Topics

Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration


Andrew Chapeskie
 

Link: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/13/eaay6792/tab-pdf 
 
SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE
 
BIOENERGY

Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy,
or both?

Alice Favero, Adam Daigneault, Brent Sohngen

There is a continuing debate over the role that woody bioenergy plays in climate mitigation. This paper clarifies this controversy and illustrates the impacts of woody biomass demand on forest harvests, prices, timber management investments and intensity, forest area, and the resulting carbon balance under different climate mitigation policies.  Increased bioenergy demand increases forest carbon stocks thanks to afforestation activities and more intensive management relative to a no-bioenergy case. Some natural forests, however, are converted to more intensive management, with potential biodiversity losses. Incentivizing both wood-based bioenergy and forest sequestration could increase carbon sequestration and conserve natural forests simultaneously. We conclude that the expanded
use of wood for bioenergy will result in net carbon benefits, but an efficient policy also needs to regulate forest carbon sequestration.

No mention of biochar that I found in a first quick look.


Geoff Thomas
 

Lots of papers, - Acadamia has another hundred, all over the show, many topics, - free. very few seem to have actually done it though..
  From: "Academia.edu" <premium@...>

Subject: Did you see? 37 top related papers to "Impact of Biochar on Organic Contaminants in Soil: A Tool for Mitigating Risk?"
Date: 25 March 2020 8:47:59 am AEST
On 2 Apr 2020, at 5:52 am, Andrew Chapeskie <andrew@...> wrote:

Link: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/13/eaay6792/tab-pdf 
 
SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE
 
BIOENERGY

Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy,
or both?

Alice Favero, Adam Daigneault, Brent Sohngen

There is a continuing debate over the role that woody bioenergy plays in climate mitigation. This paper clarifies this controversy and illustrates the impacts of woody biomass demand on forest harvests, prices, timber management investments and intensity, forest area, and the resulting carbon balance under different climate mitigation policies.  Increased bioenergy demand increases forest carbon stocks thanks to afforestation activities and more intensive management relative to a no-bioenergy case. Some natural forests, however, are converted to more intensive management, with potential biodiversity losses. Incentivizing both wood-based bioenergy and forest sequestration could increase carbon sequestration and conserve natural forests simultaneously. We conclude that the expanded
use of wood for bioenergy will result in net carbon benefits, but an efficient policy also needs to regulate forest carbon sequestration.

No mention of biochar that I found in a first quick look.


 

Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka



David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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


Roger Faulkner
 

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration


On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
<david.derbowka@...> wrote:
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka



David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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


 

A carbon sink, for example, of deciduous trees, comes with a lot of rules.  You have to quantify the footprint you create to manage and grow it, or keep it healthy.  (ISO 14064 operatives) Understory is supposed to be kept at 4 or less inches length.  So emissions to do so are subtracted from the final outcome.  I grew a type of trees that come with a nasty fungus, or rust problem.  Gathering leaves eliminates the problem totally.  At my establishment, those leaves are then composted, biochar added, along with liquid dairy manure to expedite procedure.   It works for me.  Is that all a good idea?  It is not for me to say, but it is the planet friendliest method I am able to muster so far.  I am always hand gathering broken branches, (from bears climbing) chipping and then cooking them. Your comment makes me wonder as well.  I have never cooked leaves to get an answer.  I find wood is basically 1/5 carbon.   Leaves are probably similar, but how much CO2 do they emit in natural conditions?  I will guess the GHG Advisor takes that into account for final calculations.  

Cheers
David



David R Derbowka  

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



On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:46 AM Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration


On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka



David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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


Geoff Thomas
 

Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.

So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 

Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.

Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.

Geoff Thomas.


On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration


On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka



David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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




Paul S Anderson
 

Geoff,

 

How well do these numbers fit with your calculations (in your message below)

 

“Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ of solar energy and  120 Giga Tonnes of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/Factsheet_Biomass%20potential.pdf , 2016).  That same document identified the global composition of annual biomass supply in 2012 to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass], with an expected near- tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].

 

The above is from the WBA (World Bioenergy Association) in 2016.  

 

Paul

 

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

         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

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

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

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

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

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

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration

 

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

Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .

Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.

 

So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 

 

Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.

 

Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.

 

Geoff Thomas.

 

 

On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:

 

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka

Greetings

If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.

    

But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

 

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

 

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

 

Cheers

David R Derbowka

 

 

David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 

eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |

Image removed by sender.

 

 


 

Hey Geoff
It's amazing the numbers you displayed.  Amazing, because it's engineering that makes our situation understandable\monatorable.  It shows off the unbalance on Earth.  We made the mess, we have the numbers, we have the ability, now, how do we open the doors of opportunity?  And will someone make mince meat out of our information?  (that's our worst enemy)   You also show me, what a marvelous being is Planet Earth.  Earth, as ever, has more gifts for us to use with our ability.

Dave Derbowka



David R Derbowka  

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



On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:55 PM Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.

So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 

Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.

Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.

Geoff Thomas.


On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration


On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka



David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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




Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Paul, to the degree we can compare apples with apples, In the International System of Units, the prefix “giga” means 109, or one billion (1,000,000,000). Hence terms like “gigawatt” or “gigahertz.” Thus, a gigaton is equivalent to a billion metric tons. 
So my figure of 110 billion tons is not far off, and there are some new elements to consider.
Back at 2007, the knowledge of the quantity of carbon held in the soil by the “wee Beasties” was not appreciated, - nobody back then was talking about there being 4 times the weight of a tree underground as it has overground, for instance, and only now are such matters being more comprehensively addressed, -  (and more exactly measured).

So logging, particularly clear felling, is now being understood as far more serious than heretofore, yet the rate of such clearing has increased quite alarmingly, as from the super rich point of view, it is easy money, eg the Amazon situashe.

Then there is an arguable increase in take up of carbon dioxide, - where there was a restriction in growth from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, - rather than enough water, or sunlight or minerals, - so basically mainly in crop growing using ‘modern' agriculture methods, as water and nutrients are fully supplied and no shade. 
On the other side of that one, most of that extra carbon will return to the atmosphere so the Turnover figure will be greater, at least in appearance, yet that agricultural waste is very suitable for charring, so that is a very positive thing to work for, - no tree need be felled..
Not that trees are often felled for Biochar in the normal case, - but you know what I mean. 

A discussion could be held about how to best extract carbon from agricultural waste, - of many different varieties, and some may argue that it is a poorer sort of Char, compared to Tree charcoal, but it should be ideal for feeding to cattle, - probably may not need crushing either, with many crops.
Also farms may have, or decide to have, both cattle (or other farm animals) and food crops, so several synergies may develop, including using the ’smoke’.

Hopefully, Paul, I have answered the first part of your query, - the carbon exchange/turnover, if not succinctly, but my second assertion,  - that the land plants hold a reserve of 750 Billion tons you did not seem to challenge.
Whatever, I suspect that that figure has changed significantly, - not only due to the issues I mentioned above, but also the difficulty of calculating such a thing, including, where climate change is altering the balance of our various Biomes, - eg the Bushfires in Australia recently, - and in America also, and what can we do about them?

- I immediately thought of ramping up the feeding cattle charcoal publicity, if only for the increased water holding of the soil with the Biochar being added year after year, - and I would appreciate any helpful additions to my understanding on that one, - but also resurrecting an invention I made 30 or so years ago of an Electric Pump Firetruck, the which the local Lion’s club has committed to helping me fund and build a demo unit, as going through the bureaucracy is a life’s work, despite my many years of service in fighting bushfires. - eg to bring in a new idea there are four separate processes to say no, each containing an enormous amount of forms, meetings,  much of it duplicationary and requiring meetings which may happen only annually, before you can get to a possible yes, then 5 more stages before actual work on a demo unit could start.
Meanwhile there will be more years of worsening situation. - btw I am not asking for assistance on this project, merely giving an eg.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

 

On 4 Apr 2020, at 11:26 pm, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Geoff,
 
How well do these numbers fit with your calculations (in your message below)
 
“Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ of solar energy and  120 Giga Tonnes of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/Factsheet_Biomass%20potential.pdf , 2016).  That same document identified the global composition of annual biomass supply in 2012 to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass], with an expected near- tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].
 
