Geoengineering List (espec. Simon) * RWL1: This following is a continuation of a dialog between Simon and myself where I have been claiming that the UK had Biochar experts whose work should have been better incorporated into the Royal Society report. I assume in the following that readers will have also read three other messages on Biochar over the last several days (on which I have not yet had other responses). Below Simon's message (with my interspersed responses), I add some other quotes from the same UKBRC website that Simon quotes from (as I had promised to do). * chsee wrote (*on the 28th)*:
blimey. Can. Of. Worms. Well and truly opened. So - biochar. Great potential, should be (and is being) researched. But can it contribute one or more 'wedges'? Since they say it well, and since Ron asked for quotes from the UK BRC submission: "Lehmann et al. (2006) estimate that current global potential production of biochar is 0.6 ± 0.1 Gt/yr. *[RWL2: The (un-named) BRC authors really mean "charcoal" here- not Biochar in the sense of this list - which number is probably three or four orders of magnitude lower. It is very difficult to get a number for charcoal, much less Biochar.]* They estimate that by 2100 production of biochar could reach between 5.5 and 9.5 Gt/yr. There are very large uncertainties attached to these numbers, however, arising from competition for land-use, competition for use of biofuels and agricultural wastes and a huge divergence (of nearly 1000%) in different expert estimates of the potential future global supply of biomass for bioenergy purposes. *[RWL3: I have not seen this factor of 1000% percent before. I hope someone can identify the experts at both end of this spectrum. This does NOT say that the BRC authors dis believe the 5.5-9.5 numbers (which we need emphasize are given as "potential", not projected.]* Woolf (2008) estimates that if all existing agricultural crop residues were used to produce biochar, this would constitute 1 Gt of carbon storage. A reasonably conservative assumption would be that biochar has the potential to offset global atmospheric carbon emissions at the gigatonne per year scale by 2050 (and probably by 2030 if a concerted effort were made) – one of the climate ‘wedges’ in Pacala and Socolow’s (2004) schematic, hence comparable to other major mitigation activities (CCS, renewables, efficient vehicles, etc.)." *[RWL4: I take comfort in the words "reasonably conservative". The UKBRC has not addressed, nor refuted, the Lehmann etal number. I hope I have proven, within the last 24 hours, that "could reach" was a possibility.]* Answer: probably, but there is a lot of disagreement on the details. *[RWL5: Yes, huge disagreements exist. The issues for us, however, are whether the disagreement are between persons we could agree are Biochar experts and whether the UKBRC would disagree with Lehmann etal. This excerpt does not prove anything either way.]* A few other points from the numerous responses: - Peter, in discussing the numbers you said of agricultural wastes "If the lot were pyrolyzed" which strikes me as a pretty big if. There is clearly <some> uncertainty on the figures. I don't think calculations starting from the total land area/global primary production/amount of food crops/grazing land available get us that far in nailing an accurate potential, although they are clearly a necessary starting point. You simply have to factor in things like transport costs/ logistics, competition for the material and so on. I'm looking forward to reading such a study for biochar. *[RWL6: Yup. This would have been an appropriate sort of recommendation for the RS. (Total funding within all countries of the world is probably still less than $10 -20 million) The point is that no-one has shown that it is impossible - unless Ken or someone is able to show an error in what I wrote last night.] *- policy prescriptiveness: I assume no-one round here objected to the RS's policy prescription for geoengineering research funding? Maybe the wording on biochar and CDM was strong, but let's not kid ourselves the RS shouldn't have been/wasn't allowed to/specifically ruled itself out of say whatever it wanted to in the report, including some comments on policy. *[RWL7. Yup - and they should acknowledge they did something wrong if Ken's arithmetic proves to have been faulty. I think their premise (and that of BFW, on whom the RS apparently relied) was that Lehmann made a big mistake. Note that the UKBRC made no such claim of error. I of coure apologize now if I made an error in supporting the Lehmann numbers. I think the task and financial investment in getting such a large sequestration will be huge. I also think it will be worth it - and that it is the lowest-cost, least-controversial option on the table.] *- suspicion of carbon offsetting: Ron I think we were at cross purposes on that. I meant that many view the whole idea of carbon offsetting with suspicion, seeing it as a way for the west to offload the problem of cutting emissions onto others. Questions of additionality are a big issue too. Nothing to do with biochar specifically - and I don't necessarily agree with that take on offsets anyway. But that was the context for my emphasising the need to maintain the credibility of the CDM and obviously a good methodology will be key. *[RWL8. Good. We are in agreement, I guess. The Yahoo dialog list "biochar-policy" is full of this topic. One of the best analyses I have seen on this I first saw at the UKBRC site. Surprisingly (Peter being from New Zealand), it is by Peter Read, and can be found at: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/documents/WP3.pdf . Much more policy effort is warranted on how to reward a truly carbon-negative Geoengineering technology, which we agree does not fit into the CDM protocols.] *- Opinion of Simon Shackley: Simon told me earlier he hasn't read the RS report yet. Meanwhile we don't know if he (or other UKBRC scientists) is or isn't in "significant disagreement" with it. In that context I shouldn't have speculated either - mea culpa. - Lenton and Vaughan figure for biochar potential: their table 2 has 400PgC cumulative up to year 3000 (not 2100) which is 0.4Pg/yr. In the text they discuss larger numbers per year but (I think) the total is limited by how much biochar they say can be stored on a given amount of land and factoring in the need to replenish decomposed biochar over such long time periods. *RWL9: [Mea culpa also. I will look again - but I am afraid you are correct on his millenial scale. You are also correct that he worried about the storage issue (this was not Ken's issue). I think Lenton is simply way off base on that. If it were a problem, the char could probablly go safely into the oceans [much more safely than CO2). That is where an enormous amount of char already is. I will try to dispel that concern (after re-reading the Lenton paper). I know of no-one else who has raised this land-scarcity issue.]