Topics

[EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016 #net


Ian McChesney
 

Yes, good Paper from Smith et al ..................


The Gaunt/Lehmann view is correct for a ‘micro’ version of biochar and where the biomass harvest is <50% moisture and therefore ‘autothermal’ in a local boiler setup. It does not take into account any multiplier effect on the biomass harvest from biochar incorporation and legitimises the further drying and transport of biomass (eg. pellets) to distant power plants. The so-called ‘renewable energy’ solution. 


Smith corrects this view and also recognises that PyC will have more impact when applied locally with other solutions. The difficulty is is touched on in the Discussion with the statement that ‘biochar and BECCS cannot be done together’. This is a consequence of modelling objectives that try to prioritise ‘optimum’ solutions. 


Biomass with >50% moisture finds its way back to the soil without much processing and this C quickly returns to the atmosphere. In a ‘macro’ version of biochar this resource would be tapped as a source of BC and E. The ‘tops’ from tree harvest, shells and fibre from food crops, invasives etc. that do not make a good enough biomass ‘fuel’. 


This biochar will take more effort to produce and is ‘worth’ more in terms of climate change, and it will take new low CAPEX/low OPEX solutions for widespread implementation. However, while our taxes are directed towards large and expensive renewable projects (mostly for the benefit of pension funds) this type of local solution is largely ignored. Hopefully, PyCCS can help identify the valuable synergies we are missing, and maybe turn the tide before it is too late.     

Ian McC   

 


Claudia Kammann
 

Paul,

 

thanks a lot, we try to get biochar recognized by working on the „publishing“ end…

 

The “EXTERN” is something my Outlook inserts by itself – I don’t know why it does that J

 

best, Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Paul S Anderson
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. April 2020 19:31
An: main@Biochar.groups.io; Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Thomas Goreau <goreau@...>; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

Claudia,

 

1.  Thanks for that important document by Smith with  you among the co-authors.   I will take some time to study it.  Nice to have biochar well recognized by such a significant and extensive list of co-authors.  

 

2.  I have already also been looking at Smith et al. about Limits (2019)

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj15141/f/nclimate2870.pdf

that does name biochar (p. 2, with reference to Woolf 2010), but does not single it out for analyses (still reading, quite interesting).

 

3.  So good to see biochar recognized.  We will prefer that those articles by Smith (and those with you and Minx as authors/coauthors) are preferred over the articles by National Council of Science (and those that followed that line) when further articles make reference to the NETs / CDRs / GGR technologies. 

 

**********

Claudia, to what does the designation    [EXTERN]   refer in the 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 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 Claudia Kammann via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:28 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io; Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Cc: Biochar@groups.io
Subject: Re: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

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

Hi all,

 

maybe this paper is also helpful here; I tried to give the integrative view on biochar, NCS and SDGs within the concert of other NETs.

 

best, Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Paul S Anderson
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. April 2020 19:59
An: Greta <spoonlegs@...>; main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Betreff: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

To all,      [ but first a thank you to Greta because I did not know about sci-hub.tw    .   Now I have the  article and a solution for future needs to get past pay walls!!]

 

YES, Smith (2016) keeps Biochar separate from SCS and BECCS in the naming of net emission technologies (NETs). 

 

Does anyone know of a publication prior to 2018 that named biochar as a NET or CDR technology but put joined it with SCS or BECCS?     And then I did some looking.

 

What I did just find is that in 2015, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable

Sequestration (2015), National Academies Press.  https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration   (NRC = National Research Council)

 

This is in Box 3.1 about Biochar (page40).   (selection only; there is more worth reading)

 

Since biochar is seen as largely responsible for reducing

emissions by decreasing decomposition of waste plant material through the potential longterm

sequestration of the carbon in the soil, it is not classified in the current work as a CDR

technology. Further complicating consideration of biochar as a CDR technology is the fact that

pyrolysis produces less net useable energy per unit of carbon emitted to the atmosphere than

does combustion of the same material (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008).

 

So, one interpretation is that the NRC did not recognize biochar in 2015 as a CDR technology, but by 2019 decided to lump it in with SCS.   Meanwhile, Smith (2016) and Minx et al. (2018) recognized biochar as a technology worthy to be called a separate CDR technology.

 

Interpretation could include that prior to about 2007 biochar was not hardly recognized by anyone for much of anything.  Biochar can be consider as something so new that it could be ignored, almost ignored, mis-classified, or given recognition that it may or may not deserve regarding sequestration of carbon that was removed from the atmosphere.

 

So, the question is not “who messed up” but “can the community of scientists review the status of biochar in its 2020 context ” to determine if biochar should be among the few but extremely important CDR methods.  That is what I am proposing needs to be done.

