Date   

6th May - Green Carbon Webinar

Tom Miles
 

Dear all,

 

Our next webinar will start tomorrow 6th May at 3 PM – Central European Summer Time / 2 PM – British Time, UK / 9 AM New York, US / 6.30 PM Delhi, India, with talks from:

15:00 (CEST) – Richard Jackson (Standard Gas Ltd, UK):

' Biochar from Waste...Practical considerations '

       15:30 (CEST) – Kenneth Latham (Umea University, Sweden and University of Newcastle, Australia):

' Self-Generation of Carbon from the Hydrothermal Supernatant: An Additional Zero Energy Resource for the Hydrothermal Industry '

Instructions to join the webinar:

  • Use the following link and password to join the webinar

Webinar:        https://ed-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89182604325

                           Password:      GhE22cA9

 

·       You can add our webinar to your calendar by clicking on the following link: https://ed-ac-uk.zoom.us/meeting/tZ0sf-uurj8pGNHZuIwbD2RAqtI0NwXxMH8Y/ics?icsToken=98tyKuGhrzMoHNSRsxuCRpx5BYqga-7ziClejY11pgrMFCJ3MDHXJ_ZrYpxoKMD9

 

If you do not wish to receive emails from us, please reply with ‘Unlist’ to this email.

 

Hope to see many of you tomorrow.

 

Best wishes,

Christian Wurzer

PhD student

UK Biochar Research Centre

University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Researchgate , LinkedIn

 

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.


Re: The giant accounting problem that could hamper the world’s push to cut emissions: Washington Post

Kim Chaffee
 

Hi Michael,
Yes, I heard that about the Amazon.  I have also heard the term ‘ecocide’ used to describe a new legal term for the criminal destruction of the environment.  It’s time we broaden our legal norms.
Kim


On May 5, 2021, at 12:16 AM, d.michael.shafer@... wrote:


Kim, thank you for making this available to all of us. I would just note that recent research suggests that the Amazonian forests of Brazil have now been degraded to the point that they are actually giving up CO2 rather than absorbing it.


On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:38 AM Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:
All,

More evidence of the urgency to cut global emissions as soon as possible. 

Ron Larson—suggest you post to the CDR group.

Kim 




Countries are adopting very different strategies for how they take into account carbon pulled out of the air by their forests.

