Dear Ron, Although the BRC does not say it disbelieves the Lehmann figures, it doesn’t say it believes them either! Some of the Lehmann assumptions were described to me as “heroic”, and not by biofuelswatch; there is a world of difference between possible and practical. I understand from Simon at UKBRC there is some work ongoing to try and get an accurate figure for biochar’s potential. (I can’t remember if he said who was doing it).
We could speculate all day on the reasons behind what the RS report says but really the exercise is pretty futile. I don’t see why we have to assume they bought into the biofuelswatch line in reaching their conclusions (and the authors are all smart people so I at least am confident they applied a good dose of salt to that particular meal). Nor must they have assumed Lehmann was in error – they only had to assume that his figure was uncertain. By this point I am playing word games but the UKBRC position is more subtle I think, and full of qualifications. Looking for anti-biochar comment on the UKBRC/IBI website is for sure a waste of time. They would hardly have started a whole centre devoted to it if they thought it was a silly idea. Nevertheless (my emphases): “providing a *potentially* powerful tool for mitigating anthropogenic climate change” “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” …is not the same as “biochar is a powerful tool for mitigating etc etc that can and should be deployed rapidly at the global scale”. On agriculture and caution/rushing I mean only that since we all depend on it for our survival it doesn’t seem like a great plan to go making significant changes to agricultural practice the world over without having tested them thoroughly beforehand. I guess from where you’re sitting the testing is there already and the world is just being frustratingly slow to ‘get it’. But surely it was ever thus? best, simon On Sep 29, 1:32 am, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > atwww.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. > athttp://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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
