Biochar CDR potentials #CDR


Albert Bates
 

Ron, Frank, et al.

I am re-captioning this subject as we have moved on from Holly Buck's article.

[AB: Feedstock contamination also increases importance of sinks like hardscape aggregates and manufacturing polymers but it potentially enlarges the source side for biochar, depending on the definition.]
[RWL1:   I agree with the "other then…” definition.  It especially bothers me when I read(too often) that biochar can be burned.   
Can you expand on your last few words?  Do you mean that some would not allow polluted char to be called “biochar” - but you would.  (And would I.)
[AB1: Yes, I would say characterization of biochar as "a soil enhancer that can hold carbon, boost food security, and discourage deforestation" (IBI 2020) precludes contaminated pyrolysates unsuited for soil amendment from being called biochar. An expanded definition that includes non-ag uses should not.]

[AB: What about mixed media? Many commercial products combine plant origin carbon and fossil origin carbon. How do we characterize pyrolysates from that?]

[RWL3:    How about biochar credit in proportion to the plant fraction? 
[AB2: Sounds deceptively simple doesn't it? Likely very expensive or impractical in practice.]

[AB: (4) Other. We made a very conservative estimate for sources like papermill wastes, municipal carbon separation, and other primitively-quantified waste streams. Likely the potential is much more than we estimated, but LCA should scribe limits to how much drawdown can actually be accomplished in each circumstance.]

[RWL8:   There has been insufficient literature on all these sources.  I still like the Lenton number given below.   Anyone have a favorite paper on aggressive details?

[AB3: I re-read the Lenton paper. Although it is now 10 years old and many of its references much older, it was well ahead of its time. I met Lenton in London and he is a brilliant thinker. I hope he will update these calculations soon. In particular:

His pathways do not include coastal mangroves. Sea level rise could work to expand these, if humans get out of their way. Mangroves pack more CDR per area than forests and can also be step harvested.

His numbers on CDR from afforestation have changed with wider studies. Note here Bronson Griscom et al in PNAS et seq. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645/tab-article-info Richard Houghton, a co-author on the Natural Climate Solutions paper, has been crunching these numbers for at least 30 years now. Full paper:


What we are already seeing in China likely changes the estimates Lenton made on crop residue sequestration potential. That is really the first industrialization of CDR at scale, IMHO.

Lenton gives 500 GtC as the global soil reservoir limit on biochar. More recent work seems to indicate there is not a deleterious saturation limit until you get to very high concentrations, even though nutrient-transfer benefits diminish sooner. Given a CDR financial incentive, available soil sink would enlarge. Also, I believe he confines his estimate to degraded arable lands and there is a large potential for regeneration of desertified areas. Recent studies of greening the Arabian Peninsula, for instance, look like a vision out of "The Man Who Planted Trees."

Lenton estimated BECCS could scale to 10 GtC/yr by 2100 and I think that remains pretty robust, but the BECCS model cannot be based on monoculture plantation forestry or it would be an ecological disaster, and the CCS part would need to come up with better alternatives than the present gas-transport and injection models, such as biochar. There is some promising work now on CO2-based concrete and CO2-based ethanol that could help.
[RWL9:   I might say it differently - that we must annually take out much more carbon/CO2 than we insert from fossil sources.  Putting in CO2 from plants to the atmosphere is no problem.  And we also have to be thinking about CH4 and N2O. - and biochar has a role for these also.

Which is another aspect overlooked by the 2010 Lenton paper.

Frank Strie writes:

When it comes to organic feedstock / woody / carbon rich biomass there is a huge amount of unloved biomass...

[AB 4: I agree Frank, with a nod to Kathleen Draper for coining that phrase. The amount of unloved biomass seems to grow by the year, but represents a vast untapped potential if we just give it a little love.

- Albert

BURN: Igniting a Drawdown Solution to Reverse Climate Change
now in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Summertown TN 38483-0090
_._,_._,_

Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México
52-998-116-5532
albert@...


