Topics

You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read #biochar #characteristics


d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

M


photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand


Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net
Project number 219008  

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 
without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 
the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests
and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

image.png

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

if not I will try sending an email myself

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

Tomaso 


On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:
i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

M


photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT Read More
    


d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Tomaso,

You are absolutely correct about the potential instability of injected, liquid CO2. I, however, have never considered this a carbon removal technology but only an emissions reduction technology. Collecting CO2 from power plant stacks does no more than reduce the about of new, fossil CO2 being emitted.

As for your comment about the term "burying" I agree, but think that we should go further. If you read the Chinese paper on the long-term impact of biochar in soil that Tom just recommended, you will see that the addition of biochar to soil dramatically increases soil's capacity to grab and sequester more CO2. Adding biochar to the soil results in increasing CO2 removal; it is not a static removal number.

M




photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:
sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net
Project number 219008  

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 
without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 
the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests
and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

image.png

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

if not I will try sending an email myself

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

Tomaso 

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM d.michael.shafer@... <d.michael.shafer@...> wrote:
i just found the attached study from Carnegie. it says vey nice and useful things about biochar.

M


photo
Dr. D. Michael Shafer
Founder and Director, Warm Heart

+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer@...

www.warmheartworldwide.org | Skype: live:d.michael.shafer53

61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand

Latest Tweet: $10 is all it takes to show your support as a vote to keep our “Stop the Smoke” campaign expanding across the globe… https://t.co/TaR5AxMzWT Read More
    


Paul S Anderson
 

Tomaso, Michael and all,           (Someone please provide the link to the original document.  Was it Carniege C2ES?)

 

I agree with Tomaso that the graphic should be changed or we (the biochar community) need to severely criticize it to the point that WE need to insist upon (or even create ourselves) an improved version.     Some improvements are noted in my continuation of comments below the graphic.

 

Comments about the graphic.

 

1.  It is simplistic (a good feature in some ways) with three columns:

     A.  Left column is CDR technologies without any arrow to indicate why the order was selected.  But the order implies that NATURAL processes of soils, forests and crops are not as good as the man-made processes (DACCS and EW).  The graphic totally overlooks the issues of 1) cost to implement, and 2) availability of the technology now (vs. dreams of the future).  Add such info to the graph to show these important factors.

     B.  Central column that allows for the arrows (which are all of equal thickness, as if equal in reality).   NOTE the error that “Biochar” comes from Forest (not from crops) and is not included in the box “Capture from Biomass.”   Duhhh.   Where do they think biochar comes from?

     C.  Right-side column is clearly marked (with the arrow) as being in order (with a rank-order scale, not quantitative scale).   And worse, the order is WRONG.   How can biochar from forest material be less permanent than the harvest-ready forests that will eventually die and decompose?   And less permanent than “capture from biomass that comes from crops”?     Add on to that Michael’s comments about leakage of CO2 underground storage (which is clearly separated from CO2 injected underground ford “mineralization” – which is long term).  Biochar should be placed in the favorable position next to mineralization.

 

2.  A graphic like this could have more quantitative expression (such as the potential for soil carbon as storage, etc.), AND expressed in maybe 3 or 4 graphs with quantitative estimates for 2020, 2030, 2050, and 2100.   THAT would show that the natural solutions are able to be implemented now (2020 – 2030) and that the man-made solutions are betting on 2050 and beyond, which is important, but needs to be shown clearly.   We advocate ALL CDR methods.   But keep them in the right perspective.

 

3.  And also the graphics can note the costs and the benefits.   Yes, benefits.   For example, biochar PRODUCTION can have a component for the use of the heat to offset the need for fossil-fuel-generated heat for space heating (homes, apartment complexes, schools, business ventures like shopping malls, and urban business districts, and also for process heat that is in the under 800 deg. C range --  which is a massive need and possible with heat from pyrolysis/biochar processes.  One of the big pitches for the future transition away from fossil fuel is job creation and the new activites regarding replacement energy.

 

So, I strongly agree with Tomaso about the need to get that incorrect graphic changed.   This is an issue of education, to inform the public, the decision makers, and also the K-12 and university students who are being taught inaccurate information.  

 

Note:  In my professional career before retirement, I was a professor of geography, including mapping/ cartography / graphics with data.   I volunteer to help design the new graphic(s).   But some help is needed for do the computer graphics / display.   Any volunteers?    Contact me at   psanders@...   or via discussion on the Biochar Discussion Group.

