If we need any carbon sequestration at all, sequestration which also provides an economic benefit would be most desirable, if still cost efficient. This is the major value of biochar. When used on crop lands, including reforestation, nutrients remain fixed within the soil structure instead of becoming non-point sources of pollution; and water remains within the soil longer instead of causing bank erosion and subsequent harm to water quality.
d. On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Ron Larson <[email protected]>wrote: > Professor Benford and geoengineering list: > > 1. Thanks for including a copy of your ocean sequestration paper and > keeping this conversation going. I found nothing really to object to in your > excellent paper. I found numerous valuable citations that I will certainly > use and pass on to others. There is a big overlap in our areas of interest. > I agree with what you said about all of Biochar's and ocean sequestration > competitors. (We might add BECs in there as another option that didn't get > your full attention). > > 2. My only negative remark is that the several Biochar technologies I have > been bringing to this list's attention were not in the list of competing > technologies that you and Professor Strand analyzed. > > 3. Were you to cover Biochar in the same way, I think you/we will find > Biochar to be the preferred alternative. The only one of your criteria where > ocean sequestration might have an edge is that of longevity. I say "might" > because I guess there has not been much experimental data yet on either your > proposed approach or that of Biochar. The lifetime of char seems to have a > consensus number of only a millenium. I have seen shorter and longer times, > but the real experimental data is not apt to be available for centuries. The > best reference I know re char recalcitrance is at: > > http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_RS_recalcitrance12-09.pdf > > 4. You raised for ocean sequestration several hurdles that Biochar > overcomes: > a. Travel distance; apt to be a few kilometers on average for both Biochar > and its resource base. > b. Removal of soil nutrients; apt to be almost totally retained at or near > the source point, while also both raising soil productivity and reducing > fertilizer requirements > c. Competition with those desiring to use ag residues for energy; biochar > production can (not necessarily will) have a useful energy co-product. I > believe we will see an almost equal amount of carbon-neutral energy as the > claimed sequestered 10 GtC/yr. So I believe a total of 20 GtC/yr of carbon > mitigation will be available - allowing for considerable growth in energy > consumption in developing countries even as we go back pretty rapidly to > 350, 280, etc ppm. This carbon neutral energy will provide the necessary > backup for solar and wind - thereby allowing a 100% renewable energy supply. > d. Biochar producers will need and are apt to be growing the trees in your > second (forestry) option; a short term forest solution is part of a longterm > biochar solution. > e. You put an upper ocean sequestration limit (I believe) of 0.5 pg/yr; I > am postulating a factor of twenty higher by virtue of biomass plantations, > use of manures, forest and urban wastes, conversion of idle and pasture > land, improved ag and forest productivity because of both Biochar and > biotechnology (not relying on GE and GMO), etc. Repeat - not easy - but > possible. > f. Limited availability of stover; appreciably more can be removed with a > Biochar platform because of the returned nutrients, but also because Biochar > encourages a looser, but still more erosion-resistant soil. > > 5. No much proof yet, but I think the economics strongly favor Biochar - > not only for the above reasons involving waste streams that you could not > accept, and the much reduced transportation cost, but also because the > energy co-product (of all types) will have substantial market, but because > the producing ag and forest producing communities will also want to use it > (pay for it). I hear production numbers around $200 per ton - and people are > paying a lot more for the little that is being produced. > > 6. Just today there has been a lively first discussion on the Yahoo list > called "biochar-policy" about a new lower temperature approach to "biochar" > that converts any (??) form of biomass (but especially those with high > moisture content) into a humus or humic acid form with about 97% efficiency. > The "waste" stream is 200 degree C water or steam. Three websites (all in > Germany, all new to me in the last few days) you might find of interest are > at: > http://www.cs-carbonsolutions.de/ > http://www.suncoal.de/en/home/ > http://www.hydrocarb.de/Seiten/Englisch/index.html > . > 7. Neither of us are yet addressing what might be fastest - but the SRM > approaches satisfy virtually none of your specifications - so I am still > holding to my belief you repeated below about a possible rapid schedule for > Biochar. I believe the farmers and foresters of the world are ready to go. I > have not touched the other advantages of jobs, national security, improved > food supply, etc. > > Ron > > > [email protected] wrote: > >> Ron: >> >> Your comment: >> "Not easy, not likely, but not impossible. I don't think any other CDR or >> mitigation approach can match that schedule, **and would love to hear >> thoughts of others* " >> >> --prompts me to circulate again the attached paper, which argues that we >> could right now capture about 15% of global CO2 emitted each year. Very >> little research needed -- and indeed, there's a field trial going on now off >> Monterey Bay. >> >> Gregory Benford >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ron