ALAN PAGE
 

Hi Albert,
IMHO, the discussion of carbon dioxide reduction as a major goal may turn out to be an unfortunate choice for motivation of system choice. There are changes happening slowly in the IPCC models that recognize increasing amounts of variability from beyond Earth which are completely out of living man/woman control and not related to their day to day choices. The declining Earth polar magnetic shield are well described at <SuspiciousObservers.com> as are the various climate forcing factors. They offer the following simple equation: Climate Effects= People Effects + Natural Effects. They show that early modelers took the value of solar irradiance as the most prominent Natural Effect and found that it was extremely stable +/- ~0.01% and therefore lumped all of the power for Climate change on the People side of the equation. Ben Davidson shows that there are many other solar and beyond solar sources of energy input that are both very strong +/-10,000 % and very variable.

They also look at the data of long term climate change and show that we truly are at the tip of what has been a climatic turning point in each of the past 5+ 100,000 year periods. This does not mean that there is specifically any immediate plunge in temperature likely, but when taken together with the potential for imminent pole reversal, declining magnetic shield strength, regular development of solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and larger periodic solar events as well as analysis of energy content of regions of space where this solar system is about to travel through .... it does not look like the long term view (if the equation above was incorrectly solved when forming the climate models now used to test the impacts of people choices) is going to be helped by focusing on the reduction of a minor component of the problem  - the People Effects.

The above does not reduce the importance for implementing measures to maintain fertility and soil quality / stability, and nutrient density of food. Nor does it change anything about the need for more careful treatment of the "unloved" biomass. If one looks closely at the sources of control of both energy and what people can do, you find that  there are relatively few families of very wealthy and powerful people who have configured the economics and energy systems that are normally available in ways that focus on making them more wealthy and more thoroughly in control. It also appears that this power base is changing rapidly. This may mean that what made things more difficult for sustainable system development and implementation may be changing as well - time will tell.

A major area of myopia is the devastation of small communities globally that has been done on purpose by those in control of the economic system. The most important place for focus now seems to me to be on creating effective continuous systems that fit the distributed nature of the forest resource, and convincing neighborhoods that it is prudent for them to engage their children and elders in keeping their communities free of "unloved biomass" with small scale char making facilities and then moving that char into the places where it can do the most good and finally into soil for the things we all know can happen. 

A few uses of char that have not received any significant discussion is use in septic tank outflow cleanup, and sewerage plant out flow treatment. We know that these areas can be aided with this local material.... Much more to say.


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 Monday, August 24, 2020 11:28 AM, Albert Bates <albert@...> wrote:

Ron, Frank, et al.

I am re-captioning this subject as we have moved on from Holly Buck's article.

[AB: Feedstock contamination also increases importance of sinks like hardscape aggregates and manufacturing polymers but it potentially enlarges the source side for biochar, depending on the definition.]
[RWL1:   I agree with the "other then…” definition.  It especially bothers me when I read(too often) that biochar can be burned.   
Can you expand on your last few words?  Do you mean that some would not allow polluted char to be called “biochar” - but you would.  (And would I.)
[AB1: Yes, I would say characterization of biochar as "a soil enhancer that can hold carbon, boost food security, and discourage deforestation" (IBI 2020) precludes contaminated pyrolysates unsuited for soil amendment from being called biochar. An expanded definition that includes non-ag uses should not.]


[AB: What about mixed media? Many commercial products combine plant origin carbon and fossil origin carbon. How do we characterize pyrolysates from that?]

[RWL3:    How about biochar credit in proportion to the plant fraction? 
[AB2: Sounds deceptively simple doesn't it? Likely very expensive or impractical in practice.]


[AB: (4) Other. We made a very conservative estimate for sources like papermill wastes, municipal carbon separation, and other primitively-quantified waste streams. Likely the potential is much more than we estimated, but LCA should scribe limits to how much drawdown can actually be accomplished in each circumstance.]

[RWL8:   There has been insufficient literature on all these sources.  I still like the Lenton number given below.   Anyone have a favorite paper on aggressive details?

[AB3: I re-read the Lenton paper. Although it is now 10 years old and many of its references much older, it was well ahead of its time. I met Lenton in London and he is a brilliant thinker. I hope he will update these calculations soon. In particular:

His pathways do not include coastal mangroves. Sea level rise could work to expand these, if humans get out of their way. Mangroves pack more CDR per area than forests and can also be step harvested.

