Date   

Re: IBI funding

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Bravo, Rick,

Thank you so much for this critical observation. I am all for verification, certification and so on. But one size does not fit all. In most uses, biochar is and can be truly basic stuff. There is no reason to certify that all biochar is perfect. (I mean, really, for what?) Frankly, if you are using it in asphalt or cement, do you need the same standards as if you are using it in animal feed? If you are burying it in a c-sink, what matters to me is its carbon content and how long that carbon will reside, not that the stuff will pass tests for problems that I never knew existed.

If there is no one biochar, then let us begin to match biochars to end uses to standards. Somehow other industries succeed in doing so. Why not biochar?


On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 11:49 AM Rick Wilson via groups.io <rick012=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Biocharists, 

If we were to start with a white sheet of paper to decide how to  characterize (chemically, physically) biochar (which I agree with Hugh we should),  shouldn't we start with defining what the applications for biochar are?  Wouldn’t what you measure, depend on what you are using it for?  Consider:
  • Asphalt blending.  Biochar can improve the mechanical properties so it lasts longer (fatigue, ductility)
  • Bulding materials (physical strength, insulation factor)
  • Soil remediation. Binding of heavy metals (sorption properties)
  • Stabilizing soil organic matter - building (sorption measure of ability to stabilize carbon exudates)
  • Plant growth stimulation (pH, nitrate sorption, size dimensions as they impact water infiltration, plant available water)
  • Feeding dairy cows and beef cattle to improve yield (methane retention)
  • …. and all the other applications described in the book “Burn”, and emerging applications..
Only after you decide what the applications are so you know what to measure, then figure out how to best measure it (method)?

Rick Wilson


On Apr 30, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Hugh McLaughlin via groups.io <wastemin1@...> wrote:

Kathleen and all of the IBI decision makers,

The lack of a credible way of measuring biochar properties and evaluating appropriateness and "quality" for a range of applications has been a chronic and enduring criticism of the current biochar marketplace. I have studied this particular challenge and there are real improvements that can and should be made. I would ask that a program be developed to address this situation and fix it. If it does not happen under this grant, it will likely never be attempted and the market doubt will persist and fester. I will contribute what I know, but it has to feed into a program that leads to real change. Remarking that the IBI Standards allow for modification does not address the problem that change is too little and too slow.

Regards,

Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, PE

On Friday, April 30, 2021, 7:28:47 PM EDT, Susan Klinker <suzklink@...> wrote:


Hi Kathleen, Thats great news!  Here are my thoughts on what's needed to scale up the bio-char industry. 
 
PR Campaign to drive market demand:
  • Educational Outreach within the Agricultural sector including incentives for use and test plots.
  • Educational Outreach within the Public sector, including incentives for use and test plots.
  • Educational Outreach within the schools to increase understanding of soil health in younger generations.
  • Marketing to the General Public, including education on how to use biochar in backyards.
  • Mass publicity sharing amazing success stories of biochar re-generation of soil health toward climate change.
  • Creative messaging through social media and younger generations (FUN! Tik Tok viral storm! )
Lobbying Legislators for ongoing funding support to solve specific local problems, especially water conservation and areas suffering from desertification. 
 
Philanthropic Funding for further capacity building in the form of jobs & equipment for scaled up distribution in the private and non-profit sectors. 
 
Collaborative Partnerships bringing together multiple organizations to solve specific social & environmental issues. (Universities, etc)
 
Non-profit support to help educate and assist diverse populations to properly adopt, use, and understand bio-char successfully. Workshops, films, hands on support with design and product application.  (Americorp, etc) 
 
Subsidized distribution in the early days of scaling up the industry. 

 


The lungs of the Earth have emphysema and biochar could help to heal them

Ruy Korscha Anaya de la Rosa
 

Hi all,

Dr Zach Bush (well known for his talks on the direct link between the standard american diet (SAD) and COVID-19) suggests in the video below that humanity has put most emphasis on the excess of CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, and little attention has been paid on the absorption of CO2 (the other part of the carbon cycle).

He explains that the soils, which retain about ~2.5 times more carbon than the atmosphere, are being poisoned with pesticides, agro-chemicals, etc. and so the bacteria that breathe and retain that carbon are dying big time!!

This has vital implications for the food we eat, the diseases we suffer and the health we carry. The lungs of the Earth have emphysema, he says. Yet, the focus of governments and big technological companies is on reducing or artificially capturing emissions, while promoting chemical agriculture and further disconnection from the Earth.

