|
Geoengineering and Biochar Lists (sent separately): This is to link together three topics I found in the 25 Sept issue of Science, which I received 2 days ago. 1. The cover and the theme of this issue is on CCS. Good material from what I know (not being expert in CCS). I'd like to hear if anyone sees any major faults in the presentation. The concept of using photosynthesis for CO2 capture is never mentioned. I wish it had been (although artificial trees are featured). As an aside about the recent discussion on the Geoengiineering list of dendrochronology - the opening sentences on p1641 note Arrhenius' analysis of CO2 influence in 1895. Second CCS comment: I attended a carbon capture meeting on Thursday and mentioned photosynthesis. Only one of the six panelists responded at all positively - one saying (incorrectly) that photosynthesis couldn't do much. 2. On p 1637 there is brief mention of our national failure in teaching biology - with use of the words "climate change" there. I hope educators in that field can change things - in the direction they propose - less rote memorization. 3. But my main interest (being an advocate for Biochar) in this issue of Science was on p1609, where Jocelyn Kaiser reported the release of a new NRC report entitled "A New Biology for the 21st Century". A free download of the 99 page report can be made at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12764.html Here are four typical sentences from the (still draft) report that relate to Geosequestration and Biochar: "Biological systems could remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus helping to maintain a stable climate; the carbon they capture could be used to create biologically based materials for construction and manufacturing." [RWL: I deduce from this sentence that they did not know about Biochar. The NRC panel had a good chance here to say something about energy for sure - but also food and health, as they acknowledge photosynthesis.] "The New Biology promises to deliver a dramatically more efficient approach to developing plant varieties that can be grown sustainably under local conditions." [RWL: Badly needed; nice to know that the report could lead to more research in this area. A big part of Biochar involves "sustainability"/] "A better fundamental understanding of plant growth and productivity, as well as of how plants can be conditioned or bred to tolerate extreme conditions and adapt to climate change, will be key components in increasing food production and nutrition in all areas of agriculture to meet the needs of 8.4 billion people by 2030 (Census Bureau, 2008), while allowing adequate land for energy production and environmental services." [RWL: Great to see four of Biochar's main advantages (soil productivity, energy, negative carbon, and nutrition) in one sentence. I have been amazed how little soil scientists understand today about soil carbon - their profession apparently has all been about nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. Fortunately they seem now to be quite excited about this "new" discovery of soil carbon (that is - they have known for half a century about Terra Preta soils having lots of charcoal and 3 or 4 times as much productivity - but almost no research on "why" - until the last 5 or so years - and generally still without a budget.] "Furthermore, none can be attained independent of the others––we want to grow more food without using more energy or harming natural environments, and we want new sources of energy that do not contribute to global warming or have adverse health effects. The problems raised by these fundamental biological and environmental questions are interdependent and “solutions” that work at cross purposes will not in fact be solutions." [RWL: The fourth area emphasized in this NRC report and sentence is health. Biochar has several connections there as well (through support from the organic foods areas) - certainly not in any way at cross-purposes. This last example gets this across. (There is a fifth, often-noted, Biochar advantage - waste disposal - that has some health aspects of course.) Closing: Does any other Geoengineering option capture all four of this report's recommendations? Granted REDD and BECS involve one (environment), but there is scant Biology coupling to the energy, food, and health "New Biology" areas. But despite liking this problem-oriented New Biology concept and its report, I fear that the anticipated "New Biology" bureaucracy will only set up four separate committees and budget line items - probably even in different Departments with different Congressional oversight Committees. I seriously doubt that a technology that helps and needs help in all four areas will succeed in getting the needed cooperation and budget. A lack of cooperation has occurred in at least three renewable energy areas (most of my career). a. In the early 1970's the US had a small national program (at Sandia) in solar total energy (combined solar electric and solar thermal). Nothing since - as those two developed different turfs. b. I believe there is good potential for combined solar-wind (tall updraft or downdraft towers with interior rotating parts) - but no program. c Similarly on hybrids between biomass and concentrating solar power (CSP - to enable dispatchability and all-RE operation). In all three cases, two different bureaucracies exist that see themselves as being in competition for funding. I'm afraid I see the same thing happening for Biochar (which has no home or budget at the moment - maybe also because it also has too many different positive aspects). The only solution I see is a totally new budget line item called "Biochar" - and emphasizing all four of the "New Biology" problem areas - not just one. I suppose the USDA is a best home - but wish they could think more about the need to hybridize (as with third-world stove development, CSP, etc) and to really cooperate with other Federal agencies such as Energy, EPA, USAID, and Health. Apologies for the sales pitch - but this particular issue of Science could be good news to those in both Geoengineering and Biochar areas. Thoughts? Ron --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
