )

 

 

++++++++++++

 

 

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

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy  

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

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

 





Re: White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@...>
 

 

Hi Mike

 

Your mention of NOx and N20 in the context of methane brings up an interesting possibility: Is it possible for the following reactions to occur?

                        6 N2O + CH4 à CO2 + 4 H2O + 6 N2  …….…… (1)

                        a NOx + b CH4    à b CO2 + c H2O + d N2 …… (2)

 

Is there perhaps a Thermochemist on the Biochar List who could tell us if these reactions can take place under NTP conditions?

 

If these reactions would work in Nature, then Cow Farts and Belches would be a great way to reduce the oxygenated nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere!

 

Note that the Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches came from the Biosphere and is returned to the Biosphere. The Carbon in Cow Farts and Belches is “Carbon Neutral.” This contrasts to the carbon in “Natural Gas”… this is “Fossil Carbon”, which represents “the addition of new Carbon to the Biosphere”; this is “BAD CH4” because it adds to the carbon load in the biosphere.

 

If the above reactions will work in nature, is it possible that a certain amount of CH4 must be in the atmosphere, to prevent Nitrogen Oxides from becoming excessive?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@...
Sent: December 8, 2020 10:00 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

Methane point well taken. Sorry, I was thinking entirely in context of another project. I would consider NOx v. N2O, however, since the warming multiple is so big. (The math is in the footnotes, so you can recalculate easily.) I will get to FAO first thing today providing the site is back to normal.

 

Can't do the late night because of an early meeting many hours away.

 

M

 

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 1:52 PM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Michael,

 

Thanks for those comments.   I await your  re-calculations.

 

Although the methane is noteworthy, I would counter the comments by saying that a 20 year “penalty” is to be reduced if possible, but it is not sufficient to justify delays in using such technologies.    20 yrs out of 80 to the end of the century still leaves the sequestration value to be 60 years favorable, and then for many more additional centuries of sequestration value.  

 

Are you attending the US National Biochar Week that started Monday.   3 hours each day.   11 AM – 2 PM Eastern Time Zone.    Sorry that it is sooooooo late for you in Thailand.       Register (feee) at    www.easternbiochar.org    I have a 10 minute presentation today Tuesday at 12:30 PM Eastern  Time.

 

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 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of d.michael.shafer@... via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:10 AM
To:
main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

 

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

Paul,

 

I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.

 

I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.

 

He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.

 

He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.

 

Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.

 

As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass. 

 

For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.

 

I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.

 

M


 

photo

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

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

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

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

 

Social icon

Social icon

Social icon

 

App Banner Image

 

App Social Buttons Image   App Social Buttons Image  

 

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

This white paper will be summarized and discussed at a free webinar that is announce in the attachment:  9 AM EST Thursday 10 December 2020.

Please forward this announcement to others who have interest in either our climate crisis or biochar or both.

Climate Intervention

with Biochar

A White Paper about Biochar and Energy (BC&E) for

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Emission Reduction (ER)

First Edition dated 2020-12-07

Distributed from the website  www.woodgas.energy 

 

The white paper’s direct URL is    https://woodgas.energy/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Climate-Intervention-With-Biochar.pdf

 

Executive Summary of Biochar White Paper

Elevator Speech: 

            Major impacts to fight the climate crisis are possible now with the economical use of biochar and energy (BC&E) as a negative emissions technology (NET) for millennial sequestration of gigatons of atmospheric CO2e as a soil enhancement while also being an emission reduction (ER) source for valuable needed heat.  Opportunities for practical, prompt actions are in Part Two of the white paper.

* * *  Part One:  Biochar among the NETs  * * *

            A.  Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves two separate actions:  remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it for at least hundreds of years.  Of the recognized Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), only one good combination is functional now for gigatons of CDR. 

            B.   Natural photosynthesis by plants in forests, fields, wild lands, and oceans (as associated with AR, SCS, and OF) can do at low-cost massive amounts of CO2 removal by creating biomass that is abundant and can even be increased.  

            C.  Pyrolysis of that biomass can produce highly stable carbon for sequestration while also providing vast amounts of valuable heat, being the NET called Biochar and Energy (BC&E). 

            D.  Other technical solutions (DACCS, BECCS, EW and OF) are still in development stages involving sorbents and inorganic chemistry for expensive carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

            E.  It is time to recognize pyrolytic biochar from biomass as a practical way get CDR started immediately.

 * * *  Part Two:  Gigatons of CO2 Removal and Reduction via Biochar  * * *

            F.  Nearly 0.2 Gt CO2/yr currently is being made worldwide into stable carbon:  But it is charcoal produced to be burned for cooking for 2 billion people, not for sequestration.  Section XI. 

