To List with 3 ccs: Having a prior engagement, I could not respond to Ken's note below until this PM.
I will respond separately to the second message from Simon . The remainder of my response are shown as inserts in Ken's note, mostly at the end.. Peter Read wrote: > Ken, Simon > > As it was I that said it, I had best front up. > <long snip from message this AM from Peter. There is no part of that with which I disagree.> > Hope that helps > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:51 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering > > It would be nice if Ron would provide a direct answer to Simon Evans's > question. > > I read the post on the yahoo group referred to by Ron. There are > apparently differences of opinion on whether biochar is ready to be > considered as an offset in negotiations under the UNFCCC, but I saw no > errors of fact pointed out in that post. The only substantive > complaint I could find was that the section on biochar was > inadequately referenced. > *[RWL: I acknowledge that "errors of fact" are not the issue in this write-up. If one reads the RS material without a Biochar hat on - it might seems "on-the-surface" balanced. However, I agree Peter's point that the material reads as though written by one not familiar with Biochar. Apologies to who-ever I might offend with this observation. When I joined this list a few days ago the subject was on knowing the names of the authors. Peter has assured us today that none of the authors of the Biochar section have published about Biochar. That is OK if the same were true for other sections - but I doubt it. Before getting into the details that ken asked for, let me alert those not familiar with the RS report, that Simon quoted only about 25-30% of the possible material he could have cited. I do not think this group would want me to so limit myself (but I am because of the lateness of the hour). Actually, I am most concerned about the relative comparisons within the report's key section 5 - comparing twelve geoengineering options. Almost nothing to quote there, but the earlier material is so lop-sidedly slanted in terms of uncertainty that the results there I think are meaningless (and terribly damaging to the Biochar option thereby). * > If there are indeed errors of fact in the Royal Society Report, it > would be helpful to point them out clearly, succinctly, and, where > appropriate, quantitatively. > *[RWL: OK here goes. First, let me note that these are what I have termed paragraphs 7 and 8 . They are just two out of a 9 paragraph early section. I can write similar critiques of most all the RS sentences about Biochar. On Sept. 3, I only wrote at the previously cited "biochar-policy" site about paragraph 7: * [RWL7: /The use of terms like “will very likely” is exactly the approach of BFW. No citations. They totally ignore Lehmann when they later decide how much Biochar can contribute./] Now I will dissect each of the paragraph 7 sentences one by one, with the longer set of objections that Ken is asking for. 7a. /"Proponents of biomass for sequestration argue that very large rates of sequestration are in principle achievable." /*[RWL7a : Note these are not "analysts" or "University researchers". The word "Biochar" doesn't appear. The words "very large" and "in principle" can only be considered as not loaded by those pre-disposed to think of Biochar as too new to be taken seriously or who haven't read the entire document. (BFW seems to be opposed to Biochar in part because IBI is dominated by academics.) ]*/ / 7b. / "For example, Lehmann /et al. /(2006), quote a potential carbon sink of 5.5 to 9.5 GtC/yr by 2100, larger than the present day fossil fuel source (and approaching 10% of global primary production by plants). " /*[RWL7b: I would have no complaint with this sentence if it were used later in any way. I personally do not find these numbers objectionable - given the seriousness of our need to move towards 350 ppm. I therefore take this sentence to be a continuation of the previous sentence's (and the whole treatment of Biochar) negative tone. No citation is given as to why this should be discarded as outlandish. Prof. Lehmann has undoubtedly given this more thought than anyone (being chair of IBI). I have found him to be a very cautious individual, who normally uses the number 1 GT C/yr - but by 2030 - which is faster than any other wedge I know of. Note also that everything that both REDD or BECS can do is available to Biochar. In Table 2-3 (about BECS) there are two sentences that I inadvertently left out of the summary (and immediately above this sentence on p 12) - saying: */"More effective than biochar as sequesters more carbon" /and/ "Cheaper than biochar as more bio-energy is generated" /*I contend neither sentence is true and certainly there is no reference to justify either. My reasons for claiming an untruth are that BECS will require a central system (so leaves out all sort of on-farm possibilities), has no ability to augment growth of additional biomass, and has no auxiliary climate benefits (to do with N2O, methane and nutrient capture, etc) associated with placement of the char in soil. In any case, any centralized char-making facility can have a BECS addition, if and when it makes economic sense and the legal hurdles have been overcome. To repeat - BECS places liquid CO2 deep underground - with only (likely high) costs, no auxiliary benefits.) * *7c. */Such fluxes suppose that there will be enormous growth in the resources devoted to the production of biofuels, and that some large fraction of this carbon would be converted to biochar." /*[RWL7c: No. This is the authors' supposition. BFW could have written this sentence with their loathing of the word "biofuels". The right "normal" fraction is a "half". I say "normal" because there is no mention anywhere in this write-up of the strong potential of an even newer approach to Biochar - called HTC (Hydro Thermal Carbonization). Developed (not invented - as he has chosen not to patent - saying that the concept is very old) by Dr. Markus Antonietti of the Max Planck Institute. There is zero possibility of any biofuel from this approach - which could prove to be the big winner. Another reason this sentence is wrong is that the most likely source of feedstock is going to be ag and forest residues - having nothing to do with biofuels. My personal interest in Biochar came from trying to improve the production of charcoal in Sudan. I have helped develop charcoal-making stoves, which are now beginning to take off. I suppose that third-world cooking improvements can be put in the category of "biofuels", but few reading this sentence will think of anything other than bioethanol and biodiesel. Lastly, we should talk about "enormous growth in the resources" (I think intended to show Biochar could not grow quickly). In fact we are talking of helping the world's struggling farmers to diversify from food only to a combined food-energy economy. There is nothing daunting about this welcome (by them) addition - and certainly not in terms of manpower or trained scientists. Pyrolysis equipment is not rocket science. * *7d. *"/The use of crops for renewable fuels on such a scale would very likely conflict with the use of agricultural land for the production of food and/or biofuels."