Image without a caption
An aerial view of the Jurura River in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon Forest. Some countries with large expanses of woodlands have long benefited in how they calculate their emissions from the enormous carbon “sink” provided by forests. (Florence Goisnard/AFP/Getty Images)
April 26, 2021 at 11:58 a.m. EDT
Scientists have identified a staggering 5.5 billion ton gap between greenhouse gas emissions acknowledged each year by the world’s nations and the emissions calculated by independent models, an accounting discrepancy that threatens to complicate the already difficult task of resetting the world’s climate trajectory.
The reasons for the gap — which is roughly as large as annual emissions by the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter — are highly technical. But the largest involves countries claiming major reductions to their annual emissions due to forests sucking carbon dioxide out of the air. This includes carbon that humans have unleashed by burning fossil fuels, meaning that large-emitting countries that happen to have large forests are arguably getting an offset for their, and the world’s, pollution.
“There is a gap of 5.5 gigatons of CO2, which is a huge gap,” said Giacomo Grassi, a forest expert at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, and lead author of the study published Monday in Nature Climate Change. “This gap is quite new.”
The discrepancy emerges at a critical moment, as world leaders try to pinpoint how — and how quickly — nations must cut greenhouse gas pollution to prevent catastrophic levels of warming in coming years.
As part of the international Paris climate accord and prior agreements, nations are supposed to report detailed information about their emissions to the United Nations, including those related to their forests and other land use. But between 2005 and 2015, Grassi and fellow scientists found, some countries have claimed to take so much additional carbon out of the air that they have created uncertainty about how to evaluate whether they were meeting their individual climate goals.
“It’s like if the navigation system provides information in miles, and the car dashboard in kilometers,” said Grassi, one of 22 separate authors from countries around the world, including Italy, Japan and the United States.
The new research suggests that the current system could cause a diplomatic standoff as early as next year. That is when, under the Paris agreement, nations are required to gather for a global “stocktake” to determine whether the world is actually on track to cut its emissions enough to stay in line with the agreement’s goals.
If countries are using one accounting method but independent models are using another, the results will make it difficult to determine where the world actually stands in its emissions-cutting goals.
It is not that 5.5 billion tons of emissions per year — or rather their opposite, greenhouse gases absorbed by the Earth — are being missed entirely. Rather, the issue is how they are being categorized, who gets the credit and whether that is altering the goal posts for how aggressively individual nations need to cut their fossil fuel emissions.
Both oceans and the land on Earth are powerful natural tools in muting the effect of human greenhouse gas emissions. They absorb an estimated 9.2 billion tons and 12.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, respectively. Without them, climate change would be much, much worse.
No country appears to have yet found a way to claim the beneficial role of the open oceans on their climate balance sheet. But the land is a different story.
Certain countries have long benefited, at least on paper, from the enormous carbon “sink” provided by forests. Claiming the credit from forests is a practice that can be particularly beneficial in countries with vast wooded areas such as Brazil, Canada, Russia, the United States, and others. The result is that after these countries add up the emissions from the power they generate — the cars on their roads and other sources — they are allowed to then subtract a substantial amount based on the carbon-sucking role of their land.
The United States, for instance, reports 6.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for 2019, the most recent year of reporting, from the burning of fossil fuels, human agricultural activity, and other sources. But then it subtracts 789 million tons of emissions to take into account the role of the country’s land surfaces. Ultimately, the “net” emissions reported to the international community are roughly 5.8 billion tons. That is a savings of 12 percent, thanks to land alone.
Image without a caption
Christopher Williams, an expert on forests and how they are affected by climate change at Clark University, said Monday’s study “draws attention to something that has concerned many of us for quite a while — that our national greenhouse gas inventory reporting is not designed to measure and monitor true mitigation."
“We are lucky to have those natural carbon sinks,” Williams continued. "However, that carbon uptake is a freebie from nature for which we do not really get to take credit in our battle against climate change.”
What the countries are doing is a product of U.N. rules regarding “managed land,” defined as areas “where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social function.” This definition could involve areas of intensive forestry, but it may also involve national parks or even places where a country is prepared to deploy to fight a wildfire someday.
The “managed land” reporting system exists because of a thorny scientific problem. Countries are supposed to report human-caused impacts on forests and other vegetation within their borders, but that is a difficult figure to accurately calculate. It is relatively easy to capture the direct human impact of logging or planting a tree. But it is more difficult to measure indirect impacts, such as the role of the additional carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere in stoking additional tree growth. These indirect effects are hard to separate from what would naturally happen anyway, as forests grow, and burn, on their own.
Therefore, countries are supposed to identify land that is “managed” and then count everything that is happening there. In practice, different countries have adopted different systems for doing that. In the case of the United States, for instance, almost the entire country is categorized as “managed,” with the main exception being many remote regions of Alaska. Recent research has shown that few countries are providing any detailed information about how they determine which lands within their borders are “managed” and which are not.
The new study estimates that under this system, countries are considering far more land to be managed than other independent methods do. The difference amounts to more than 9 million square miles of living, growing Earth.
Grassi argues that no individual nation is at fault for the 5.5 billion ton discrepancy — rather the issue is two incompatible scientific approaches, with the countries’ individual experts using one technique and independent energy system modelers and carbon bookkeepers using another.
“I don’t think the greenhouse gas inventories in average are wrong. The key point is the measurements are different,” Grassi said.
Still, for large emitting countries like the United States, it is certainly convenient — and good optics — to be able to report smaller “net” emissions.
Image without a caption
A view of the forest in Two Harbors, MN. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
What’s more, the countries’ approach can credit them with carbon subtractions that they have not directly caused through policy actions such as stopping deforestation, replanting trees, or actively restoring degraded forest.
After all, a significant part of the carbon stored in forests today is there because of human carbon dioxide emissions, which forests soak up and use to fuel growth.
“There will be some policy and management in there, but a lot of it is going to be a free lunch,” said Glen Peters, research director of the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo.
There is an arguably bigger issue going forward, Peters added. As the world begins to reduce its emissions in an effort to stave off more warming, countries with large forests might not have to reduce theirs to zero under the current system. Rather, if they take credit for the subtractions of carbon occurring on their land, then they will only have to reduce emissions to the point where forests and other landscapes are offsetting them.
“This will become more problematic in the future," Peters said.
One smaller developing country is already in this situation: Myanmar. By its own accounting, the country is carbon negative already. It has so many forests sucking up carbon that this effect outweighs its greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. But as Myanmar itself has noted, those fossil fuel emissions are expected to increase rapidly in the future, something the country is hoping to control to maintain its carbon balance.
Grassi and his co-authors say the problem could be addressed by what they call an “adjustment” to the models that policymakers rely upon to chart the world’s climate and carbon trajectories.
While countries could continue to claim emissions reductions from managed land, the approach would adjust other aspects of carbon accounting accordingly, to ensure consistency. That would affect not only the countries’ individual promises and goals, but the global carbon budget — the remaining carbon they can still emit and stay within the Paris agreement’s goals. The adjustment would cause that budget to shrink, increasing the perception of an urgent need to drastically cut emissions.
“In the absence of these adjustments," the study states, “collective progress would appear to be more on-track than it actually is.”
30 Comments


Re: The giant accounting problem that could hamper the world’s push to cut emissions: Washington Post

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Kim, thank you for making this available to all of us. I would just note that recent research suggests that the Amazonian forests of Brazil have now been degraded to the point that they are actually giving up CO2 rather than absorbing it.


On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:38 AM Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:
All,

More evidence of the urgency to cut global emissions as soon as possible. 

Ron Larson—suggest you post to the CDR group.

Kim 




Countries are adopting very different strategies for how they take into account carbon pulled out of the air by their forests.