            G.  Micro-gasifier BC&E TLUD biomass cookstoves produce biochar equal to approximately 1 t CO2 removal per stove per year.  With carbon offset support, sustainable and even profitable fexpansion could sequester 0.25 Gt CO2e/yr with many SDG benefits for the bottom quintile of socio-economic families with a decrease in the consumption of biomass fuel.  Section XII. 

            H.  Recent (2020 patent application) advances in lower-cost mid-range BC&E char making technology help make scalable CDR solutions possible.  Section XIII.

            I.  Cleaner air is a benefit while sequestering a Gt of CO2e/yr from pyrolysis of crop residues, with co-benefits for SDGs.  Section XV. 

            J.  Biomass disposal via BC&E for fire safety, forestry slash and urban waste.   Section XVI.

            K.  Biomass pyrolysis and electric power production.  Sections XVII.

            L. Heat for housing and industrial process heat.   Sections XVIII and XIX.     

            M.  Co-benefits of Biochar and the financial value of CDR, by biochar    Sections XXI and XXII

            N.  A blockchain-secured carbon accounting and verifiable biochar sequestration recording and mapping system for ER and CDR is operational. Sections IX and XX.

* * *  Part Three:  Conclusions and Actions   * * *

            N.  Summary of CO2 removal via BC&E, reaching up to 9.2 Gt/yr CO2e. Section XXIV         

            O.  A call to action.  “If we cannot promptly implement these comparatively easy, benefit-rich Biochar and Energy (BC&E) initiatives, we will lose the battle to save our planet.”        Paul S. Anderson, PhD, Woodgas Pyrolytics, 7 December 2020 (psanders@... )

 

 

++++++++++++

 

 

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

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org 

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy 

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

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

 


Re: White paper "Climate Intervention with Biochar" and related webinar on 10 Dec

Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Michael, Naturally there is a lot of debate on the methane issue, - it tends to be over emphasized by conservationists and under emphasized by the Gas miners..

The amount of how much stronger has gone up from single digit to (the highest i have seen) 90 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2, nontheless, it does seem to be more on the higher side than lower from article to article whereas the time it remains at significant levels in the atmoshere seems to be averaging about 12 years, lately.
Tricky things to measure of course and vary from place to place, so I tend to use lower figures when writing letters on it, as one can not be ridiculed as easily, imho, if using lower figures, yet on the other hand one doesn’t want to pretend it is not a problem.

With methane from flame cap kilns, if the kiln is working correctly, - ie no smoke and flame all over, it is hard to see how much methane at all would not be combusted, - it has heat and oxygen and relatively low combustion temperature.
Perhaps when one must use a wind shield, the input air could go through a slot caused by cutting around 3 sides and bending the ‘tongue’, Inwards, always in the same direction all around the circle, so the air goes clockwise or anti clockwise and forms a spiral, thus achieving more mixing and more dwell time of the gas forming the shield.
Presumably the direction of the spin should be opposite in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere, depending on the direction of the spiral formed when you empty a bathtub and a spiral forms around the plug hole, although just how important that is I have no idea, - it seems to be important to Cyclones, - what Americans call Hurricanes, but could also be called Anticyclones, in the northern hemisphere.

Cheers,
Geoff. 

I  

On 8 Dec 2020, at 4:09 pm, d.michael.shafer@... wrote:

Paul,

I have been corresponding with Hans Pieter Schmidt and others of the biochar "biggies" about a new project involving the counting of small producer biochar in the climate change budget.

I have learned a number of interesting things. According to Schmidt, it is essential to separate our (as he calls it) "Kon-tiki" pyrolysis from other stuff because of the methane emitted. The methane, he argues, offsets carbon sequestration values for 20 years, that is, until the methane had entirely broken down. As far as I know, TLUDs do not emit methane.

He also contends that the "NOx bundle" is not considered "climate forcing" only N2) is, that he asserts it is not included in the bundle. S. Akagi does not give a separate EF for N2O. He would therefore contend that the 3.11 kg/tonne for NOx that is included in CO2e is not valid unless an EF for N2) can be found to replace it.

He also contends that while NH3 (ammonia) is a smog precursor, it is not a climate forcer and therefore cannot be counted in CO2e.

Finally, he says that the best way to go about our work is to focus exclusively on emissions reductions from open field burning of biomass and not try to deal with sequestration where the carbon math gets very complicated.