His numbers on CDR from afforestation have changed with wider studies. Note here Bronson Griscom et al in PNAS et seq. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645/tab-article-info Richard Houghton, a co-author on the Natural Climate Solutions paper, has been crunching these numbers for at least 30 years now. Full paper:


What we are already seeing in China likely changes the estimates Lenton made on crop residue sequestration potential. That is really the first industrialization of CDR at scale, IMHO.

Lenton gives 500 GtC as the global soil reservoir limit on biochar. More recent work seems to indicate there is not a deleterious saturation limit until you get to very high concentrations, even though nutrient-transfer benefits diminish sooner. Given a CDR financial incentive, available soil sink would enlarge. Also, I believe he confines his estimate to degraded arable lands and there is a large potential for regeneration of desertified areas. Recent studies of greening the Arabian Peninsula, for instance, look like a vision out of "The Man Who Planted Trees."

Lenton estimated BECCS could scale to 10 GtC/yr by 2100 and I think that remains pretty robust, but the BECCS model cannot be based on monoculture plantation forestry or it would be an ecological disaster, and the CCS part would need to come up with better alternatives than the present gas-transport and injection models, such as biochar. There is some promising work now on CO2-based concrete and CO2-based ethanol that could help.
[RWL9:   I might say it differently - that we must annually take out much more carbon/CO2 than we insert from fossil sources.  Putting in CO2 from plants to the atmosphere is no problem.  And we also have to be thinking about CH4 and N2O. - and biochar has a role for these also.

Which is another aspect overlooked by the 2010 Lenton paper.

Frank Strie writes:

When it comes to organic feedstock / woody / carbon rich biomass there is a huge amount of unloved biomass...

[AB 4: I agree Frank, with a nod to Kathleen Draper for coining that phrase. The amount of unloved biomass seems to grow by the year, but represents a vast untapped potential if we just give it a little love.

- Albert

BURN: Igniting a Drawdown Solution to Reverse Climate Change
now in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook

Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Summertown TN 38483-0090


Ron Larson
 

Albert, list, Kathleen:

See inserts.

On Aug 24, 2020, at 9:28 AM, Albert Bates <albert@...> wrote:

Ron, Frank, et al.

I am re-captioning this subject as we have moved on from Holly Buck's article.

[RWLa:   Good re-captioning.  But I don’t think we’ve done enough justice yet to that article - to which I hope to return soon.  Anyone have a reaction yet to Dr. Buck’s paper - which overlaps a lot with biochar?

[AB: Feedstock contamination also increases importance of sinks like hardscape aggregates and manufacturing polymers but it potentially enlarges the source side for biochar, depending on the definition.]
[RWL1:   I agree with the "other then…” definition.  It especially bothers me when I read(too often) that biochar can be burned.   
Can you expand on your last few words?  Do you mean that some would not allow polluted char to be called “biochar” - but you would.  (And would I.)
[AB1: Yes, I would say characterization of biochar as "a soil enhancer that can hold carbon, boost food security, and discourage deforestation" (IBI 2020) precludes contaminated pyrolysates unsuited for soil amendment from being called biochar. An expanded definition that includes non-ag uses should not.]
[RWLb:  Anyone disagree?

[AB: What about mixed media? Many commercial products combine plant origin carbon and fossil origin carbon. How do we characterize pyrolysates from that?]

[RWL3:    How about biochar credit in proportion to the plant fraction? 
[AB2: Sounds deceptively simple doesn't it? Likely very expensive or impractical in practice.]

[RWLc:  Hmm.  Should we assume then that you would exclude all mixed media from getting any biochar credit?

[AB: (4) Other. We made a very conservative estimate for sources like papermill wastes, municipal carbon separation, and other primitively-quantified waste streams. Likely the potential is much more than we estimated, but LCA should scribe limits to how much drawdown can actually be accomplished in each circumstance.]

[RWL8:   There has been insufficient literature on all these sources.  I still like the Lenton number given below.   Anyone have a favorite paper on aggressive details?

[AB3: I re-read the Lenton paper. Although it is now 10 years old and many of its references much older, it was well ahead of its time. I met Lenton in London and he is a brilliant thinker. I hope he will update these calculations soon. In particular:

His pathways do not include coastal mangroves. Sea level rise could work to expand these, if humans get out of their way. Mangroves pack more CDR per area than forests and can also be step harvested.