Image without a caption
An aerial view of the Jurura River in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon Forest. Some countries with large expanses of woodlands have long benefited in how they calculate their emissions from the enormous carbon “sink” provided by forests. (Florence Goisnard/AFP/Getty Images)
April 26, 2021 at 11:58 a.m. EDT
Scientists have identified a staggering 5.5 billion ton gap between greenhouse gas emissions acknowledged each year by the world’s nations and the emissions calculated by independent models, an accounting discrepancy that threatens to complicate the already difficult task of resetting the world’s climate trajectory.
The reasons for the gap — which is roughly as large as annual emissions by the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter — are highly technical. But the largest involves countries claiming major reductions to their annual emissions due to forests sucking carbon dioxide out of the air. This includes carbon that humans have unleashed by burning fossil fuels, meaning that large-emitting countries that happen to have large forests are arguably getting an offset for their, and the world’s, pollution.
“There is a gap of 5.5 gigatons of CO2, which is a huge gap,” said Giacomo Grassi, a forest expert at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, and lead author of the study published Monday in Nature Climate Change. “This gap is quite new.”
The discrepancy emerges at a critical moment, as world leaders try to pinpoint how — and how quickly — nations must cut greenhouse gas pollution to prevent catastrophic levels of warming in coming years.
As part of the international Paris climate accord and prior agreements, nations are supposed to report detailed information about their emissions to the United Nations, including those related to their forests and other land use. But between 2005 and 2015, Grassi and fellow scientists found, some countries have claimed to take so much additional carbon out of the air that they have created uncertainty about how to evaluate whether they were meeting their individual climate goals.
“It’s like if the navigation system provides information in miles, and the car dashboard in kilometers,” said Grassi, one of 22 separate authors from countries around the world, including Italy, Japan and the United States.
The new research suggests that the current system could cause a diplomatic standoff as early as next year. That is when, under the Paris agreement, nations are required to gather for a global “stocktake” to determine whether the world is actually on track to cut its emissions enough to stay in line with the agreement’s goals.
If countries are using one accounting method but independent models are using another, the results will make it difficult to determine where the world actually stands in its emissions-cutting goals.
It is not that 5.5 billion tons of emissions per year — or rather their opposite, greenhouse gases absorbed by the Earth — are being missed entirely. Rather, the issue is how they are being categorized, who gets the credit and whether that is altering the goal posts for how aggressively individual nations need to cut their fossil fuel emissions.
Both oceans and the land on Earth are powerful natural tools in muting the effect of human greenhouse gas emissions. They absorb an estimated 9.2 billion tons and 12.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, respectively. Without them, climate change would be much, much worse.
No country appears to have yet found a way to claim the beneficial role of the open oceans on their climate balance sheet. But the land is a different story.
Certain countries have long benefited, at least on paper, from the enormous carbon “sink” provided by forests. Claiming the credit from forests is a practice that can be particularly beneficial in countries with vast wooded areas such as Brazil, Canada, Russia, the United States, and others. The result is that after these countries add up the emissions from the power they generate — the cars on their roads and other sources — they are allowed to then subtract a substantial amount based on the carbon-sucking role of their land.
The United States, for instance, reports 6.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for 2019, the most recent year of reporting, from the burning of fossil fuels, human agricultural activity, and other sources. But then it subtracts 789 million tons of emissions to take into account the role of the country’s land surfaces. Ultimately, the “net” emissions reported to the international community are roughly 5.8 billion tons. That is a savings of 12 percent, thanks to land alone.
Image without a caption
Christopher Williams, an expert on forests and how they are affected by climate change at Clark University, said Monday’s study “draws attention to something that has concerned many of us for quite a while — that our national greenhouse gas inventory reporting is not designed to measure and monitor true mitigation."
“We are lucky to have those natural carbon sinks,” Williams continued. "However, that carbon uptake is a freebie from nature for which we do not really get to take credit in our battle against climate change.”
What the countries are doing is a product of U.N. rules regarding “managed land,” defined as areas “where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social function.” This definition could involve areas of intensive forestry, but it may also involve national parks or even places where a country is prepared to deploy to fight a wildfire someday.
The “managed land” reporting system exists because of a thorny scientific problem. Countries are supposed to report human-caused impacts on forests and other vegetation within their borders, but that is a difficult figure to accurately calculate. It is relatively easy to capture the direct human impact of logging or planting a tree. But it is more difficult to measure indirect impacts, such as the role of the additional carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere in stoking additional tree growth. These indirect effects are hard to separate from what would naturally happen anyway, as forests grow, and burn, on their own.
Therefore, countries are supposed to identify land that is “managed” and then count everything that is happening there. In practice, different countries have adopted different systems for doing that. In the case of the United States, for instance, almost the entire country is categorized as “managed,” with the main exception being many remote regions of Alaska. Recent research has shown that few countries are providing any detailed information about how they determine which lands within their borders are “managed” and which are not.
The new study estimates that under this system, countries are considering far more land to be managed than other independent methods do. The difference amounts to more than 9 million square miles of living, growing Earth.
Grassi argues that no individual nation is at fault for the 5.5 billion ton discrepancy — rather the issue is two incompatible scientific approaches, with the countries’ individual experts using one technique and independent energy system modelers and carbon bookkeepers using another.
“I don’t think the greenhouse gas inventories in average are wrong. The key point is the measurements are different,” Grassi said.
Still, for large emitting countries like the United States, it is certainly convenient — and good optics — to be able to report smaller “net” emissions.
Image without a caption
A view of the forest in Two Harbors, MN. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
What’s more, the countries’ approach can credit them with carbon subtractions that they have not directly caused through policy actions such as stopping deforestation, replanting trees, or actively restoring degraded forest.
After all, a significant part of the carbon stored in forests today is there because of human carbon dioxide emissions, which forests soak up and use to fuel growth.
“There will be some policy and management in there, but a lot of it is going to be a free lunch,” said Glen Peters, research director of the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo.
There is an arguably bigger issue going forward, Peters added. As the world begins to reduce its emissions in an effort to stave off more warming, countries with large forests might not have to reduce theirs to zero under the current system. Rather, if they take credit for the subtractions of carbon occurring on their land, then they will only have to reduce emissions to the point where forests and other landscapes are offsetting them.
“This will become more problematic in the future," Peters said.
One smaller developing country is already in this situation: Myanmar. By its own accounting, the country is carbon negative already. It has so many forests sucking up carbon that this effect outweighs its greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. But as Myanmar itself has noted, those fossil fuel emissions are expected to increase rapidly in the future, something the country is hoping to control to maintain its carbon balance.
Grassi and his co-authors say the problem could be addressed by what they call an “adjustment” to the models that policymakers rely upon to chart the world’s climate and carbon trajectories.
While countries could continue to claim emissions reductions from managed land, the approach would adjust other aspects of carbon accounting accordingly, to ensure consistency. That would affect not only the countries’ individual promises and goals, but the global carbon budget — the remaining carbon they can still emit and stay within the Paris agreement’s goals. The adjustment would cause that budget to shrink, increasing the perception of an urgent need to drastically cut emissions.
“In the absence of these adjustments," the study states, “collective progress would appear to be more on-track than it actually is.”
30 Comments