The above is from the WBA (World Bioenergy Association) in 2016.  
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.
 
So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 
 
Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.
 
Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.
 
Geoff Thomas.
 
 
On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:
 
Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.
 
I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.
 
The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  
 
Cheers
David R Derbowka
 

 

David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 
eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |
<~WRD0003.jpg>
 
 



Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Paul, to the degree we can compare apples with apples, In the International System of Units, the prefix “giga” means 109, or one billion (1,000,000,000). Hence terms like “gigawatt” or “gigahertz.” Thus, a gigaton is equivalent to a billion metric tons. 
So my figure of 110 billion tons is not far off, and there are some new elements to consider.
Back at 2007, the knowledge of the quantity of carbon held in the soil by the “wee Beasties” was not appreciated, - nobody back then was talking about there being 4 times the weight of a tree underground as it has overground, for instance, and only now are such matters being more comprehensively addressed, -  (and more exactly measured).

So logging, particularly clear felling, is now being understood as far more serious than heretofore, yet the rate of such clearing has increased quite alarmingly, as from the super rich point of view, it is easy money, eg the Amazon situashe.

Then there is an arguable increase in take up of carbon dioxide, - where there was a restriction in growth from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, - rather than enough water, or sunlight or minerals, - so basically mainly in crop growing using ‘modern' agriculture methods, as water and nutrients are fully supplied and no shade. 
On the other side of that one, most of that extra carbon will return to the atmosphere so the Turnover figure will be greater, at least in appearance, yet that agricultural waste is very suitable for charring, so that is a very positive thing to work for, - no tree need be felled..
Not that trees are often felled for Biochar in the normal case, - but you know what I mean. 

A discussion could be held about how to best extract carbon from agricultural waste, - of many different varieties, and some may argue that it is a poorer sort of Char, compared to Tree charcoal, but it should be ideal for feeding to cattle, - probably may not need crushing either, with many crops.
Also farms may have, or decide to have, both cattle (or other farm animals) and food crops, so several synergies may develop, including using the ’smoke’.

Hopefully, Paul, I have answered the first part of your query, - the carbon exchange/turnover, if not succinctly, but my second assertion,  - that the land plants hold a reserve of 750 Billion tons you did not seem to challenge.
Whatever, I suspect that that figure has changed significantly, - not only due to the issues I mentioned above, but also the difficulty of calculating such a thing, including, where climate change is altering the balance of our various Biomes, - eg the Bushfires in Australia recently, - and in America also, and what can we do about them?

- I immediately thought of ramping up the feeding cattle charcoal publicity, if only for the increased water holding of the soil with the Biochar being added year after year, - and I would appreciate any helpful additions to my understanding on that one, - but also resurrecting an invention I made 30 or so years ago of an Electric Pump Firetruck, the which the local Lion’s club has committed to helping me fund and build a demo unit, as going through the bureaucracy is a life’s work, despite my many years of service in fighting bushfires. - eg to bring in a new idea there are four separate processes to say no, each containing an enormous amount of forms, meetings,  much of it duplicationary and requiring meetings which may happen only annually, before you can get to a possible yes, then 5 more stages before actual work on a demo unit could start.
Meanwhile there will be more years of worsening situation. - btw I am not asking for assistance on this project, merely giving an eg.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

 

On 4 Apr 2020, at 11:26 pm, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Geoff,
 
How well do these numbers fit with your calculations (in your message below)
 
“Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ of solar energy and  120 Giga Tonnes of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/Factsheet_Biomass%20potential.pdf , 2016).  That same document identified the global composition of annual biomass supply in 2012 to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass], with an expected near- tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].
 
The above is from the WBA (World Bioenergy Association) in 2016.  
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.
 
So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 
 
Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.
 
Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.
 
Geoff Thomas.
 
 
On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:
 
Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.
 
I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.
 