[RWLd:   I have thought the same - but a friend who took me on a Florida kayaking trip earlier this year through several miles of mangroves “waterways” south to Tampa said it was hopeless - and I couldn’t prove him wrong.  I’m sure that some islanders are using mangroves for cookstove use - but it sure looks hard to work in a mangrove grove..  
Can you define “step harvesting”?

His numbers on CDR from afforestation have changed with wider studies. Note here Bronson Griscom et al in PNAS et seq. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645/tab-article-info Richard Houghton, a co-author on the Natural Climate Solutions paper, has been crunching these numbers for at least 30 years now. Full paper:

[RWLe.  I think that paper is way out of date on what biochar can do.   I don’t know Houghton, but believe the Griscom paper relies on a 2010 paper which assumed no sources from forestry (or converted pastures) and no out-year improvements in NPP.  A lot has changed since 2010.

What we are already seeing in China likely changes the estimates Lenton made on crop residue sequestration potential. That is really the first industrialization of CDR at scale, IMHO.

Lenton gives 500 GtC as the global soil reservoir limit on biochar. More recent work seems to indicate there is not a deleterious saturation limit until you get to very high concentrations, even though nutrient-transfer benefits diminish sooner. Given a CDR financial incentive, available soil sink would enlarge. Also, I believe he confines his estimate to degraded arable lands and there is a large potential for regeneration of desertified areas. Recent studies of greening the Arabian Peninsula, for instance, look like a vision out of "The Man Who Planted Trees."

Lenton estimated BECCS could scale to 10 GtC/yr by 2100 and I think that remains pretty robust, but the BECCS model cannot be based on monoculture plantation forestry or it would be an ecological disaster, and the CCS part would need to come up with better alternatives than the present gas-transport and injection models, such as biochar. There is some promising work now on CO2-based concrete and CO2-based ethanol that could help.
[RWL9:   I might say it differently - that we must annually take out much more carbon/CO2 than we insert from fossil sources.  Putting in CO2 from plants to the atmosphere is no problem.  And we also have to be thinking about CH4 and N2O. - and biochar has a role for these also.

Which is another aspect overlooked by the 2010 Lenton paper.

[RWLf:   So at least some of us believe the Griscom paper’s  biochar numbers could be about a factor of 10 too low.   We need more ammunition on this topic.  There are some papers by Hans-Peter Schmidt (using the term PYCCS) that get up to this 10 GtC/yr level.

Frank Strie writes:

When it comes to organic feedstock / woody / carbon rich biomass there is a huge amount of unloved biomass...

[AB 4: I agree Frank, with a nod to Kathleen Draper for coining that phrase. The amount of unloved biomass seems to grow by the year, but represents a vast untapped potential if we just give it a little love.
[RWL:  With big forest fires in California and Colorado now ongoing - I hope those states can see that decades of quickly putting out forest fires has left these forests unhealthy (unloved extra biomass) in a way that biochar production could fix.

Thanks again.

Ron

- Albert

BURN: Igniting a Drawdown Solution to Reverse Climate Change
now in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook
Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Summertown TN 38483-0090
_._,_._,_

Cool Lab Belize Project Office
Gonzalo Guerrero 5
Holbox, Q.R. 77310 México
52-998-116-5532
albert@...


ALAN PAGE
 

Ron, Albert, etal,
The most important part of this discussion is the realization that calling charcoal "biochar" without any treatment or obvious intention that it eventually become part of the soil fraction of Earth is a positive step. Such limitation of terminology may reduce the risks for all associated with this area of positive endeavor:
"[AB: Feedstock contamination also increases importance of sinks like hardscape aggregates and manufacturing polymers but it potentially enlarges the source side for biochar, depending on the definition.]
[RWL1:   I agree with the "other then…” definition.  It especially bothers me when I read(too often) that biochar can be burned. "  

The problems cited in this section of the discussion are only some of the possible areas of difficulty that could flow from the current use of such terminology. At least when fully treated biochar is burned there is only the possibility of release of deeply sequestered heavy metals as opposed to the possible effects of using such char as a drinking water filter, and a minor economic dislocation.

I have neither the qualifications nor time to be concerned with the stability of heavy metal deposition within soil carbon so will leave it there. 