Re: Global crop waste burning - micro-biochar; how a small community development organization learned experientially to address a huge problem one tiny field at a time

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Thank you, Norm. If you are still having trouble getting the full article, just ask and I will send it.

Have been a bit shy about publicizing too much.

M

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:01 AM Norm Baker <ntbakerphd@...> wrote:
Gentlemen;

Here is a new article about BECCS. Looks to be good but unfortunately, I do not have access to the full article. I'm hoping one of you can get all of us a full pdf.


Here is the popular version  - https://scitechdaily.com/how-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-could-help-stabilize-the-climate-without-breaking-the-bank/ ; How Bioenergy with Crabon Capture and Storage could help Stabilize the Climate without Breaking the Bank.

Also, Michael, I was very pleased with your publication on crop burning. Very well said. I too am a big proponent of democratized biochar and truly feel it is one of the best options for all people to fight global warming. I also like the fact that you put real numbers to avoided emissions and especially PM2.5. Congrats. Again, well done!

Norm



Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

Didi Meier <didimeier61@...>
 

Hi Dan

I think you are better of using your scrap leaves to make a compost tea, then use the tea to activate the biochar. Lots of nutrients in the leaves.
Plus there is no point in pyrolysing leaves, not sure with the stems as they are thin, unless you have large crops.

Keep up the good work

Didi
Enviro Innovations


Biochar from Biomass Special Issue

Tom Miles
 

Please see attached letter and flyer.  Note the submission date has been extended.  Please pass along to others who might be interested.

Thanks,

Dan

 

Forest Service Shield

Daniel W. McCollum, Ph.D.
Research Economist

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

p: 970-498-2565
f: 970-498-1212
dan.mccollum@...

240 W. Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
www.fs.fed.us
USDA LogoForest Service TwitterUSDA Facebook

Caring for the land and serving people

 

 





This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.


Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

mikethewormguy
 

Dan,

What are you doing with the trim leaves?

BTW.....Are you located in California, USA?

Mike


Re: Special greetings for Hugh and 4 you

John Hofmeyr
 

May the firs be with you, too, Paul  And the pine and the spruce and the acacia .....


Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

 

Hello Dan
I cook hemp in my retort batch cooker, (which is too small).  After they harvest whatever they need, it comes to me in various forms.  When in bales, I can get a lot of material, (no processing needed) into the oven.  It cooks up perfectly.  I then add a bit of water to stop dust, and run it through an old grain grinder to make a beautiful professional looking product.  

Happy hemp chars
Stay well
David R Derbowka




David R Derbowka

Chief Executive Officer

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.

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



On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:43 PM <daniel.martin.kamen@...> wrote:
Hello group,

I am helping establish a large medical cannabis facility and I am looking at biochar as a potential use for our waste green material, stems, leaves, etc.

The waste will be shredded by a two shaft slow speed shredder. I’ve purchased a small sized charcoal kiln off of alibaba, but I could use some advice for how to actually do this sensibly and efficiently.

Anyone interested in offering their expertise?

Thanks
Dan


Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

mikethewormguy
 

Dan,

For the past 2 seasons, we have grown and processed cannabis's cousin, CBD Hemp.  We did small batch production of hemp biochar.

The hemp stem biomass will be dry as a bone after it is dried for flower pre-processing.

Any leaf material is all taken off pre-drying.

There is no need to shred the hemp stem biomass pre-charring.