The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  
 
Cheers
David R Derbowka
 

 

David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 
eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |
<~WRD0003.jpg>
 
 



Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Paul, to the degree we can compare apples with apples, In the International System of Units, the prefix “giga” means 109, or one billion (1,000,000,000). Hence terms like “gigawatt” or “gigahertz.” Thus, a gigaton is equivalent to a billion metric tons. 
So my figure of 110 billion tons is not far off, and there are some new elements to consider.
Back at 2007, the knowledge of the quantity of carbon held in the soil by the “wee Beasties” was not appreciated, - nobody back then was talking about there being 4 times the weight of a tree underground as it has overground, for instance, and only now are such matters being more comprehensively addressed, -  (and more exactly measured).

So logging, particularly clear felling, is now being understood as far more serious than heretofore, yet the rate of such clearing has increased quite alarmingly, as from the super rich point of view, it is easy money, eg the Amazon situashe.

Then there is an arguable increase in take up of carbon dioxide, - where there was a restriction in growth from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, - rather than enough water, or sunlight or minerals, - so basically mainly in crop growing using ‘modern' agriculture methods, as water and nutrients are fully supplied and no shade. 
On the other side of that one, most of that extra carbon will return to the atmosphere so the Turnover figure will be greater, at least in appearance, yet that agricultural waste is very suitable for charring, so that is a very positive thing to work for, - no tree need be felled..
Not that trees are often felled for Biochar in the normal case, - but you know what I mean. 

A discussion could be held about how to best extract carbon from agricultural waste, - of many different varieties, and some may argue that it is a poorer sort of Char, compared to Tree charcoal, but it should be ideal for feeding to cattle, - probably may not need crushing either, with many crops.
Also farms may have, or decide to have, both cattle (or other farm animals) and food crops, so several synergies may develop, including using the ’smoke’.

Hopefully, Paul, I have answered the first part of your query, - the carbon exchange/turnover, if not succinctly, but my second assertion,  - that the land plants hold a reserve of 750 Billion tons you did not seem to challenge.
Whatever, I suspect that that figure has changed significantly, - not only due to the issues I mentioned above, but also the difficulty of calculating such a thing, including, where climate change is altering the balance of our various Biomes, - eg the Bushfires in Australia recently, - and in America also, and what can we do about them?

- I immediately thought of ramping up the feeding cattle charcoal publicity, if only for the increased water holding of the soil with the Biochar being added year after year, - and I would appreciate any helpful additions to my understanding on that one, - but also resurrecting an invention I made 30 or so years ago of an Electric Pump Firetruck, the which the local Lion’s club has committed to helping me fund and build a demo unit, as going through the bureaucracy is a life’s work, despite my many years of service in fighting bushfires. - eg to bring in a new idea there are four separate processes to say no, each containing an enormous amount of forms, meetings,  much of it duplicationary and requiring meetings which may happen only annually, before you can get to a possible yes, then 5 more stages before actual work on a demo unit could start.
Meanwhile there will be more years of worsening situation. - btw I am not asking for assistance on this project, merely giving an eg.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

 

On 4 Apr 2020, at 11:26 pm, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Geoff,
 
How well do these numbers fit with your calculations (in your message below)
 
“Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ of solar energy and  120 Giga Tonnes of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/Factsheet_Biomass%20potential.pdf , 2016).  That same document identified the global composition of annual biomass supply in 2012 to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass], with an expected near- tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].
 
The above is from the WBA (World Bioenergy Association) in 2016.  
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.
 
So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 
 
Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.
 
Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.
 
Geoff Thomas.
 
 
On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:
 
Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.
 
I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.
 
The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  
 
Cheers
David R Derbowka
 

 

David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 
eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |
<~WRD0003.jpg>
 
 



Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Paul, - please delete the two extra copies, - internet problem..
G

On 5 Apr 2020, at 12:58 pm, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:

Hi Paul, to the degree we can compare apples with apples, In the International System of Units, the prefix “giga” means 109, or one billion (1,000,000,000). Hence terms like “gigawatt” or “gigahertz.” Thus, a gigaton is equivalent to a billion metric tons. 
So my figure of 110 billion tons is not far off, and there are some new elements to consider.
Back at 2007, the knowledge of the quantity of carbon held in the soil by the “wee Beasties” was not appreciated, - nobody back then was talking about there being 4 times the weight of a tree underground as it has overground, for instance, and only now are such matters being more comprehensively addressed, -  (and more exactly measured).