/ *[RWL7d: The phrases "very likely" and "food and/or biofuels" is straight out of the several BiofuelWatch publications (the only anti-Biochar literature with supposedly credible references). How can a technology that has a multi-millenial history of proven greatly increased yields and an ability to turn unproductive land into productive land possibly be thought to have increased a food crisis? The proof of this assertion is in the hundreds of technical papers about "Terra Preta" - never mentioned by the RS - and refused to be discussed by BFW. Soils of all types immediately adjacent to the Terra Preta soils are producing 1/4 as much (the usual statement is that the Terra Preta soil produces 300% more). How also can biofuels producers choose to not use Biochar when their resource can be similarly increased with a one-time investment (not an annual cost)? How can biofuel companies argue that they are producing sustainably without some return of nutrients? A broad sweeping statement like sentence 7d deserves a citation; none is given. * Now turning to Paragraph 8 (and I will now try to say less) , about which I said on the 3rd: *[RWL8: /Table2.4 is given below. (Other tables follow that also refer to Biochar - about the same flavor.) There is no description I could find of who did the “voting” on these numbers – which I take exception to below. The term “small-scale” totally ignores (without explanation) the previous paragraph large numbers given by Lehmann. The term “benign” denies the existence of strong productivity increases - that again ONLY BFW denies – and are proved by the (incontrovertible) terra preta soil evidence (factor of 300% difference there). Last sentence- no citations or proof on the food vs fuel argument – which Biochar advocates (like me) feel are sure to tilt the other way, given the already-proven productivity increases.]*// (8a)/ As summarised in Table 2.4 biomass for sequestration could be a significant small-scale contributor to a geoengineering approach to enhancing the global terrestrial carbon sink, and it could, under the right circumstances, also be a benign agricultural practice. / *[RWL8a: Table 2.4 gives three "Lows" and one medium, where I would give much higher marks. In my set of notes on the 3rd, I talk in detail about each of the four criteria and the scoring - and would love to hear others' comments on these scores. I find the phrases "could be", "small-scale", and "under the right circumstances" objectionable and only opinions - all ones that BFW would use - without citation.) In fact, the only citation on size (by Prof. Lehmann) is from an author with dozens of Biochar publications and presentations. The authority here on sizing is a group with zero peer-reviewed publications.*/ / /(8b) However, unless the sustainable sequestration rate exceeds around 1 GtC/yr, it is unlikely that it could make a large contribution. / / /*[RWL8b. This sentence is objectionable in many ways. The word "unlikely" is again used - without citation. I read the sentence to deny value to 1 GT C/yr - when doing this is probably on the order of any other renewable energy technology (which incidentally have no better alternative backup to overcome the intermittent nature of the solar and wind resources). I take this sentence to mean that the RS is looking for some quick cheap fix - even if the underlying CO2 (and ocean acidification) problem stays unfixed. The sentence gives no credit for Biochar to help with the hugely important problems of soil degradation, rural poverty, indoor air quality. It probably is based on decoupling it from REDD and BECS options. And lastly it seems intended to bolster a low grade for giving "little" when what actually could happen - ten times as much.*/ / (8c) /"As is the case with biofuels, there is also the significant risk that inappropriately applied incentives to encourage biochar might increase the cost and reduce the availability of food crops, if growing biomass feedstocks becomes more profitable than growing food."/ *[RWL8c] Again an inappropriate connection to "biofuels". The loaded words "significant risk", "inappropriately applied incentives", "might increase", "reduce the availability" - and the recurring theme that Biochar brings on a food problem. Amazing sentence! Not a single citation - with the likely intent of the authors to attribute all these to BFW, if asked. On this score, I have communicated with many of the BFW references and encourage anyone knowing Drs. Julie Major or Christoph Steiner to learn about their reaction to the BFW misuse of their doctoral work on Biochar (both multi-year work in the Terra Preta region of Brazil). * I think this is enough for one e-mail. However, I will be glad to similarly dissect any other part of the RS treatment of Biochar that anyone thinks looks objective. I will next respond to Simon's similar questions to me. If it looks like I am upset about the non-scientific, opinionated work of one small London NGO - I admit it. They have been pushing for a year to pull Biochar out of the Copenhagen draft document. This past week, we learned that such had happened - despite the requests for about thirty countries (Australia - the leader in per capita CO2 release being one) and the UNCCD for its inclusion. I don't know that BFW was the cause, or the RS' obvious use of everything BFW was saying (I claim inaccurately) about Biochar - but I think it reasonable to assume neither helped. The cause of geoengineering was hurt as well. Apologies for length - but I hope this is what Ken was asking for. Ron > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "chsee" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:43 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering > > > > Please, someone explain to me what is "nonsense", or indeed > "misleading" about this quote on biochar from the Royal Society: > > <*RWL: another long snip - including my first message> > * > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