 

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 Tomaso Bertoli - CISV via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 4:46 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

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

sadly the chart prepared by the © NewClimate Institute 2020
Authors Louise Jeffery, Niklas Höhne, Mia Moisio, Thomas Day, Benjamin Lawless
Disclaimer This paper was funded by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. www.c2g2.net

Project number 219008  

 

is quite wrong in positioning Biochar 

without questioning the risks connected with injecting CO2 in underground storages that could fail in massive and deadly outbursts of CO2, 

the permanence (sequestration time) of biochar is for sure higher that the one provided by forests

and biochar is made also from crop residues not only Forests

 

 

also the wording "burying" used at page 4 in the bicohar chapter is, at least to my non native english sensibility, quite wrong !

should we suggest to change the word burying into adding or mixing 

 

Biochar involves sequestering carbon in charcoal by interrupting the natural plant decay carbon cycle using pyrolysis and, typically, burying the biochar in soil.

 

Once added to soils, biochar can improve soil quality – notably water retention and fertility.

 

Tom Miles & Co, could IBI send a formal letter asking to correct these simple errors ?

 

if not I will try sending an email myself

 

all the best from a sunny scorched and stormy Italy

 

Tomaso 

 


ROBERT W GILLETT
 

The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass.
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost?
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass.
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett


Frank Strie
 

Hello Robert Gillett and all,
Ever since Hans-Peter Schmidt of the Ithaka Institute for Carbon Intelligence introduced the Carbon Cascade of  “55 uses of Biochar” then followed by Kathleen Draper with the outline of what she called  ‘the Biochar Displacement Strategy’ in the Biochar Journal and seriously since Albert Bates  & Kathleen Draper presented the book ‘BURN Using Fire to Cool the Earth’ in print or as an audio version, is it possible to imagine the enormous scale potential of Pyrogenic Carbon Capture & Sequestration / Storage PyCCS.
Let’s get on with it and keep working
Frank

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:52 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass.
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost?
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass.
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett


Michael Woelk
 

In addition to what others are saying, I suggest the concept of “additionality” is wrongheaded. It penalizes business models, like biochar production,  that deliver co-linear benefits to customers unlike direct air capture & storage that deliver ZERO co-linear benefits to customers. From the paper - additionality requires that “a project would not take place in the absence of the incentives provided through the existence of carbon market mechanisms, e.g. revenues from carbon credits.”

Imagine pitching investors and customers, “Here’s the good part. Our value proposition is so low. In fact, it’s zero! We’d have no customers without carbon markets,”?  To significantly scale carbon drawdown markets (any market for that matter) incentives/benefits should be bundled to maximize customer value!

Mike

 

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:52 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read

 

The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass.
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost?
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass.
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett


Rick Wilson
 

Michael,  I believe that the major unique benefit of biochar in soil is to induce carbon sequestration. For that you need incentives.

There are other benefits in soil of course, but in most cases they can be achieved by other low cost means
  • Biochar has a high pH. So if your soil is acidic it can help. Neutral pH frees up nutrients. 
  • Biochar has high air filled porosity. So if you have a soil with little aeration or low infiltration it can help by providing oxygen and water to microbes that facilitate nutrient uptake.
  • If your soil is low in labile organic matter – you can use pyrolysis char with has organic matter that can feed the microbiome.  
  • Some biochar are high in potassium, particularly gasifier chars, which is a critical nutrient helping the microbiome convert potassium to plant usable forms
  • Some biochar helps compost get to maturity sooner.  But you can also just move your compost pile off site and let it mature
Most of what you see biochar does in soil in practice can be explained by these simple effects.  Biochar has its greatest value when it can address multiple of these soil challenges.
If you start with a soil analysis, and do the right tests, and also analyze the biochar as a soil, you can quickly see if biochar can help. 

In the end, biochar can not cost much more than compost for it to go to scale. (If that were not the case, it would have happened by now)

Rick


On Aug 3, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Michael Woelk <mike@...> wrote:

In addition to what others are saying, I suggest the concept of “additionality” is wrongheaded. It penalizes business models, like biochar production,  that deliver co-linear benefits to customers unlike direct air capture & storage that deliver ZERO co-linear benefits to customers. From the paper - additionality requires that “a project would not take place in the absence of the incentives provided through the existence of carbon market mechanisms, e.g. revenues from carbon credits.” 
Imagine pitching investors and customers, “Here’s the good part. Our value proposition is so low. In fact, it’s zero! We’d have no customers without carbon markets,”?  To significantly scale carbon drawdown markets (any market for that matter) incentives/benefits should be bundled to maximize customer value! 
Mike
 
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of ROBERT W GILLETT
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:52 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] You may already have seen this, if not, it is a good read
 
The graphic appears to assume that biochar is being made by harvesting perfectly good forests. Otherwise it would be shown as a derivative of biomass. 
As a product of biomass, biochar should have a node after "Capture from biomass" and be shown to be longer-term than underground storage. Who is considering underground storage of biomass anyway? Is that compost? 
They seem to think that sequestering captured CO2 can be done with the same methods as sequestering biomass. 
That's just from looking at the graphic which, IMHO, is seriously flawed and prejudicial toward biochar.

Chars,
Robert Gillett