Are you growing and processing?  If so, in soil or containers?

What do you mean by large  facility?  How much biomass are you processing per season?

Biochar producing equipment can produce different types of benefit within the value stream map of hemp growing&processing. 

What are you doing with the biochar production equipment when not processing.  You will only have biomass for a month or so post harvest. 

Mike 


Re: Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021 (HR 2581).

Paul S Anderson
 

Tom and Michael,

 

This is BIG news.   [I overlooked that Saturday posting and am glad that Michael called it to our attention.]  

 

Whoever was influential in the probably long sting of people to influence Representative Herrell to propose the Biochar Bill should be tracked down and praised for actually getting through to Rep. Herrell.   Seriously, we need to find out what it took to accomplish is awesome feat!!!   Anyone involved should speak up.   We WANT to recognize your efforts!!

 

A one minute video of Rep. Herrell promoting her legislation is at    bit.ly/3xhcFng     Her support and her bill is worth millions as a reference point for other Americans to contact their Representatives and Senators!!

 

Is there to be an effort for our Biochar Group to be supportive?   We need to be knowing and discussing the contents of this bill. 

 

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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources  

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, May 4, 2021 4:58 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021 (HR 2581).

 

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

Great hope, Tom, despite my having big issues with the "experts" cited. Personally, I have never considered making biochar in a feedstock rich area like a forest to be a costly operation nor have I ever had to worry about biochar "locking up" critical nutrients for any period of time, certainly not in a forest setting with forest soil fungi and microbes. But so it goes. If they pass this, we will all be blessed.

 

And congratulations on the big grant! It should put you guys in a good position to get a few startup ideas going for this.

 

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 12:00 AM Tom Miles <tmiles@...> wrote:

Piggybacking on Rep. Westerman’s reintroduction of the Trillion Tree Bill a couple of weeks ago (below) with its biochar provisions, Rep. Herrell has introduced the “Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021” (HR 2581). 

Here is an article on what the bill contains.

Clearly, Congress has an interest in the use and benefits of biochar.

 

U.S. Rep. Yvette Herrell's “biochar bill” intended to clean up forests, reduce emissions

 

Adrian Hedden

Carlsbad Current-Argus, NM

April 27, 2021

 

U.S. Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-NM) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives she said she hoped would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions while assisting with agriculture and forest management.

The bill known as the Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021 would establish a demonstration project and grant program for the use of biochar in land management activities.

If passed, the bill would instruct the secretaries of agriculture and energy to establish a program and enter partnerships for projects to demonstrate biochar to develop and commercialize its use.

At least one of the demonstration projects would be held in each region covered by the U.S. Forest Service.

Proposals would be given priority based on the level of carbon sequestration, potential for job creation and the market viability of the projects along with local need.

The Departments of Energy and Agriculture could then provide grant funding to research, develop or construct biochar and the needed facilities.

In a video posted to Twitter by House Minority Leader U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Herrell, herself from Alamogordo near Lincoln National Forest, said the “Biochar Act” said the bill was environmentally friendly and would aid in forest management.

“We a great opportunity to harvest our natural resources, clean up our forest bed and use those products as biochar,” she said. “Biochar is used not only by our ag industries it’s used by our forest industry.”

Biochar involves burning organic matter like woodchips and introducing it into soil to reduce impacts like carbon emissions and drought through water retention.

Herrell said using biochar should be encouraged by the federal government and a way to use debris created during forest cleaning.

“It retains water, it lessens the number of carbons let off into the atmosphere,” she said. “It is a great way, a safe way, a green way to protect our forest and bring much-need nutrients to our land while all the time preserving water.

“It’s great for our state. It’s great for our nation and really great for our industries.”

Does biochar work?

Academic research on biochar appeared to point toward it being helpful in mitigating impacts on the environment but could prove difficult and expensive to produce.

Biochar is generated by heating organic materials using a low-oxygen source through a process called pyrolysis or anaerobic decomposition, per a report from the Utah State University Extension written by Soils Specialist Grant Cardon.

The resulting charcoal-like product can then be mixed back into the soil to sequester carbon, preventing it from being emitted into the atmosphere, and provide water to help soil absorb nutrients, the report read.

The more the biochar is heated, the more absorbent it becomes and the more carbon it retains.

At lower temperatures of about 750 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit (F) up to half of the carbon is preserved, the report read, and at higher temperatures up to 1,300 F most of the material is converted to energy that can be used as a low-carbon source of power, with about 10 to 20 percent of the residue remaining as biochar.

Biochar can then be used to increase the fertility of soils in areas like forests.

The higher-temperature biochar can create a risk of “binding up” nutrients and have a negative impact on soil productivity, the report read.

“In either case, the biochar left over has desirable properties as a soil amendment,” Cardon wrote. “In fact, the lower-temperature products are very similar to materials proposed as responsible for the development of highly fertile “terra preta” soils in South America.”

A study from American University posed some concern for the cost of producing biochar and argued it could be difficult to measure how much carbon biochar was specifically removing from the air.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

 

Great news! House Republicans endorse the use of biochar for ag and forest soils. 