 

Fuhrman and Clarens have written that they are not specialists about biochar.  Understood and accepted.   But they (and many readers of this message) are knowledgeable about NETs and CDR and are objective scientists able to examine the data.    

 

This would be a great topic for the CDR discussion group, but it does not have discussions, just postings.

 

And the Biochar discussion group (and IBI and USBI and others) SHOULD have major interest in this issue of recognition of biochar as a major technology for CDR and sequestration.   But so far, almost zero expression of interest or concern.  

 

I re-direct the readers to my document (with slight revisions yesterday) entitled:  

Recognition of Biochar & Energy (BC&E) as a Separate Negative Emission Technology (NET) for Improving Integrated Assessment Modeling (IAM)

which is available at www.woodgas.com/resources   

 

I offer that as a starting point, but a fresh document about the evolution of what are the NETs might be appropriate.    Whatever is done, we do need clarification of the role and potential of biochar for the fight against climate change.   And that means a publication that shows consensus among the community focused on NETs and CDR.   My document means almost nothing regarding getting others to put biochar in it appropriate position with the other NETs.  Currently we have different authors going in different directions regarding biochar as CDR. 

 

Discussion at the  Biochar discussion group.    Or reply directly to me:   psanders@...

 

Paul

 

From: Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:50 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

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

Y'all know you can get past paywalls by pasting the link into the text box at sci-hub.tw ?


On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:08 AM, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Friends,

 

This article is behind a pay wall.  I would like to see the article, but my main question is simply this:

 

Does Smith treat SCS and biochar as SEPARATE NETs?   I am tracking the origins of lumping biochar with SCS.   I think that Smith does NOT do so.

 

Smith P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies Global Change Biology22, 1315–1324   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13178

 

From the abstract:

Given the negative emission potential of SCS and biochar and their potential advantages compared to other NETs, efforts should be made to include these options within IAMs, so that their potential can be explored further in comparison with other NETs for climate stabilization.

 

Thanks,

 

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.

 


Paul S Anderson
 

Claudia,

 

1.  Thanks for that important document by Smith with  you among the co-authors.   I will take some time to study it.  Nice to have biochar well recognized by such a significant and extensive list of co-authors.  

 

2.  I have already also been looking at Smith et al. about Limits (2019)

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj15141/f/nclimate2870.pdf

that does name biochar (p. 2, with reference to Woolf 2010), but does not single it out for analyses (still reading, quite interesting).

 

3.  So good to see biochar recognized.  We will prefer that those articles by Smith (and those with you and Minx as authors/coauthors) are preferred over the articles by National Council of Science (and those that followed that line) when further articles make reference to the NETs / CDRs / GGR technologies. 

 

**********

Claudia, to what does the designation    [EXTERN]   refer in the 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 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 Claudia Kammann via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:28 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io; Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Cc: Biochar@groups.io
Subject: Re: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

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

Hi all,

 

maybe this paper is also helpful here; I tried to give the integrative view on biochar, NCS and SDGs within the concert of other NETs.

 

best, Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Paul S Anderson
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. April 2020 19:59
An: Greta <spoonlegs@...>; main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Betreff: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

To all,      [ but first a thank you to Greta because I did not know about sci-hub.tw    .   Now I have the  article and a solution for future needs to get past pay walls!!]

 

YES, Smith (2016) keeps Biochar separate from SCS and BECCS in the naming of net emission technologies (NETs). 

 

Does anyone know of a publication prior to 2018 that named biochar as a NET or CDR technology but put joined it with SCS or BECCS?     And then I did some looking.

 

What I did just find is that in 2015, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable

Sequestration (2015), National Academies Press.  https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration   (NRC = National Research Council)

 

This is in Box 3.1 about Biochar (page40).   (selection only; there is more worth reading)

 

Since biochar is seen as largely responsible for reducing

emissions by decreasing decomposition of waste plant material through the potential longterm

sequestration of the carbon in the soil, it is not classified in the current work as a CDR

technology. Further complicating consideration of biochar as a CDR technology is the fact that

pyrolysis produces less net useable energy per unit of carbon emitted to the atmosphere than

does combustion of the same material (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008).

 

So, one interpretation is that the NRC did not recognize biochar in 2015 as a CDR technology, but by 2019 decided to lump it in with SCS.   Meanwhile, Smith (2016) and Minx et al. (2018) recognized biochar as a technology worthy to be called a separate CDR technology.

 

Interpretation could include that prior to about 2007 biochar was not hardly recognized by anyone for much of anything.  Biochar can be consider as something so new that it could be ignored, almost ignored, mis-classified, or given recognition that it may or may not deserve regarding sequestration of carbon that was removed from the atmosphere.

