If there's general agreement that the RS needs to review its report, what is the proper method by which such a review or addendum could be requested?
My point regarding improved productivity resulting from biochar use may have been slightly misconstrued (my bad wording, I guess). I was trying to suggest that if you bury 1 tonne of carbon as biochar, then maybe it will support 2 tonnes of carbon in the form of living biomass above, due to water management. Further, it might have long term effects on soil erosion, reducing nutrient runoff and therefore potentially supporting another tonne of carbon as biomass. All these figures are of course completely made up, but I hope my point is clear. Have these effects been properly considered? Or are researchers typically only looking at what's actually chucked into the ground, when evaluating the carbon cycle impacts? The new point about nitrogen cycle is critical, too. If fertiliser use can be avoided, then that's a great deal more carbon emissions which can be avoided. Have all these factors been properly considered? It would be a bit daft if they weren't, and the figures we're considering were an order of magnitude out! My point about the economics of biochar is again simple, and I apologise for presenting it in an ambiguous manner. I was trying to suggest that there is little hope of persuading people to sequester flammable carbon in one hole, whilst they (or their countrymen) are digging flammable carbon out of another hole with the sole intention of burning it. It just doesn't make sense. Once all the coal mines have been replaced with wind turbines, or suchlike, then biochar makes a lot more sense from an economic standpoint. A 2009/10/10 Ron Larson <[email protected]>: > Andrew and list: > > This is to try a few quick answers re Biochar in your paragraphs 3 and 4 > in you email of a few hours ago: > > 3. Biochar flood and erosion attenuation ,and sequestration feedbacks > due to sustained productivity, seem not to be properly considered > according to my rather amateurish reading of the literature. Surely > these 'secondary benefits' may substantially enhance the primary > sequestration benefits? > *[RWL: Agreed. I have seen in print that the value in the nitrogen > cycle could be bigger than for the carbon cycle. Others talk about national > security, jobs, rural economic development, food nutrition, etc. Many in > the Biochar community would say ag productivity should be "primary".]* > > > 4. The economics of biochar seem to have me stumped. Why anyone's > going to bury carbon, whilst others are pulling it out of the ground, > is completely beyond me. *[RWL: Not sure of your intent here. I > certainly agree that we should be leaving a lot in the ground.]* > > Unless its role as a soil improver is so > great that a clear economic case exists, the whole biochar case seems > to me a bit academic. > > *[RWL: The data is not in. Some would say so. The ancient Amazonians > produced Terra Preta with no thought of sequestration. The comparison in > productivity I see in the literature is either a doubling or tripling over > the immediately adjacent non-modified soil. If I were a Biofuel producer > with that data, I would be practicing a lot of sequestration independent of > carbon credits. I doubt any CCS approach will be cheaper. I am still > convinced we can talk reasonably of many wedges - and pretty quickly. Glad > you asked the question and I support your call for a new review by the Royal > Society.] > > Ron Larson > * > > > > > > Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> A few brief comments on what has become a rather unwieldy thread. >> >> <snip> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