Larson <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Apr 25, 2010 6:10 pm >> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic Council Strategy >> >> * Bjornar. I agree with what you have written. >> >> Re rapidity in my question #2, I will report a preliminary more-detailed >> personal estimate at a Biochar conference in Ames late June. I hope to >> show it possible to have at least one tenth of a US-only 1 GtC/yr (a US >> "wedge") carbon sequestration capability by maybe 2040 About ten time >> this goal worldwide and one-tenth as much by 2010. Not easy, not likely, >> but not impossible. I don't think any other CDR or mitigation approach >> can match that schedule, **and would love to hear thoughts of others* >> >> *Re categorization in topic #6: I am glad you like the possible >> **"biosequestration" term within the CDR portion of geoengineering **. >> But that term misses the cost-beneficial soils and energy aspects of >> Biochar. I think we will have to use different descriptors in different >> policy arenas, ** but would love to hear of a single descriptor that >> covers the three main Biochar monetary flows. "Bioremediation" implies >> soil improvement maybe - but nothing about energy. Probably no one >> descriptive term is possible. It is not entirely positive to have these >> multiple attributes. >> >> Your last query is on using the terms "artificial" and "natural". This >> is perhaps an appropriate and useful distinction, but I'd rather focus >> on characteristics like economics, timing, and risks. I presume Biochar >> falls in your "natural" category, while the word "artificial" carries >> negative connotations that some technology proponents presumably will >> not like. >> ** >> ** Thanks for the full reply.* >> * >> Ron >> * >> >> Bjornar Egede-Nissen wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the feedback. >>> >>> Let me address Ron's list of concerns. These comments are on behalf of >>> myself only: >>> >>> 1. Yes, geoengineering as used by us does include CDR, but we should >>> have devoted more than one sentence to explain that. Geoengineering, >>> unfortunately, is often used to describe only SRM. It's unfortunate >>> that both have been conflated under the label geoengineering. It >>> seems we should have taken more care to make it clear that we were >>> addressing only SRM, and perhaps used that moniker throughout the >>> paper. >>> >>> 2. “Rapid” should have been defined here: sudden and disruptive >>> climate change over the course of a few months to a couple of years. >>> Biochar and SRM are rapid on different time scales, I believe. >>> Clearly, in the case of a climate emergency, we need to rapidly ramp >>> down emission levels, and if possible, ramp up CDR. Mitigation and CDR >>> are the only sustainable ways of remediating climate change. Biochar >>> is good in that respect because of its high carbon content, but it is >>> not quick enough to counter the immediate climate effects of rapid >>> global warming. For that, SRM may be the only option, and let me >>> assure you, I have no love of it. >>> >>> 3. Agreed. We should have taken more care to make sure that we meant >>> only SRM. Instead we used geoengineering as shorthand for SRM. While I >>> do not excuse that slip, it _is_ common to conflate the two. As to it >>> doing nothing to alleviate the real problem, SRM in itself only >>> addresses the symptom (warming) while allowing the oceans to acidify. >>> It could, however, buy time, and could arrest the thawing of >>> permafrost, glaciers and ocean ice. That should be attractive to the >>> Arctic Council (and the world at large). But without vigorous >>> mitigation, it is worth nothing. >>> >>> 4. Absolutely. “All facets” of geoengineering includes CDR and we >>> could have been more explicit. >>> >>> 5. We understand that CDR is a mitigation technology. It was certainly >>> not our wish to give fuel (metaphorically speaking) to biochar >>> detractors. >>> >>> 6. Agreed, apologies for the confusion. I hope we can separate the >>> debate about SRM from CDR; they are very different, and will require >>> different governance and decision making mechanisms. SRM was all this >>> paper was about (p 14), as it addressed geoengineering (SRM) as a >>> response tool for abrupt climate change. >>> >>> So clearly we need to talk more about nomenclature. It’s become a bit >>> fudged up, and there are more terms beside SRM (albedo enhancement, >>> shortwave climate engineering). Biosequestration rests very >>> uncomfortably in the geoengineering camp. I shall use this term >>> explicitly in my future work. But bioseq. (I hesitate to shorten it to >>> BS...) is a form of CDR, so I’m not sure if a third group is >>> warranted. Ocean fertilisation too is a form of bioseq (in theory, >>> when it works), only by more dramatic and artificial means. Should we >>> instead make a distinction between artificial and natural (albeit on >>> an industrialised scale) CDR? >>> >>> Thank you very much for your response, I hope I cleared up a few >>> things. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bjornar >>> >>> >>> On Apr 17, 11:48 pm, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> List with three ccs >>>> >>>> This is to again raise the topic of geoengineering nomenclature >>>> >>>> 1. From the middle of p 7 of the IISD paper (which I agree was >>>> >>> generally >> >>> well done): >>>> / "We can generally categorize geoengineering efforts into two types: >>>> those that seek to regulate the temperature, and those that seek to >>>> regulate the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This paper >>>> will focus only on the first type. In more technical terms, this >>>> >>> type is >> >>> often referred to as --*_solar radiation management (SRM)_*,......" >>>> / >>>> *[RWL: This is fine by me, but I wonder how consistent this >>>> >>> definition >> >>> is. See few questionable items below. The "second" named type seems >>>> >>> to >> >>> have recently emerged by consensus as CDR - carbon dioxide removal. >>>> Unfortunately this can readily be confused with CCS - Carbon Capture >>>> >>> and >> >>> Storage [sometimes Sequestration]). My question is whether the >>>> >>> authors >> >>> ever slipped anywhere in the following and ever meant for >>>> >>> Geoengineering >> >>> to include CDR. I hope so.]