This is another argument to show that biochar is more important than ocean fertilization, SRM, CCS, CCUS, BECCS, etc., and perhaps even tree-planting, as it is challenging for trees to grow in unhealthy soils.
Enjoy!



Re: Biochar does better now for climate than what BECCS intends to do decades from now

Rick Wilson
 

Paul, you are correct, BECCS is bunk.  Cool planet went through hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get the energy balance to pencil out.
Biomass has low energy density, you can’t energize the process and extract energy for other purposes.  Remember you need heat (energy) to deconstruct the biomass.
And chopping down trees can’t be good for CO2 balances in the short term at least. i.e. BECCS violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Biochar from residuals does make sense.  $50 tipping fee for the feedstock and $75/ton carbon credit for the biochar gives you a profitable enterprise. 
Which is why I am all for IBI making a concerted effort to educate large companies wanting to offset emissions.  These companies will pay for the biochar equipment directly, or at least drive up the price of carbon credits. 

Re CCS, take a look at this new company.


When they turned up the nitrogen, the plants got healthy.
Rick





On May 5, 2021, at 6:56 AM, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

There is a new article about BECCS.   The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world     Here is a link to its abstract.
 
 
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.
 
The abstract includes:
 
1)  We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals,
 
2)  , and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
 
Those two statements say the impact of BECCS will be during 2050 to 2100 and then will have a backstop (low but stable) price of $240 /t CO2e.  
 
Accomplishing that in the coming decades is NOT good news.  It is procrastination and lack of awareness of what biochar can do NOW.
 
I have written about this previously in my white paper “Climate Intervention with Biochar”  www.woodgas.ennergy/resources   On page 9:
 
            F.  BECCS has received an enormous amount of attention, especially in Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) used by scientists in the preparation of the IPCC documents (2018) on 1.5 degrees C of global temperature rise.  The rationale for this focus on BECCS is that it can be modeled (presumably because of available data on biomass supply (including AR), as opposed to hypothetical data for DACCS, EW, OF, and SCS).  But the IAM projections are based on hope of what CCS for sequestration MIGHT accomplish in the coming decades if CCS becomes financially viable.  In contrast, BC&E [Biochar and Energy] already has the sequestration issue resolved as stable biochar from essentially the same sources of available biomass.  
            This white paper contends that BC&E is a better, more realistic NET than BECCS for use in IAM calculations about the future of our planet.  See supporting information in Section VIII. 
 
Section VIII is on pages 17 – 18, which I provide here:  
 
Section VIII.  “Anything BECCS can do, BC&E can do better; char can do anything better that BECCS” (Proposed lyrics for a CDR song.)
            A.  BC&E can significantly exceed the expectations of BECCS.
                        1.  Different technologies:  BECCS appears to have the advantage because it starts with technology for releasing 100% of the energy by burning biomass all the way to ash, and the intention that nearly 100% of the created CO2 could be captured and stored via proposed functional CCS technology.  In contrast, BC&E appears to offer less because it releases only 70% of the total biomass energy for possible productive use.  30% of the energy remains in the captured 50% of the carbon atoms (or 40% for long-term sequestration).
                        2.  Different levels of readiness:  For BECCS, of its two components, BE and CCS, the CCS capability is grossly lacking as of 2020 and is dependent on assumptions and speculations for solutions that will be costly because they are industrial, and not natural.   In contrast, for BC&E, both the BC and &E components are already functional or awaiting the existing business sector for heat capture to adjust to and commercially promote some BC&E systems of heat delivery and usage for homes, etc.   
                        3.  Sizes of units:  BECCS focuses on large (expensive) facilities and has no expression as small, decentralized capabilities.  BC&E springs from and thrives in small units, as in cookstoves, but also can have major capabilities for much larger facilities where heat can pay the bills while biochar is a desired co-product.  (See Part Two.)
                        4.  BC&E devices are, in general, significantly less expensive, allowing for more units to be placed in more locations closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations of the sequestration of the biochar.  Lower costs and moderate sizes combine for these advantages for BC&E:
                                    a.  Different sizes of facilities allow BC&E to be much more accommodating to use diverse types of biomass, with the result that the potential pool of biomass is larger for BC&E than for BECCS.
                                    b.  BC&E locations will be much more numerous and located closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations for the heat.  Local ownership is more likely.
                                    c.  BC&E has worldwide appeal to and potential involvement with all socio-economic strata.  BECCS is directed toward wealthy societies.
            B.  The integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to project future climate situations should be recalculated with the impact of biomass utilization based on BC&E and not on BECCS.  This could change for the better the IAM projections that are used in so many models of global temperature increases.
            C.  The focus on electricity production via BECCS is misleading, as was pointed out in Section VII about heat and energy.  When BC&E becomes well established and is providing useful thermal energy, there will be minimal biomass available or affordable for expensive BECCS installations that require massive amounts of biomass with significant transportation costs. 
 