* Things we should be rushing into: energy efficiency, renewables, non- fossil powered transport, CCS (because without that we've no hope of a 2oC limit, so says DEFRA chief scientist Bob Watson anyway), etc etc. There are lots of things we absolutely should be rushing in to but I'm not convinced biochar is one of them. Proceeding at a good pace - sure. I just don't like the idea of rushing when it comes to food (agriculture). Opinions clearly vary on this! *[RWL10: I must repeat that Biochar looks like the cheapest option by far on the carbon negative side. I am a strong proponent of all your above (carbon neutral) options - but doubt that that is what this list should be discussing. I hope you will explain why food (agriculture) should be an issue with Biochar. We are talking of major increases in soil productivity here - and need for a lot of labor to process the biomass to (both) energy and char. More than 25 developing countries have asked for UN action on Biochar, so food for the poor should not be our concern. I am sure we will see lots more in the way of neighborhood gardens - and that sector of society has also given a lot of favorable press to Biochar. It bothers me greatly that the RS also chose to raise this (BFW)issue - without citation. This food conflict is mentioned in no peer-reviewed B***iochar-related article I am aware of. Please let me know of one. *** Your word "rush" needs comment also. I have been in the renewable energy policy business since 1973. The same argument about no need to "rush" has been a theme I have heard for 37 years. It is no more valid today than when I was parked in gas lines in the fall of 1973. (more below)]* best wishes, simon *RWL11: This was followed in order by earlier messages from Peter (27th), Ken, Manu and Peter - which I have snipped. Below are a few other quotes from the UKBRC site (www.geos.ed.ac.uk). Before proceeding, let me urge looking at an even larger array of quotes available at www.biochar-international.org. One from that site is what you first see at the UKBRC site: *" Biochar is a fine-grained, highly porous charcoal that helps soils retain nutrients and water, resulting in increased soil fertility for agriculture. The carbon in biochar resists degradation and can sequester carbon in soils for hundreds to thousands of years, providing a potentially powerful tool for mitigating anthropogenic climate change ". BFW disputes virtually every claim above after the first eight words - and I see the same negative tone (re fertility, longevity, mitigation) being repeated in the RS piece (all without citation). One has to assume that UKBRC disagrees with the RS, don't we, from their using this quote as the first thing one sees at their website? *RWL12*: Here are a few sentences (emphases added) from <www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/sccs/biochar/coneg.html> ("PBS" seems to be identical to "Biochar". * *"....biochar can be _*small-scale and capital non-intensive*_. It can be adopted in developing and developed countries by farmers, small landowners and local authorities. Hence, it can contribute directly to rural diversification, *_forestry protection and poverty alleviation_* internationally. PBS has a *_relatively low-capital intensity and a short lead-time_*. This means that, once good technology designs are available in the market at the right price, deployment _*could take place rapidly at the global scale*_. Herein lies an important advantage of biochar compared to low-carbon energy projects which are capital-intensive and have a long lead-time - such as CCS and nuclear power. More research is needed to explore the interactions between deploying biochar on a gigatonne scale and other elements of a c. 10 GtC reduction strategy to 2050." RWL: I confess I am not sure what their last sentence means. I'd like to believe that "10 GtC" means per year - but I doubt it. But if we got to 1 GtC per year as late as 2040, one would be well over a 10 GtC total by 2050 (and they have acknowledged elsewhere that 1 GtC/per year was possible by 2030). I raise this in case a member of UKBRC is reading this and can clarify their intent. The point of going through this exercise is to show that the RS was not reflecting the best source of Biochar knowledge in the UK. Indeed, I claim they seem to have relied instead on the ONLY anti-Biochar group in the world with a published report (not peer-reviewed) that one can critique (and I have and am doing so now). *RWL 13: * As my last example from this site, I wanted to comment on their official submission to the RS. at http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/documents/WP2.pdf . However, for some reason, I am unable to copy anything from their pdf file. Here is one: (painfully re-keystroked) from the beginning of Section 3. "/To our knowledge, there are no evident negative impacts arising from applying biochar to soils." /The middle of section 5 has some favorable comments on the carbon value (not economics) relatve to biofuels as well as some that even show favorable economics with modest carbon credits. _*Summary:*_ I found no negative statements about Biochar at this UKRBC site - although there are mention of plenty of areas where they say R&D would be helpful. I am in agreement that such R&D would be helpful - but not at the expense of waiting for the results. I hope others will read the full material at this UKRBC site (or any other) looking for (and reporting back) anything that would justify the low scores that the RS has accorded Biochar. The information at the IBI site is much more extensive. I therefore would be greatly interested in anything there (or anywhere) that either justifies the RS handling of Biochar or smacks of an unprofessional or non-scientific boosterism. My belief is that RS was simply unaware of the non-objective (I have to use the word "propaganda" since not one single favorable statement is made about Biochar) slant of the BFW report. I look forward to further Geoengineering discussion on RS and Biochar. Ron Larson, 28 Sept. ps. As I was about to send this out, I saw the announcement from Lopa Brujnes about a Biochar bill. I have never talked to Lopa (a friend, in the Biochar business) about this list and will ask her to not do such again. I think she has not understood, innocently, the (admirable) technical cross-cutting character of this list. RWL --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