So logging, particularly clear felling, is now being understood as far more serious than heretofore, yet the rate of such clearing has increased quite alarmingly, as from the super rich point of view, it is easy money, eg the Amazon situashe.

Then there is an arguable increase in take up of carbon dioxide, - where there was a restriction in growth from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, - rather than enough water, or sunlight or minerals, - so basically mainly in crop growing using ‘modern' agriculture methods, as water and nutrients are fully supplied and no shade. 
On the other side of that one, most of that extra carbon will return to the atmosphere so the Turnover figure will be greater, at least in appearance, yet that agricultural waste is very suitable for charring, so that is a very positive thing to work for, - no tree need be felled..
Not that trees are often felled for Biochar in the normal case, - but you know what I mean. 

A discussion could be held about how to best extract carbon from agricultural waste, - of many different varieties, and some may argue that it is a poorer sort of Char, compared to Tree charcoal, but it should be ideal for feeding to cattle, - probably may not need crushing either, with many crops.
Also farms may have, or decide to have, both cattle (or other farm animals) and food crops, so several synergies may develop, including using the ’smoke’.

Hopefully, Paul, I have answered the first part of your query, - the carbon exchange/turnover, if not succinctly, but my second assertion,  - that the land plants hold a reserve of 750 Billion tons you did not seem to challenge.
Whatever, I suspect that that figure has changed significantly, - not only due to the issues I mentioned above, but also the difficulty of calculating such a thing, including, where climate change is altering the balance of our various Biomes, - eg the Bushfires in Australia recently, - and in America also, and what can we do about them?

- I immediately thought of ramping up the feeding cattle charcoal publicity, if only for the increased water holding of the soil with the Biochar being added year after year, - and I would appreciate any helpful additions to my understanding on that one, - but also resurrecting an invention I made 30 or so years ago of an Electric Pump Firetruck, the which the local Lion’s club has committed to helping me fund and build a demo unit, as going through the bureaucracy is a life’s work, despite my many years of service in fighting bushfires. - eg to bring in a new idea there are four separate processes to say no, each containing an enormous amount of forms, meetings,  much of it duplicationary and requiring meetings which may happen only annually, before you can get to a possible yes, then 5 more stages before actual work on a demo unit could start.
Meanwhile there will be more years of worsening situation. - btw I am not asking for assistance on this project, merely giving an eg.

Cheers,
Geoff Thomas.

 
On 4 Apr 2020, at 11:26 pm, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Geoff,
 
How well do these numbers fit with your calculations (in your message below)
 
“Every year, plants convert 4,500 EJ of solar energy and  120 Giga Tonnes of carbon [= 439 Gt CO2] from the atmosphere into [ ~240 Gt of new] biomass – eight times as much as the global energy need.” (https://worldbioenergy.org/uploads/Factsheet_Biomass%20potential.pdf , 2016).  That same document identified the global composition of annual biomass supply in 2012 to be 56 EJ of biomass energy [about 29 Gt of biomass], with an expected near- tripling to 150 EJ by 2035 [~85 Gt of biomass].
 
The above is from the WBA (World Bioenergy Association) in 2016.  
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
         Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP    Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy:  See  www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
         with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoff Thomas via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.
 
So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 
 
Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.
 
Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.
 
Geoff Thomas.
 
 
On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:
 
Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.
 
I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.
 
The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  
 
Cheers
David R Derbowka
 
 
David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |
Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 
eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |
<~WRD0003.jpg>
 
 




Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

David et al

Wood is 1/2 (50%) Carbon not 1/5 (20%)

 

Arundo donax is 42 % C – small branches and leaves have 45% - 48% Carbon and more ashes compared to solid wood

 

Regarding the quality and yearly production of foliage we have quite a bit of research in Italy, it was a traditional harvest in poorer areas

 

There is obviously a great variation among different species and with size – a good starting point is 3% of the total biomass of the trees (including roots)

 

Attachments

 

  • Chapter 11 comes from Washington State University  http://www.ruraltech.org/
  • How Carbon is Stored © Forest and Wood Products Australia Written by Andrea Jane Leys PhD for Forest Learning
  • Forest@ Copyright © by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology.