 

 

“Lawmakers announced their plans for addressing climate change, sustainable ag”

 

Friday, April 16, 2021

RFD  TV (RFD – Rural Free Delivery)

Senate ag leaders say that they are days away from releasing a bipartisan climate change bill.

Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow tells Agri-Pulse that funding issues have been worked out. The legislation will lay the groundwork for carbon markets. 

A Republican on the committee said that there is more buy-in for farm country than people think and the markets have a good chance of making headway this year. 

House Ag leaders have their own ideas on climate change and just hours ago they released their own agenda. 

Republic members announced a package of bills aimed at addressing climate change and sustainability in agriculture. Ag Committee ranking member Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania says that many of the existing conservation programs have more demand than funding available.

According to Rep. Thompson, "This bill provides incentives based on current Farm Bill language to open the door for partnerships with the private sector to leverage funding to get more conservation on the ground."

Illinois Republican, Rodney Davis is looking to incentivize producers to transition to conservation practices on the farm with direct payments and technical assistance. 

"This bill will help to optimize agriculture's ability to sequester carbon, reduce emissions, and it will do it by establishing soil health transition incentive program, and by providing states with flexibility and funding, they're the ones that will be able to build on existing programs and develop new scientific and best practices to improve soil health," Davis stated.

On the forestry side, Natural Resources Committee ranking member Bruce Westerman reintroduced the Trillion Trees Act which would not only plant more trees but also allows for better forest management and new markets for wood products. 

"We've got a component in here for a product called biochar which is very exciting because you can take the low-value products off of the forest that really needs to be thinned but there is no real marketable home for them," Westerman explains. "You can make biochar which can be added to the soil and greatly benefit agriculture-- biochar is almost pure carbon."

South Dakota Republican, Dusty Johnson is also looking for timber solutions. His measure would allow for a public-private partnership to remove trees near roadways when they are downed by fire or storms.

"Categorical exclusions will help get that timber out of the forest. Number two, it makes it clear that judicial review will not unduly slow down those types of efforts, and number three, it makes sure the forest service... will allow within 60 days allow for timber sales for private companies to go out and grab that timber," Johnson notes.

Congressman Thompson sees all of these bills as an alternative to Democrat measures he says could negatively impact the economy.

"All these bills have one thing in common, they are designed to reduce the carbon footprint while increasing productivity and economic competitiveness of our farms and our rural communities," he adds. "Now we cannot sacrifice a healthy economy for a healthy environment."

Iowa Republican, Ashley Hinson put forth a bill that increases the cost-share for the purchase of precision ag equipment. 

 

Video: See video embedded in the article for more details

 

 

 

(Thanks to Ken Pantuck for these links. TRM)


Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

Paul S Anderson
 

Dan,

 

You should evaluate the RoCC kiln.   I have already very successfully tested it with a small amount of cannabis biomass refuse in a small RoCC kiln, and I have since then built larger RoCC kilns that can be used in a test for you.  

 

No need to shred the biomass (and actually preferrable to keep it whole).   One condition is that the biomass must be dry, not green.  

 

Please send your direct contact information to me at    psanders@...   I (and others) would like to know more about you, including where you are located. 

 

If your quantity of biomass is large enough (at least five dry tonnes) to reach the tonne level of finished biochar, we can also discuss options for seeking carbon sequestration funds (results based, not speculative.)

 

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 and author of Biochar white paper :  See  www.woodgas.energy/resources  

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 daniel.martin.kamen via groups.io
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 11:33 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

 

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

Hello group,

I am helping establish a large medical cannabis facility and I am looking at biochar as a potential use for our waste green material, stems, leaves, etc.

The waste will be shredded by a two shaft slow speed shredder. I’ve purchased a small sized charcoal kiln off of alibaba, but I could use some advice for how to actually do this sensibly and efficiently.

Anyone interested in offering their expertise?

Thanks
Dan


Re: Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021 (HR 2581).

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Great hope, Tom, despite my having big issues with the "experts" cited. Personally, I have never considered making biochar in a feedstock rich area like a forest to be a costly operation nor have I ever had to worry about biochar "locking up" critical nutrients for any period of time, certainly not in a forest setting with forest soil fungi and microbes. But so it goes. If they pass this, we will all be blessed.

And congratulations on the big grant! It should put you guys in a good position to get a few startup ideas going for this.

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 12:00 AM Tom Miles <tmiles@...> wrote:

Piggybacking on Rep. Westerman’s reintroduction of the Trillion Tree Bill a couple of weeks ago (below) with its biochar provisions, Rep. Herrell has introduced the “Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021” (HR 2581). 

Here is an article on what the bill contains.

Clearly, Congress has an interest in the use and benefits of biochar.

 

U.S. Rep. Yvette Herrell's “biochar bill” intended to clean up forests, reduce emissions

 

Adrian Hedden

Carlsbad Current-Argus, NM

April 27, 2021

 

U.S. Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-NM) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives she said she hoped would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions while assisting with agriculture and forest management.

The bill known as the Biochar Innovation and Opportunities for Conservation, Health and Advancement in Research Act of 2021 would establish a demonstration project and grant program for the use of biochar in land management activities.