The harvesting of any biomass component (step harvesting of mangroves) is generally a very difficult activity. The recent literature on larger scale (portable or permanent) char making systems that appear to be economically justified use a lot of heavy equipment and fossil fuel to handle the volume of material and configure it to provide the substrate that works within the charring equipment. The Lantz Tractor Co. had a single cylinder tractor that ran on corn stalks, John Deere bought the company and discarded the technology. Forest and Ag harvesters could run on local waste and return char to the soil as they go through the harvesting process, but there is no current experimentation in that area that i am aware of? The above is all money driven!

What makes something economic today is whether the labor and fuel costs can be driven down enough to allow full repayment of debt obligations from the revenues generated. The current markets and the subsidy side do not seem to be willing to address the many non-monetized (benefits) parts of handling "unloved" biomass. The entities in the NEUSA that use biomass for fuel regularly ignore contract terms when faced with a significant saving by shifting to a cheaper fuel and have shown no interest in working to modify systems in place to recover char. 

The FL auction of all assets of an integrated biomass facility (provided last week to this list) is one example of the lack of follow through when it comes to economics. The fact that there are apparent changes coming to the global economic system appears to be lacking in this discussion? It may be that the release of significant liquidity that those interested in functions as close to the ground as char production can gain access to in a reliable manner will have more impact on constructive use of biomass than the items discussed here.

One observation from interaction with "conservation" oriented agencies is that the money currently available goes first to pay the regulators and the current funding frequently requires more effort in documentation than the funding can support so the operator gets stuck with signing under penalty of perjury that the functions performed met the terms of the contract.

The Future Proves the Past: Unfortunately, one has to dig through discussions of activity that may be both controversial and filled with misinformation (because of the motivation of those currently or previously in control to maintain their place) in order to get any sense of what is happening. The shadow banning by mainstream media of various sources of information is rampant today. So you have to listen to many sources and choose between those with real information and the dreamers. The same is true here. So you have to do your own research.

We have a significant controversy brewing in the Springfield, MA area regarding the use of biomass as a fuel. The harvesting of timber on State land has come under heavy fire even as we are faced with massive death of oaks from external agents (gypsy moth, sudden oak death, and many other secondary pathogens) on land surrounding the site of the biomass plant. These trees in both instances have been growing for more than 70 years and will now provide no income to the region as they degrade beyond any current material or energy conversion system utility.

I do not support the use of biomass as a fuel without the recovery of charcoal (particularly in currently economic centralized facilities where they dispose of 70% of the energy as waste heat). The demonstration of continuous TLUD facilities has had no support (from my limited contact with developers in this region). Such a design appears to offer the potential to use excess process heat (as Dr. McLaughlin has described in the exothermic discussion) for predrying feed stock, separation of gases and remote energy or product recovery from them, careful char conditioning by control of char temperature, reduction of size of a facility to neighborhood scale, and many other aspects not currently discussed by those who have worked on TLUDs. The history of the Intellergy group is a case in point.  


 
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 Monday, August 24, 2020 8:14 PM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:

Albert, list, Kathleen:

See inserts.

On Aug 24, 2020, at 9:28 AM, Albert Bates <albert@...> wrote:

Ron, Frank, et al.

I am re-captioning this subject as we have moved on from Holly Buck's article.

[RWLa:   Good re-captioning.  But I don’t think we’ve done enough justice yet to that article - to which I hope to return soon.  Anyone have a reaction yet to Dr. Buck’s paper - which overlaps a lot with biochar?

[AB: Feedstock contamination also increases importance of sinks like hardscape aggregates and manufacturing polymers but it potentially enlarges the source side for biochar, depending on the definition.]
[RWL1:   I agree with the "other then…” definition.  It especially bothers me when I read(too often) that biochar can be burned.   
Can you expand on your last few words?  Do you mean that some would not allow polluted char to be called “biochar” - but you would.  (And would I.)
[AB1: Yes, I would say characterization of biochar as "a soil enhancer that can hold carbon, boost food security, and discourage deforestation" (IBI 2020) precludes contaminated pyrolysates unsuited for soil amendment from being called biochar. An expanded definition that includes non-ag uses should not.]
[RWLb:  Anyone disagree?