 

So, the question is not “who messed up” but “can the community of scientists review the status of biochar in its 2020 context ” to determine if biochar should be among the few but extremely important CDR methods.  That is what I am proposing needs to be done.

 

Fuhrman and Clarens have written that they are not specialists about biochar.  Understood and accepted.   But they (and many readers of this message) are knowledgeable about NETs and CDR and are objective scientists able to examine the data.    

 

This would be a great topic for the CDR discussion group, but it does not have discussions, just postings.

 

And the Biochar discussion group (and IBI and USBI and others) SHOULD have major interest in this issue of recognition of biochar as a major technology for CDR and sequestration.   But so far, almost zero expression of interest or concern.  

 

I re-direct the readers to my document (with slight revisions yesterday) entitled:  

Recognition of Biochar & Energy (BC&E) as a Separate Negative Emission Technology (NET) for Improving Integrated Assessment Modeling (IAM)

which is available at www.woodgas.com/resources   

 

I offer that as a starting point, but a fresh document about the evolution of what are the NETs might be appropriate.    Whatever is done, we do need clarification of the role and potential of biochar for the fight against climate change.   And that means a publication that shows consensus among the community focused on NETs and CDR.   My document means almost nothing regarding getting others to put biochar in it appropriate position with the other NETs.  Currently we have different authors going in different directions regarding biochar as CDR. 

 

Discussion at the  Biochar discussion group.    Or reply directly to me:   psanders@...

 

Paul

 

From: Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:50 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

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

Y'all know you can get past paywalls by pasting the link into the text box at sci-hub.tw ?


On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:08 AM, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Friends,

 

This article is behind a pay wall.  I would like to see the article, but my main question is simply this:

 

Does Smith treat SCS and biochar as SEPARATE NETs?   I am tracking the origins of lumping biochar with SCS.   I think that Smith does NOT do so.

 

Smith P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies Global Change Biology22, 1315–1324   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13178

 

From the abstract:

Given the negative emission potential of SCS and biochar and their potential advantages compared to other NETs, efforts should be made to include these options within IAMs, so that their potential can be explored further in comparison with other NETs for climate stabilization.

 

Thanks,

 

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.

 


Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

Thanks Claudia for the very good paper !

 

Can you help me understand why biochar is not included among the SCS practices ?

 

4. SCS - soil carbon sequestration

SCS can be achieved across a range of different land uses, including cropland, grazing land, and forestry—and can be promoted by a range of practices (39). Practices that increase soil organic matter content include

(a) land use change to an ecosystem with higher-equilibrium soil carbon levels;

(b) management of vegetation, including high-input carbon practices, e.g., improved rotations, cover crops, and perennial cropping systems;

(c) nutrient management to increase plant carbon returns to the soil, e.g., through optimized fertilizer application rate, type, timing, and precision application;

(d) reduced tillage intensity and residue retention; and

(e) improved water management, including irrigation in arid conditions (40).

Below we describe how SCS can impact soil functions, NCPs, and the SDGs, with the interactions summarized in Figure 3.

 

In the past days we exchanged a number of sources describing how biochar has a dual effect on Soil Carbon

 

The first is merely “algebraic” as described in Appendix 4 Method for Estimating the Change in Mineral Soil Organic Carbon Stocks from Biochar Amendments: Basis for Future Methodological Development

19R_V4_Ch02_Ap4_Method for Mineral SOC stocks with Biochar_advance.pdf

 

The second is “biological” and “incremental” as described in the papers that study the negative priming and stabilizing effect of biochar in the soil that I would classify as a Soil Carbon Sequestration effects that should justify biochar addition to the list of practices for SCS in chapter 4

 

Soil carbon increased by twice the amount of biochar carbon applied after six years: Field evidence of negative priming

Humberto Blanco-Canqui1*, David Laird2, Emily Heaton2, Sam Rathke, and Bharat Sharma Acharya1

1Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA

 

Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits

Zhe (Han)Weng1,2, Lukas Van Zwieten1,3,4*, Bhupinder Pal Singh1,5, Ehsan Tavakkoli2,6, Stephen Joseph7,8,9†, Lynne M. Macdonald10, Terry J. Rose4, Michael T. Rose3, StephenW. L. Kimber3, Stephen Morris3, Daniel Cozzolino11, Joyce R. Araujo12, Braulio S. Archanjo12 and Annette Cowie1,13

1School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New SouthWales 2351, Australia.