If passed, the bill would instruct the secretaries of agriculture and energy to establish a program and enter partnerships for projects to demonstrate biochar to develop and commercialize its use.

At least one of the demonstration projects would be held in each region covered by the U.S. Forest Service.

Proposals would be given priority based on the level of carbon sequestration, potential for job creation and the market viability of the projects along with local need.

The Departments of Energy and Agriculture could then provide grant funding to research, develop or construct biochar and the needed facilities.

In a video posted to Twitter by House Minority Leader U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Herrell, herself from Alamogordo near Lincoln National Forest, said the “Biochar Act” said the bill was environmentally friendly and would aid in forest management.

“We a great opportunity to harvest our natural resources, clean up our forest bed and use those products as biochar,” she said. “Biochar is used not only by our ag industries it’s used by our forest industry.”

Biochar involves burning organic matter like woodchips and introducing it into soil to reduce impacts like carbon emissions and drought through water retention.

Herrell said using biochar should be encouraged by the federal government and a way to use debris created during forest cleaning.

“It retains water, it lessens the number of carbons let off into the atmosphere,” she said. “It is a great way, a safe way, a green way to protect our forest and bring much-need nutrients to our land while all the time preserving water.

“It’s great for our state. It’s great for our nation and really great for our industries.”

Does biochar work?

Academic research on biochar appeared to point toward it being helpful in mitigating impacts on the environment but could prove difficult and expensive to produce.

Biochar is generated by heating organic materials using a low-oxygen source through a process called pyrolysis or anaerobic decomposition, per a report from the Utah State University Extension written by Soils Specialist Grant Cardon.

The resulting charcoal-like product can then be mixed back into the soil to sequester carbon, preventing it from being emitted into the atmosphere, and provide water to help soil absorb nutrients, the report read.

The more the biochar is heated, the more absorbent it becomes and the more carbon it retains.

At lower temperatures of about 750 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit (F) up to half of the carbon is preserved, the report read, and at higher temperatures up to 1,300 F most of the material is converted to energy that can be used as a low-carbon source of power, with about 10 to 20 percent of the residue remaining as biochar.

Biochar can then be used to increase the fertility of soils in areas like forests.

The higher-temperature biochar can create a risk of “binding up” nutrients and have a negative impact on soil productivity, the report read.

“In either case, the biochar left over has desirable properties as a soil amendment,” Cardon wrote. “In fact, the lower-temperature products are very similar to materials proposed as responsible for the development of highly fertile “terra preta” soils in South America.”

A study from American University posed some concern for the cost of producing biochar and argued it could be difficult to measure how much carbon biochar was specifically removing from the air.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

 

Great news! House Republicans endorse the use of biochar for ag and forest soils. 

 

 

“Lawmakers announced their plans for addressing climate change, sustainable ag”

 

Friday, April 16, 2021

RFD  TV (RFD – Rural Free Delivery)

Senate ag leaders say that they are days away from releasing a bipartisan climate change bill.

Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow tells Agri-Pulse that funding issues have been worked out. The legislation will lay the groundwork for carbon markets. 

A Republican on the committee said that there is more buy-in for farm country than people think and the markets have a good chance of making headway this year. 

House Ag leaders have their own ideas on climate change and just hours ago they released their own agenda. 

Republic members announced a package of bills aimed at addressing climate change and sustainability in agriculture. Ag Committee ranking member Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania says that many of the existing conservation programs have more demand than funding available.

According to Rep. Thompson, "This bill provides incentives based on current Farm Bill language to open the door for partnerships with the private sector to leverage funding to get more conservation on the ground."

Illinois Republican, Rodney Davis is looking to incentivize producers to transition to conservation practices on the farm with direct payments and technical assistance. 

"This bill will help to optimize agriculture's ability to sequester carbon, reduce emissions, and it will do it by establishing soil health transition incentive program, and by providing states with flexibility and funding, they're the ones that will be able to build on existing programs and develop new scientific and best practices to improve soil health," Davis stated.

On the forestry side, Natural Resources Committee ranking member Bruce Westerman reintroduced the Trillion Trees Act which would not only plant more trees but also allows for better forest management and new markets for wood products. 

"We've got a component in here for a product called biochar which is very exciting because you can take the low-value products off of the forest that really needs to be thinned but there is no real marketable home for them," Westerman explains. "You can make biochar which can be added to the soil and greatly benefit agriculture-- biochar is almost pure carbon."

South Dakota Republican, Dusty Johnson is also looking for timber solutions. His measure would allow for a public-private partnership to remove trees near roadways when they are downed by fire or storms.

"Categorical exclusions will help get that timber out of the forest. Number two, it makes it clear that judicial review will not unduly slow down those types of efforts, and number three, it makes sure the forest service... will allow within 60 days allow for timber sales for private companies to go out and grab that timber," Johnson notes.

Congressman Thompson sees all of these bills as an alternative to Democrat measures he says could negatively impact the economy.

"All these bills have one thing in common, they are designed to reduce the carbon footprint while increasing productivity and economic competitiveness of our farms and our rural communities," he adds. "Now we cannot sacrifice a healthy economy for a healthy environment."

Iowa Republican, Ashley Hinson put forth a bill that increases the cost-share for the purchase of precision ag equipment. 