<image003.png>
 
 
 
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I welcome anyone who would like to develop further (or to correct or to refute) these statements to contact me directly  psanders@...   or enter into discussion on one of the Discussion Groups (I subscribe to both the Biochar and the CDR groups), or participate in a webinar discussion if some organization would like to sponsor it.  
 
I have nothing personal against the advocates of BECCS.   But they are overlooking biochar that is right in front of them. 
 
Basically, BECCS is BUNK!!       And biochar technology is available now and is getting better.   The white paper (page 45) projects many GIGAtonnes of carbon dioxide removal and storage (CDRS) in the near future.  
 
My credentials are in my biosketch found on page 50 of the white paper. 
 
There is now legislation  in the US House of Representatives to advance biochar.   I hope that this message can help get the attention that it deserves for climate issues.
 
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 10:13 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] 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
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
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

Heide Horeth
 

Sometimes more is better. I appreciate your time and response!

Heide
4waystoyummy

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:33 AM mikethewormguy via groups.io <mikethewormguy=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 08:03 AM, Heide Horeth wrote:
I need to activate my biochar, since I make a seaweed fertilizer would that be a good choice to use? Or should I just use tea from compost? How long should it sit before mixing into soil?
 
Thanks you,
Heide

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:58 AM Didi Meier <didimeier61@...> wrote:
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






 Heide,

If you are going to use biomass char in a planting hole than soaking the char in a seaweed extract is great.

If your goal is to add biology to the soil than soaking the char in a compost extract would a good choice.

We actually do both of the above steps.

my 2 cents,

Mike


Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

mikethewormguy
 

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 08:03 AM, Heide Horeth wrote:
I need to activate my biochar, since I make a seaweed fertilizer would that be a good choice to use? Or should I just use tea from compost? How long should it sit before mixing into soil?
 
Thanks you,
Heide

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:58 AM Didi Meier <didimeier61@...> wrote:
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






 Heide,

If you are going to use biomass char in a planting hole than soaking the char in a seaweed extract is great.

If your goal is to add biology to the soil than soaking the char in a compost extract would a good choice.

We actually do both of the above steps.

my 2 cents,

Mike


Re: Biochar does better now for climate than what BECCS intends to do decades from now

Kirk Harris
 

Dr. Anderson,

You left out that the BECCS CO2 will be sequestered by forming rock deep in underground.

1.  This sequesters CO2, one carbon and twice the oxygen.  Sequestering oxygen for a hundred years may not be such a wise idea.  Is oxygen renewable in the atmosphere?  Would this trade one atmospheric problem for another?

2.  Have environmental studies been done to determine how filling in crevices deep underground will affect aquifers, springs, etc?  Will BECCS be transferring damage from the atmosphere to underground?

BECCS could end up turning one environmental problem into two environmental problems.

Kirk H.

On 5/5/2021 6:56 AM, Paul S Anderson wrote:

There is a new article about BECCS.   The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world     Here is a link to its abstract.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378021000418?via%3Dihub

 

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.

 

The abstract includes:

 

1)  We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals,

 

2)  , and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

 

Those two statements say the impact of BECCS will be during 2050 to 2100 and then will have a backstop (low but stable) price of $240 /t CO2e.  

 

Accomplishing that in the coming decades is NOT good news.  It is procrastination and lack of awareness of what biochar can do NOW.

 

I have written about this previously in my white paper “Climate Intervention with Biochar”  www.woodgas.ennergy/resources   On page 9:

 

            F.  BECCS has received an enormous amount of attention, especially in Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) used by scientists in the preparation of the IPCC documents (2018) on 1.5 degrees C of global temperature rise.  The rationale for this focus on BECCS is that it can be modeled (presumably because of available data on biomass supply (including AR), as opposed to hypothetical data for DACCS, EW, OF, and SCS).  But the IAM projections are based on hope of what CCS for sequestration MIGHT accomplish in the coming decades if CCS becomes financially viable.  In contrast, BC&E [Biochar and Energy] already has the sequestration issue resolved as stable biochar from essentially the same sources of available biomass.  

            This white paper contends that BC&E is a better, more realistic NET than BECCS for use in IAM calculations about the future of our planet.  See supporting information in Section VIII. 

 

Section VIII is on pages 17 – 18, which I provide here: 

 

Section VIII.  “Anything BECCS can do, BC&E can do better; char can do anything better that BECCS” (Proposed lyrics for a CDR song.)