 

Good reading in this odd time of quarantine

 

Tomaso

 

 

Da: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Per conto di David R Derbowka
Inviato: venerdì 3 aprile 2020 16:49
A: main@Biochar.groups.io Group Moderators <main@biochar.groups.io>
Oggetto: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration

 

A carbon sink, for example, of deciduous trees, comes with a lot of rules.  You have to quantify the footprint you create to manage and grow it, or keep it healthy.  (ISO 14064 operatives) Understory is supposed to be kept at 4 or less inches length.  So emissions to do so are subtracted from the final outcome.  I grew a type of trees that come with a nasty fungus, or rust problem.  Gathering leaves eliminates the problem totally.  At my establishment, those leaves are then composted, biochar added, along with liquid dairy manure to expedite procedure.   It works for me.  Is that all a good idea?  It is not for me to say, but it is the planet friendliest method I am able to muster so far.  I am always hand gathering broken branches, (from bears climbing) chipping and then cooking them. Your comment makes me wonder as well.  I have never cooked leaves to get an answer.  I find wood is basically 1/5 carbon.   Leaves are probably similar, but how much CO2 do they emit in natural conditions?  I will guess the GHG Advisor takes that into account for final calculations.  

 

Cheers

David

 

 

David R Derbowka  

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 

eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |

Immagine rimossa dal mittente.

 

 

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:46 AM Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration

 

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka

Greetings

If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.

    

But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

 

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

 

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

 

Cheers

David R Derbowka

 

 

David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 

eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |

Immagine rimossa dal mittente.


Roger Faulkner
 

It is very interesting to me that you have to remove the leaves to prevent the fungus infection of the trees. I bet you that making biochar out of the leaves would be valuable.


On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 4:37 AM, Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
<tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

David et al

Wood is 1/2 (50%) Carbon not 1/5 (20%)

 

Arundo donax is 42 % C – small branches and leaves have 45% - 48% Carbon and more ashes compared to solid wood

 

Regarding the quality and yearly production of foliage we have quite a bit of research in Italy, it was a traditional harvest in poorer areas

 

There is obviously a great variation among different species and with size – a good starting point is 3% of the total biomass of the trees (including roots)

 

Attachments

 

  • Chapter 11 comes from Washington State University  http://www.ruraltech.org/
  • How Carbon is Stored © Forest and Wood Products Australia Written by Andrea Jane Leys PhD for Forest Learning
  • Forest@ Copyright © by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology.

 

Good reading in this odd time of quarantine

 

Tomaso

 

 

Da: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Per conto di David R Derbowka
Inviato: venerdì 3 aprile 2020 16:49
A: main@Biochar.groups.io Group Moderators <main@biochar.groups.io>
Oggetto: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration

 

A carbon sink, for example, of deciduous trees, comes with a lot of rules.  You have to quantify the footprint you create to manage and grow it, or keep it healthy.  (ISO 14064 operatives) Understory is supposed to be kept at 4 or less inches length.  So emissions to do so are subtracted from the final outcome.  I grew a type of trees that come with a nasty fungus, or rust problem.  Gathering leaves eliminates the problem totally.  At my establishment, those leaves are then composted, biochar added, along with liquid dairy manure to expedite procedure.   It works for me.  Is that all a good idea?  It is not for me to say, but it is the planet friendliest method I am able to muster so far.  I am always hand gathering broken branches, (from bears climbing) chipping and then cooking them. Your comment makes me wonder as well.  I have never cooked leaves to get an answer.  I find wood is basically 1/5 carbon.   Leaves are probably similar, but how much CO2 do they emit in natural conditions?  I will guess the GHG Advisor takes that into account for final calculations.  

 

Cheers

David

 

 

David R Derbowka  

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 

eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |

Immagine rimossa dal mittente.

 

 

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:46 AM Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration

 

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka

Greetings

If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.

    

But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

 

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

 

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

 

Cheers

David R Derbowka

 

 

David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

Passive Remediation Systems Ltd.
Tel: +1 250 306 6377 | 

eMail: david.derbowka@... |Web: prsi.ca |

Immagine rimossa dal mittente.