 

Video: See video embedded in the article for more details

 

 

 

(Thanks to Ken Pantuck for these links. TRM)


Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

daniel.martin.kamen@...
 

Hello group,

I am helping establish a large medical cannabis facility and I am looking at biochar as a potential use for our waste green material, stems, leaves, etc.

The waste will be shredded by a two shaft slow speed shredder. I’ve purchased a small sized charcoal kiln off of alibaba, but I could use some advice for how to actually do this sensibly and efficiently.

Anyone interested in offering their expertise?

Thanks
Dan


Re: Special greetings for Hugh and 4 you

Heide Horeth
 

Ha, thank you from 4 Ways to Yummy!


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:29 PM Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

 

Whether you know Hugh or not, this message is also for YOU !!

 

4           4       4   Fore    Four   4   for 4

On this special day of May fourth, (already May 4th in Australia, and coming soon for everyone)

 

May the fours be with Hugh.           Fore    Four   4   for 4  4   

 

And

 

may the 4’s be with YOU !! 

 

Stay safe and stay healthy.     

 

Paul              (Apologies for this off-topic message.    I hope it made you smile on one special day of the year.   If yes, then you might want to  FORward it to others.)       (Special apologies to the small % of the world population that is not familiar with Star Wars.)

 


Special greetings for Hugh and 4 you

Paul S Anderson
 

 

Whether you know Hugh or not, this message is also for YOU !!

 

4           4       4   Fore    Four   4   for 4

On this special day of May fourth, (already May 4th in Australia, and coming soon for everyone)

 

May the fours be with Hugh.           Fore    Four   4   for 4  4   

 

And

 

may the 4’s be with YOU !! 

 

Stay safe and stay healthy.     

 

Paul              (Apologies for this off-topic message.    I hope it made you smile on one special day of the year.   If yes, then you might want to  FORward it to others.)       (Special apologies to the small % of the world population that is not familiar with Star Wars.)

 


Re: IBI funding

mikethewormguy
 

Rick,

Microbes are far better at eating a free lunch than plants, especially when they do not have to do anything to make it yummy.

Your tomato grower may find that all turns out well given that tomatoes are a longer cycle crop with multiple picking events.

Mike


Re: IBI funding

Rick Wilson
 

MIke, its not a crazy idea. - the fertigation is being consumed by the microbes. They increased nitrogen, and the problem seems to be fixing itself.

We will know what is happening by the end of the week when we get soil and leaf samples back.

Rick

On May 3, 2021, at 3:15 PM, mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy@...> wrote:

Rick,

One crazy idea for the stunting is that the active microbial status of the compost addition may be being fed by the fertigation.  So the fertigation is feeding the microbes and plants.  

When we do single strain fermentations we use similar nutrients that are used to grow plants.

The use of biomass chars in agriculture needs to be targeted and integrated in regards to both ingredient pairing, execution, and timing.  

Professional and product liability insurance premiums are the cost of being self employed. This is why all my product trials are 1 acre or less. I have thankfully not have to buy an acre of produce.

The Actinomycetes in compost may or may not be optimal against nematodes.  There are also other types of microbe genus that make nematodes sad, as well as, triggers..

Biomass char best management practices are worthy of development and implementation.

It is important not to be too wood-centric with BMP development.

Mike





Re: IBI funding

Tom Miles
 

Mike,

 

This is very informative. Many thanks.

 

Most people don’t understand the benefits of biochars from grasses, straws and manures  Except in the Southeast we haven’t really used ag based chars the way they have in Asia.

 

Tom

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of mikethewormguy via groups.io
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2021 3:15 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] IBI funding

 

Rick,

One crazy idea for the stunting is that the active microbial status of the compost addition may be being fed by the fertigation.  So the fertigation is feeding the microbes and plants.  

When we do single strain fermentations we use similar nutrients that are used to grow plants.

The use of biomass chars in agriculture needs to be targeted and integrated in regards to both ingredient pairing, execution, and timing.  

Professional and product liability insurance premiums are the cost of being self employed. This is why all my product trials are 1 acre or less. I have thankfully not have to buy an acre of produce.

The Actinomycetes in compost may or may not be optimal against nematodes.  There are also other types of microbe genus that make nematodes sad, as well as, triggers..

Biomass char best management practices are worthy of development and implementation.

It is important not to be too wood-centric with BMP development.

Mike



Re: IBI funding

mikethewormguy
 

Rick,

One crazy idea for the stunting is that the active microbial status of the compost addition may be being fed by the fertigation.  So the fertigation is feeding the microbes and plants.  

When we do single strain fermentations we use similar nutrients that are used to grow plants.

The use of biomass chars in agriculture needs to be targeted and integrated in regards to both ingredient pairing, execution, and timing.  

Professional and product liability insurance premiums are the cost of being self employed. This is why all my product trials are 1 acre or less. I have thankfully not have to buy an acre of produce.

The Actinomycetes in compost may or may not be optimal against nematodes.  There are also other types of microbe genus that make nematodes sad, as well as, triggers..

Biomass char best management practices are worthy of development and implementation.

It is important not to be too wood-centric with BMP development.

Mike



921 - 940 of 30803