[AB: What about mixed media? Many commercial products combine plant origin carbon and fossil origin carbon. How do we characterize pyrolysates from that?]

[RWL3:    How about biochar credit in proportion to the plant fraction? 
[AB2: Sounds deceptively simple doesn't it? Likely very expensive or impractical in practice.]

[RWLc:  Hmm.  Should we assume then that you would exclude all mixed media from getting any biochar credit?

[AB: (4) Other. We made a very conservative estimate for sources like papermill wastes, municipal carbon separation, and other primitively-quantified waste streams. Likely the potential is much more than we estimated, but LCA should scribe limits to how much drawdown can actually be accomplished in each circumstance.]

[RWL8:   There has been insufficient literature on all these sources.  I still like the Lenton number given below.   Anyone have a favorite paper on aggressive details?

[AB3: I re-read the Lenton paper. Although it is now 10 years old and many of its references much older, it was well ahead of its time. I met Lenton in London and he is a brilliant thinker. I hope he will update these calculations soon. In particular:

His pathways do not include coastal mangroves. Sea level rise could work to expand these, if humans get out of their way. Mangroves pack more CDR per area than forests and can also be step harvested.

[RWLd:   I have thought the same - but a friend who took me on a Florida kayaking trip earlier this year through several miles of mangroves “waterways” south to Tampa said it was hopeless - and I couldn’t prove him wrong.  I’m sure that some islanders are using mangroves for cookstove use - but it sure looks hard to work in a mangrove grove..  
Can you define “step harvesting”?

His numbers on CDR from afforestation have changed with wider studies. Note here Bronson Griscom et al in PNAS et seq. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645/tab-article-info Richard Houghton, a co-author on the Natural Climate Solutions paper, has been crunching these numbers for at least 30 years now. Full paper:

[RWLe.  I think that paper is way out of date on what biochar can do.   I don’t know Houghton, but believe the Griscom paper relies on a 2010 paper which assumed no sources from forestry (or converted pastures) and no out-year improvements in NPP.  A lot has changed since 2010.


What we are already seeing in China likely changes the estimates Lenton made on crop residue sequestration potential. That is really the first industrialization of CDR at scale, IMHO.

Lenton gives 500 GtC as the global soil reservoir limit on biochar. More recent work seems to indicate there is not a deleterious saturation limit until you get to very high concentrations, even though nutrient-transfer benefits diminish sooner. Given a CDR financial incentive, available soil sink would enlarge. Also, I believe he confines his estimate to degraded arable lands and there is a large potential for regeneration of desertified areas. Recent studies of greening the Arabian Peninsula, for instance, look like a vision out of "The Man Who Planted Trees."

Lenton estimated BECCS could scale to 10 GtC/yr by 2100 and I think that remains pretty robust, but the BECCS model cannot be based on monoculture plantation forestry or it would be an ecological disaster, and the CCS part would need to come up with better alternatives than the present gas-transport and injection models, such as biochar. There is some promising work now on CO2-based concrete and CO2-based ethanol that could help.
[RWL9:   I might say it differently - that we must annually take out much more carbon/CO2 than we insert from fossil sources.  Putting in CO2 from plants to the atmosphere is no problem.  And we also have to be thinking about CH4 and N2O. - and biochar has a role for these also.

Which is another aspect overlooked by the 2010 Lenton paper.

[RWLf:   So at least some of us believe the Griscom paper’s  biochar numbers could be about a factor of 10 too low.   We need more ammunition on this topic.  There are some papers by Hans-Peter Schmidt (using the term PYCCS) that get up to this 10 GtC/yr level.

Frank Strie writes:

When it comes to organic feedstock / woody / carbon rich biomass there is a huge amount of unloved biomass...

[AB 4: I agree Frank, with a nod to Kathleen Draper for coining that phrase. The amount of unloved biomass seems to grow by the year, but represents a vast untapped potential if we just give it a little love.
[RWL:  With big forest fires in California and Colorado now ongoing - I hope those states can see that decades of quickly putting out forest fires has left these forests unhealthy (unloved extra biomass) in a way that biochar production could fix.

Thanks again.

Ron

- Albert

BURN: Igniting a Drawdown Solution to Reverse Climate Change
now in paperback, Kindle, and audiobook

Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology
Summertown TN 38483-0090