ALAN PAGE
 

HI All,
There is a site Space Weather News which has done a lot of background research about the inputs to climate forcing and come up with some very different relationships than are currently employed by the IPCC although they discuss how this is gradually changing in favor of the principles that are laid out by studies of solar and galactic and further out sources of climate forcing energies.

Their take is discussed in detail in several videos below their daily discussion of solar dynamics. A good place to start is the solar wind summary, but all of the upper row of videos are pretty self explanatory.

The take away is that human impacts have been grossly overstated, and that things are changing rapidly but not for the reasons we have been led to discuss here and elsewhere. Their point is that pollution is a major problem that we can impact with good systems. Forests are important on many levels but probably not for the global climatic stabilization discussed in this thread. The growth of forests and the possible formation of charcoal from the thinnings and upper stem portions of trees is an important function that humans should know a lot about and be able to practice and use wherever tree growth is possible.
Thus the thread is just as important as you all think it is but possibly for different reasons. Do your own research.   

Alan C. Page, Ph.D., Research Forester - MA License #184
Green Diamond Systems
125 Blue Meadow Road
Belchertown, MA 01007

Phone: 413-323-4401
Cell: 413-883-9642

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:03 PM, David R Derbowka <david.derbowka@...> wrote:

Hey Geoff
It's amazing the numbers you displayed.  Amazing, because it's engineering that makes our situation understandable\monatorable.  It shows off the unbalance on Earth.  We made the mess, we have the numbers, we have the ability, now, how do we open the doors of opportunity?  And will someone make mince meat out of our information?  (that's our worst enemy)   You also show me, what a marvelous being is Planet Earth.  Earth, as ever, has more gifts for us to use with our ability.

Dave Derbowka


David R Derbowka  

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




On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:55 PM Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.

So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 

Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.

Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.

Geoff Thomas.


On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka


David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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






 

It's tricky understanding this planet's "inner/outer workings".  I think it's a lot smarter than we.   But my observations, have often proved to be a bell weather in my wee world.  That's what started me to begin with.  In 1958 they started CO2 ppm measurements.  There must have been others doing observations long ago.  Sometimes, my observations fit with what we discuss.  There are so very many confusing elements; the trade winds high above are out of sync by the looks of long time patterns.  I think we should be looking at "oligotrophication", as it plays a role in my thinking. Not only have we over used resources, we have overused our soils.  So we already knew that, but for me it is all part of the largest issue: CO2, however not the worst issue.
Going back to what Allan said about forests, I believe a tree sequesters 10% to the soil, just for being a matured tree.  I'm not 100% sure on that one.  The GHG adviser may have better info. 

We have to kill a few kids before we instal a four way stop. 

David Derbowka



David R Derbowka  

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



On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 11:54 AM ALAN PAGE <alan@...> wrote:
HI All,
There is a site Space Weather News which has done a lot of background research about the inputs to climate forcing and come up with some very different relationships than are currently employed by the IPCC although they discuss how this is gradually changing in favor of the principles that are laid out by studies of solar and galactic and further out sources of climate forcing energies.

Their take is discussed in detail in several videos below their daily discussion of solar dynamics. A good place to start is the solar wind summary, but all of the upper row of videos are pretty self explanatory.

The take away is that human impacts have been grossly overstated, and that things are changing rapidly but not for the reasons we have been led to discuss here and elsewhere. Their point is that pollution is a major problem that we can impact with good systems. Forests are important on many levels but probably not for the global climatic stabilization discussed in this thread. The growth of forests and the possible formation of charcoal from the thinnings and upper stem portions of trees is an important function that humans should know a lot about and be able to practice and use wherever tree growth is possible.
Thus the thread is just as important as you all think it is but possibly for different reasons. Do your own research.   

Alan C. Page, Ph.D., Research Forester - MA License #184
Green Diamond Systems
125 Blue Meadow Road
Belchertown, MA 01007

Phone: 413-323-4401
Cell: 413-883-9642

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:03 PM, David R Derbowka <david.derbowka@...> wrote:

Hey Geoff
It's amazing the numbers you displayed.  Amazing, because it's engineering that makes our situation understandable\monatorable.  It shows off the unbalance on Earth.  We made the mess, we have the numbers, we have the ability, now, how do we open the doors of opportunity?  And will someone make mince meat out of our information?  (that's our worst enemy)   You also show me, what a marvelous being is Planet Earth.  Earth, as ever, has more gifts for us to use with our ability.