*. >>>> >>>> 2. From p 11 (emphasis added) >>>> /"A climate emergency seems to satisfy all the criteria; adaptation >>>> >>> and >> >>> geoengineering being the _*only rapid*_ responses possible./" >>>> >>>> *[RWL: I wonder if Biochar, being in both camps by some definitions >>>> >>> (if >> >>> not this article) should have special consideration on rapidity. I >>>> reject the implicit idea here that tree planting or Biochar will go >>>> slower than the fastest of the (adaptation) renewables (half the >>>> >>> world >> >>> being farmers, biomass already the largest renewable resource, and >>>> >>> the >> >>> huge plant-soil sink is many times larger than the atmosphere). >>>> >>> Where do >> >>> the IISD authors put Biochar? Agreed that it has come to be in both >>>> categories?] >>>> >>>> *3. From the top of p14 (17/29), where "it" must refer to SRM (used >>>> >>> in >> >>> previous sentence, it makes no sense to apply to the CDR "half" of >>>> geoengineering.): (Emphasis added.) >>>> / "Although only supposed to be temporary, it would have to be >>>> >>> sustained >> >>> for years, _*all the while doing nothing*_ to alleviate the real >>>> >>> problem >> >>> and allowing the oceans to become increasingly acidic." >>>> / >>>> *[RWL: I don't see why the authors assume this "/all the while doing >>>> nothing/". That seems to be making a big assumption very damaging to >>>> >>> a >> >>> discourse on SRM Do the authors know that the Council will be in this >>>> either-or position with respect to SRM and mitigation? If they are >>>> correct here, no one could possibly be in favor of geoengineering - >>>> >>> or >> >>> at least of their SRM portion.] >>>> >>>> *4. from middle of p 18 (and below quoted by Josh):/ >>>> It is therefore time that the Arctic Council placed _*all facets of*_ >>>> geoengineering high on its research agenda./ >>>> * >>>> [RWL: Here is one place that I hope the IISD slipped up and >>>> intentionally meant to include CDR Why else say "/all facets of"/. >>>> Biochar enthusiasts would strongly support the interpretation that >>>> >>> the >> >>> Council should also look at Biochar. There are some huge carbon >>>> >>> stores >> >>> in the trees of most of the Council members and that amount could be >>>> increased.] >>>> ** >>>> >>>> 5. p 19. *The last two sentences (just beyond those quoted by Josh):* >>>> / "/*/Meanwhile, as the risks and implications of geoengineering >>>> >>> become >> >>> more apparent, the attention and dialogue ensuing from the Arctic >>>> Council’s engagement with geoengineering might actually stimulate a >>>> _*re-doubling of mitigation*_ efforts. That would be the best >>>> >>> possible >> >>> outcome of the geoengineering debate." >>>> // >>>> /*[RWL: I of course am delighted with this - as long as the authors >>>> >>> and >> >>> their readers have understood that CDR is (an intersection in a >>>> Venn-diagram sense) also a mitigation technology. Unfortunately, I >>>> expect to see this sentence taken alone by those who are detractors >>>> >>> of >> >>> Biochar and want always to label Biochar as geoengineering. >>>> >>>> 6. [RWL6: My conclusion is that if anyone wants to talk only about >>>> >>> the >> >>> SRM side of geoengineering, it would be much preferable to just >>>> >>> replace >> >>> the word "geoengineering" by "SRM". I am still not sure that "SRM" >>>> >>> was >> >>> meant to apply to EVERY use of the word "geoengineering" by the >>>> >>> authors . >> >>> >>>> One way out of this dilemma is to break the present >>>> "geoengineering"world up into three (rather than two) parts: >>>> "geoengineering-SRM", "geoengineering-CDR" and "geoengineering-Bio" - >>>> with Biochar and tree planting in the new third group. Air capture >>>> >>> and >> >>> some others would stay as part of "geoengineering-CDR ", as they >>>> >>> have no >> >>> "bio" component. (Bio is short for "biosequestration"; the word >>>> "bioengineering" was spoken for long ago.) In the Venn diagram sense, >>>> Biochar and tree planting retain the "mitigation" meaning. >>>> >>> Fortunately, >> >>> they also are solution-parts of other major Venn development >>>> >>> "circles" >> >>> such as food/hunger, jobs/rural economic development, national >>>> >>> security, >> >>> etc - most of which are potential problem areas for SRM. >>>> >>>> Any votes for the proposed new third term "bio=biosequestration" to >>>> >>> help >> >>> clarify what "geoengineering" means? I am afraid it is too late to >>>> remove the biosequestration aspect from the geoengineering umbrella >>>> >>> and >> >>> CDR just doesn't capture the carbon-negativity facets that are >>>> >>> possible >> >>> within the broader "geoengineering". >>>> * >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Josh wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree, this is an excellent paper. I would draw your attention to >>>>> >>>> <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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: >> 271.1.1/2835 - Release Date: 04/25/10 12:31:00 >> >> >> > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship -- 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.