As for biomass totals, I have been doing a lot of reading. According to "scientific" sources,crop waste biomass is best measured as "dry matter," something that i have never encountered in the field and something that is NOT cited in the FAO stats. Koppmann, 2012, a big player in this realm, constantly refers to a late 1990s figure of 8.7 gigatonnes of waste biomass as dry matter. Corn cob from the field comes in at 15% moisture content or more such that this is equal to at least 10 gigatonnes + of not dry biomass. 

For whatever reason, FAOSTAT will not load just now, but when it does, I will re-run my numbers for say 1999 to see how they compare. Because feed and food crop production have increased so rapidly and so much in the past 20 years, I suspect that I will find that my figures and the DM figures are reasonably close.

I will let you know as soon as I can get to the website.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
Social iconSocial iconSocial icon

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 AM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

This white paper will be summarized and discussed at a free webinar that is announce in the attachment:  9 AM EST Thursday 10 December 2020.

Please forward this announcement to others who have interest in either our climate crisis or biochar or both.

Climate Intervention

with Biochar

A White Paper about Biochar and Energy (BC&E) for

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Emission Reduction (ER)

First Edition dated 2020-12-07

Distributed from the website  www.woodgas.energy 

 

The white paper’s direct URL is    https://woodgas.energy/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Climate-Intervention-With-Biochar.pdf

 

Executive Summary of Biochar White Paper

Elevator Speech: 

            Major impacts to fight the climate crisis are possible now with the economical use of biochar and energy (BC&E) as a negative emissions technology (NET) for millennial sequestration of gigatons of atmospheric CO2e as a soil enhancement while also being an emission reduction (ER) source for valuable needed heat.  Opportunities for practical, prompt actions are in Part Two of the white paper.

* * *  Part One:  Biochar among the NETs  * * * 

            A.  Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves two separate actions:  remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it for at least hundreds of years.  Of the recognized Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), only one good combination is functional now for gigatons of CDR. 

            B.   Natural photosynthesis by plants in forests, fields, wild lands, and oceans (as associated with AR, SCS, and OF) can do at low-cost massive amounts of CO2 removal by creating biomass that is abundant and can even be increased.  

            C.  Pyrolysis of that biomass can produce highly stable carbon for sequestration while also providing vast amounts of valuable heat, being the NET called Biochar and Energy (BC&E).  

            D.  Other technical solutions (DACCS, BECCS, EW and OF) are still in development stages involving sorbents and inorganic chemistry for expensive carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

            E.  It is time to recognize pyrolytic biochar from biomass as a practical way get CDR started immediately.

 * * *  Part Two:  Gigatons of CO2 Removal and Reduction via Biochar  * * *

            F.  Nearly 0.2 Gt CO2/yr currently is being made worldwide into stable carbon:  But it is charcoal produced to be burned for cooking for 2 billion people, not for sequestration.  Section XI. 

            G.  Micro-gasifier BC&E TLUD biomass cookstoves produce biochar equal to approximately 1 t CO2 removal per stove per year.  With carbon offset support, sustainable and even profitable fexpansion could sequester 0.25 Gt CO2e/yr with many SDG benefits for the bottom quintile of socio-economic families with a decrease in the consumption of biomass fuel.  Section XII. 

            H.  Recent (2020 patent application) advances in lower-cost mid-range BC&E char making technology help make scalable CDR solutions possible.  Section XIII.

            I.  Cleaner air is a benefit while sequestering a Gt of CO2e/yr from pyrolysis of crop residues, with co-benefits for SDGs.  Section XV. 

            J.  Biomass disposal via BC&E for fire safety, forestry slash and urban waste.   Section XVI.

            K.  Biomass pyrolysis and electric power production.  Sections XVII. 

            L. Heat for housing and industrial process heat.   Sections XVIII and XIX.     

            M.  Co-benefits of Biochar and the financial value of CDR, by biochar    Sections XXI and XXII

            N.  A blockchain-secured carbon accounting and verifiable biochar sequestration recording and mapping system for ER and CDR is operational. Sections IX and XX.

* * *  Part Three:  Conclusions and Actions   * * *

            N.  Summary of CO2 removal via BC&E, reaching up to 9.2 Gt/yr CO2e. Section XXIV          

            O.  A call to action.  “If we cannot promptly implement these comparatively easy, benefit-rich Biochar and Energy (BC&E) initiatives, we will lose the battle to save our planet.”        Paul S. Anderson, PhD, Woodgas Pyrolytics, 7 December 2020 (psanders@... )

 

 

++++++++++++

 

 

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

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  

Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.energy  

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

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

 




2021 - 2040 of 30803