Dave Derbowka


David R Derbowka  

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




On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:55 PM Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
Hi David, research I did in 2007 claimed these figures,  - "Approximately 100 billion tons of carbon circulates between the atmosphere and the approximately 750 billion ton reservoir in Land plants” .
Later I came across a claim that it was 110 billion tons, so I thought well, that’s in the ball park.

So that gives us a pretty good margin, - we don’t have to pyrolize every skerrick. 

Last I could bear to look we are throwing about 15 billion tons into the atmosphere  every  year, but of course not at this moment thanks to Coronavirus.

Nothing like getting back to Base Principles Eh.

Geoff Thomas.


On 3 Apr 2020, at 10:46 pm, Roger Faulkner via groups.io <roger_rethinker@...> wrote:

Something that I have puzzled about 4 years is how much of the total carbon taken in by plants during a growing season is shed in there dying deciduous leaves? If one had a forest in which the Dead leaves were converted to biochar how much of a difference would that make in terms of permits permanent sequestration



On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM, David R Derbowka
Greetings
If every farmer made a three or so hedge row deep of "hard working" (trees, or hemp, or bamboo...whatever) along side the usual food production area of land available, an Earthly "balance" might be achieved at each location of "carbon farming" participants.  A professional cooker outfit could cook the year's production for the farmer.   OR, the farmer would possibly choose to do kon-tiki or whatever for themselves.  But a cooker machine portable, may commence trade deals for those who choose.
    
But education has to happen.      I know that here in Canada a portable unit is now available. (Expensive) In the meanwhile, I focus on building products privately.  There are a gargantuan batch of opportunities existing, certainly if one considers "organic" building products.

I say this to get us out of the forest. (logistics and tfl [tree farm licence] owners really don't want us in their faces.) I say this too, to protect farm lands.  I say this to share with everyone a perhaps doable, shared opportunity.

The big picture regarding climate change translates to me, that farmers have the ball in their court.   And we all agree; "biochar could help save the world".   Starting at the ground; the sun needs greenery to shine upon, so, observations are what leads me to say what I share.  

Cheers
David R Derbowka


David R Derbowka  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

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






Kelpie Wilson
 

Trillion Trees Initiative. See: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/one-trillion-trees-world-economic-forum-launches-plan-to-help-nature-and-the-climate/

Anybody have any ideas about how we could get this initiative to adopt biochar as a best practice for planting trees? Donald Trump is supporting the Trillion Trees, so maybe we need to send him a briefing paper on trees and biochar?

--
Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson


 

Hi Kelpie:
I believe biochar must be in the equation.  Here is why:  We know what biochar does, so; why not use a perfected biochar medium in the styro blocks? (trees starter systems)  That way, when the tree is out planted, It will have a better chance to survive in a drought stricken, flood stricken place to live.  Then we might stop digging out carbon sink peat bogs, (medium) which is just one more stupid mankind practice.     I find leaves are a stable base for making our own soil.  And of course adding char and whatever else you have at hand, (liquid dairy manure) to complete a compost process for a nursery.  It works well for me.  I'm just saying; like early childhood education, it's our best attempt.  

Sincerely
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 Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 4:23 PM Kelpie Wilson <kelpiew@...> wrote:
Trillion Trees Initiative. See: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/one-trillion-trees-world-economic-forum-launches-plan-to-help-nature-and-the-climate/

Anybody have any ideas about how we could get this initiative to adopt biochar as a best practice for planting trees? Donald Trump is supporting the Trillion Trees, so maybe we need to send him a briefing paper on trees and biochar?

--
Email: kelpiew@...
Mobile: 541-218-9890
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson


ROBERT W GILLETT
 

Kelpie,

This short article provides several hints of how biochar could play a big role in the trillion trees initiative.

Bob 


Frank Strie
 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 11:03 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper

 

Kelpie,

This short article provides several hints of how biochar could play a big role in the trillion trees initiative.

Bob