 

Also if you have any control on the list of practices that increment SCS it would be appropriate to include Holistic Grazing \ Adaptive Multi Paddock Grazing

 

Thank for the contribution

 

Tomaso

 

Da: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Per conto di Claudia Kammann
Inviato: mercoledì 22 aprile 2020 23:28
A: main@Biochar.groups.io; Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Cc: biochar@groups.io
Oggetto: Re: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

Hi all,

 

maybe this paper is also helpful here; I tried to give the integrative view on biochar, NCS and SDGs within the concert of other NETs.

 

best, Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Paul S Anderson
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. April 2020 19:59
An: Greta <spoonlegs@...>; main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Betreff: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

_._,_._,_


Claudia Kammann
 

Hi all,

 

maybe this paper is also helpful here; I tried to give the integrative view on biochar, NCS and SDGs within the concert of other NETs.

 

best, Claudia

 

Von: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Im Auftrag von Paul S Anderson
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. April 2020 19:59
An: Greta <spoonlegs@...>; main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Betreff: [EXTERN] Getting recognition for Biochar as a NET was RE: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

To all,      [ but first a thank you to Greta because I did not know about sci-hub.tw    .   Now I have the  article and a solution for future needs to get past pay walls!!]

 

YES, Smith (2016) keeps Biochar separate from SCS and BECCS in the naming of net emission technologies (NETs). 

 

Does anyone know of a publication prior to 2018 that named biochar as a NET or CDR technology but put joined it with SCS or BECCS?     And then I did some looking.

 

What I did just find is that in 2015, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable

Sequestration (2015), National Academies Press.  https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration   (NRC = National Research Council)

 

This is in Box 3.1 about Biochar (page40).   (selection only; there is more worth reading)

 

Since biochar is seen as largely responsible for reducing

emissions by decreasing decomposition of waste plant material through the potential longterm

sequestration of the carbon in the soil, it is not classified in the current work as a CDR

technology. Further complicating consideration of biochar as a CDR technology is the fact that

pyrolysis produces less net useable energy per unit of carbon emitted to the atmosphere than

does combustion of the same material (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008).

 

So, one interpretation is that the NRC did not recognize biochar in 2015 as a CDR technology, but by 2019 decided to lump it in with SCS.   Meanwhile, Smith (2016) and Minx et al. (2018) recognized biochar as a technology worthy to be called a separate CDR technology.

 

Interpretation could include that prior to about 2007 biochar was not hardly recognized by anyone for much of anything.  Biochar can be consider as something so new that it could be ignored, almost ignored, mis-classified, or given recognition that it may or may not deserve regarding sequestration of carbon that was removed from the atmosphere.

 

So, the question is not “who messed up” but “can the community of scientists review the status of biochar in its 2020 context ” to determine if biochar should be among the few but extremely important CDR methods.  That is what I am proposing needs to be done.

 

Fuhrman and Clarens have written that they are not specialists about biochar.  Understood and accepted.   But they (and many readers of this message) are knowledgeable about NETs and CDR and are objective scientists able to examine the data.    

 

This would be a great topic for the CDR discussion group, but it does not have discussions, just postings.

 

And the Biochar discussion group (and IBI and USBI and others) SHOULD have major interest in this issue of recognition of biochar as a major technology for CDR and sequestration.   But so far, almost zero expression of interest or concern.  

 

I re-direct the readers to my document (with slight revisions yesterday) entitled:  

Recognition of Biochar & Energy (BC&E) as a Separate Negative Emission Technology (NET) for Improving Integrated Assessment Modeling (IAM)

which is available at www.woodgas.com/resources   

 

I offer that as a starting point, but a fresh document about the evolution of what are the NETs might be appropriate.    Whatever is done, we do need clarification of the role and potential of biochar for the fight against climate change.   And that means a publication that shows consensus among the community focused on NETs and CDR.   My document means almost nothing regarding getting others to put biochar in it appropriate position with the other NETs.  Currently we have different authors going in different directions regarding biochar as CDR. 

 

Discussion at the  Biochar discussion group.    Or reply directly to me:   psanders@...

 

Paul

 

From: Greta <spoonlegs@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:50 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Biochar@groups.io; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Help regarding an article Smith 2016

 

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

Y'all know you can get past paywalls by pasting the link into the text box at sci-hub.tw ?


On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:08 AM, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Friends,

 

This article is behind a pay wall.  I would like to see the article, but my main question is simply this:

 

Does Smith treat SCS and biochar as SEPARATE NETs?   I am tracking the origins of lumping biochar with SCS.   I think that Smith does NOT do so.

 

Smith P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies Global Change Biology22, 1315–1324   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13178

 

From the abstract:

Given the negative emission potential of SCS and biochar and their potential advantages compared to other NETs, efforts should be made to include these options within IAMs, so that their potential can be explored further in comparison with other NETs for climate stabilization.

 

Thanks,

 

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.