            A.  BC&E can significantly exceed the expectations of BECCS.

                        1.  Different technologies:  BECCS appears to have the advantage because it starts with technology for releasing 100% of the energy by burning biomass all the way to ash, and the intention that nearly 100% of the created CO2 could be captured and stored via proposed functional CCS technology.  In contrast, BC&E appears to offer less because it releases only 70% of the total biomass energy for possible productive use.  30% of the energy remains in the captured 50% of the carbon atoms (or 40% for long-term sequestration).

                        2.  Different levels of readiness:  For BECCS, of its two components, BE and CCS, the CCS capability is grossly lacking as of 2020 and is dependent on assumptions and speculations for solutions that will be costly because they are industrial, and not natural.   In contrast, for BC&E, both the BC and &E components are already functional or awaiting the existing business sector for heat capture to adjust to and commercially promote some BC&E systems of heat delivery and usage for homes, etc.  

                        3.  Sizes of units:  BECCS focuses on large (expensive) facilities and has no expression as small, decentralized capabilities.  BC&E springs from and thrives in small units, as in cookstoves, but also can have major capabilities for much larger facilities where heat can pay the bills while biochar is a desired co-product.  (See Part Two.)

                        4.  BC&E devices are, in general, significantly less expensive, allowing for more units to be placed in more locations closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations of the sequestration of the biochar.  Lower costs and moderate sizes combine for these advantages for BC&E:

                                    a.  Different sizes of facilities allow BC&E to be much more accommodating to use diverse types of biomass, with the result that the potential pool of biomass is larger for BC&E than for BECCS.

                                    b.  BC&E locations will be much more numerous and located closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations for the heat.  Local ownership is more likely.

                                    c.  BC&E has worldwide appeal to and potential involvement with all socio-economic strata.  BECCS is directed toward wealthy societies.

            B.  The integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to project future climate situations should be recalculated with the impact of biomass utilization based on BC&E and not on BECCS.  This could change for the better the IAM projections that are used in so many models of global temperature increases.

            C.  The focus on electricity production via BECCS is misleading, as was pointed out in Section VII about heat and energy.  When BC&E becomes well established and is providing useful thermal energy, there will be minimal biomass available or affordable for expensive BECCS installations that require massive amounts of biomass with significant transportation costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I welcome anyone who would like to develop further (or to correct or to refute) these statements to contact me directly  psanders@...   or enter into discussion on one of the Discussion Groups (I subscribe to both the Biochar and the CDR groups), or participate in a webinar discussion if some organization would like to sponsor it.  

 

I have nothing personal against the advocates of BECCS.   But they are overlooking biochar that is right in front of them. 

 

Basically, BECCS is BUNK!!       And biochar technology is available now and is getting better.   The white paper (page 45) projects many GIGAtonnes of carbon dioxide removal and storage (CDRS) in the near future.  

 

My credentials are in my biosketch found on page 50 of the white paper. 

 

There is now legislation  in the US House of Representatives to advance biochar.   I hope that this message can help get the attention that it deserves for climate issues.

 

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 10:13 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] 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

 

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

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

 




AVG logo

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



Re: Turning Medical Cannabis Waste into Biochar

Heide Horeth
 

I need to activate my biochar, since I make a seaweed fertilizer would that be a good choice to use? Or should I just use tea from compost? How long should it sit before mixing into soil?

Thanks you,
Heide

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:58 AM Didi Meier <didimeier61@...> wrote:
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






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 does better now for climate than what BECCS intends to do decades from now

Paul S Anderson
 

There is a new article about BECCS.   The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world     Here is a link to its abstract.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378021000418?via%3Dihub

 

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.

 

The abstract includes:

 

1)  We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals,

 

2)  , and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

 

Those two statements say the impact of BECCS will be during 2050 to 2100 and then will have a backstop (low but stable) price of $240 /t CO2e.  

 

Accomplishing that in the coming decades is NOT good news.  It is procrastination and lack of awareness of what biochar can do NOW.

 

I have written about this previously in my white paper “Climate Intervention with Biochar”  www.woodgas.ennergy/resources   On page 9:

 

            F.  BECCS has received an enormous amount of attention, especially in Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) used by scientists in the preparation of the IPCC documents (2018) on 1.5 degrees C of global temperature rise.  The rationale for this focus on BECCS is that it can be modeled (presumably because of available data on biomass supply (including AR), as opposed to hypothetical data for DACCS, EW, OF, and SCS).  But the IAM projections are based on hope of what CCS for sequestration MIGHT accomplish in the coming decades if CCS becomes financially viable.  In contrast, BC&E [Biochar and Energy] already has the sequestration issue resolved as stable biochar from essentially the same sources of available biomass.  

            This white paper contends that BC&E is a better, more realistic NET than BECCS for use in IAM calculations about the future of our planet.  See supporting information in Section VIII. 

 

Section VIII is on pages 17 – 18, which I provide here: 

 

Section VIII.  “Anything BECCS can do, BC&E can do better; char can do anything better that BECCS” (Proposed lyrics for a CDR song.)

            A.  BC&E can significantly exceed the expectations of BECCS.

                        1.  Different technologies:  BECCS appears to have the advantage because it starts with technology for releasing 100% of the energy by burning biomass all the way to ash, and the intention that nearly 100% of the created CO2 could be captured and stored via proposed functional CCS technology.  In contrast, BC&E appears to offer less because it releases only 70% of the total biomass energy for possible productive use.  30% of the energy remains in the captured 50% of the carbon atoms (or 40% for long-term sequestration).

                        2.  Different levels of readiness:  For BECCS, of its two components, BE and CCS, the CCS capability is grossly lacking as of 2020 and is dependent on assumptions and speculations for solutions that will be costly because they are industrial, and not natural.   In contrast, for BC&E, both the BC and &E components are already functional or awaiting the existing business sector for heat capture to adjust to and commercially promote some BC&E systems of heat delivery and usage for homes, etc.  

                        3.  Sizes of units:  BECCS focuses on large (expensive) facilities and has no expression as small, decentralized capabilities.  BC&E springs from and thrives in small units, as in cookstoves, but also can have major capabilities for much larger facilities where heat can pay the bills while biochar is a desired co-product.  (See Part Two.)

                        4.  BC&E devices are, in general, significantly less expensive, allowing for more units to be placed in more locations closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations of the sequestration of the biochar.  Lower costs and moderate sizes combine for these advantages for BC&E:

                                    a.  Different sizes of facilities allow BC&E to be much more accommodating to use diverse types of biomass, with the result that the potential pool of biomass is larger for BC&E than for BECCS.

                                    b.  BC&E locations will be much more numerous and located closer to the sources of biomass and the destinations for the heat.  Local ownership is more likely.

                                    c.  BC&E has worldwide appeal to and potential involvement with all socio-economic strata.  BECCS is directed toward wealthy societies.

            B.  The integrated assessment models (IAMs) used to project future climate situations should be recalculated with the impact of biomass utilization based on BC&E and not on BECCS.  This could change for the better the IAM projections that are used in so many models of global temperature increases.

            C.  The focus on electricity production via BECCS is misleading, as was pointed out in Section VII about heat and energy.  When BC&E becomes well established and is providing useful thermal energy, there will be minimal biomass available or affordable for expensive BECCS installations that require massive amounts of biomass with significant transportation costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I welcome anyone who would like to develop further (or to correct or to refute) these statements to contact me directly  psanders@...   or enter into discussion on one of the Discussion Groups (I subscribe to both the Biochar and the CDR groups), or participate in a webinar discussion if some organization would like to sponsor it.  

 

I have nothing personal against the advocates of BECCS.   But they are overlooking biochar that is right in front of them. 

 

Basically, BECCS is BUNK!!       And biochar technology is available now and is getting better.   The white paper (page 45) projects many GIGAtonnes of carbon dioxide removal and storage (CDRS) in the near future.  

 

My credentials are in my biosketch found on page 50 of the white paper. 

 

There is now legislation  in the US House of Representatives to advance biochar.   I hope that this message can help get the attention that it deserves for climate issues.

 

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 10:13 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] 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

 

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

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

Paul S Anderson
 

Michael,               

 

Please send me the links to the full article or send the article to me.   I am referring to:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378021000418?via%3Dihub     which is the abstract plus highlights.    that include:

 

1)  We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals,

 

2)  , and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

 

Those two statements say the impact of BECCS will be during 2050 to 2100 and then will have a backstop (low but stable) price of $240 /t CO2e.   And we of the biochar community accept that!?????

 

Because maintaining the tread is so important, even though the topic has changed, I will be sending a slightly revised version of this message plus further comments with an accurate Subject line, which is  

Biochar does better now for climate than what BECCS intends to do decades from now  

 

Sending it right away so that you can respond to that message with the appropriate Subject line.

 

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 11:17 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] The giant accounting problem that could hamper the world’s push to cut emissions: Washington Post

 

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

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.

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.

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.

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


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 

1001 - 1020 of 30893