Stuart (cc list): I try below to answer your request for citations. My intent yesterday was only to open the door for something other than the most conservative possible estimate of biomass and land supply (both will limit Biochar [and other biomass options]).
In this following response, I have only gone half-way - as I am somewhat time-limited and really only doing Google searches that most anyone could do, and I may not be providing what you (Stuart) wanted. I have found more citations than I expected so far. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has laid out the Gt C potential for this expanded Biochar potential list - which were items NOT covered by Woolf etal. Hopefully this is a start at justifying that larger potential for Biochar (and other biomass-related options) than proposed by Woolf etal. If I have not made the case somewhere, please let me know and I will attempt to get more specific. I could (and will next time) use the Woolf-Amonette paper itself - which has many references that may also be pertinent. I hope others will critique and or add to this list. The requested citations are inserted below following this sort of heading: " [RWL response #1" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart Strand" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:29:10 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Biochar Nature paper Citations please = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014 , Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:06 PM To: [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Biochar Nature paper Greg and list: Thanks for bringing this two-year old (downloadable) Biochar paper from "Nature" below to the list's attention. I admire the work of Wolff, Amonette (corresponding author, responsible for the Excel work), etal. But I think they went overboard on being conservative. They say: " Wherever possible, conservative assumptions were used to provide a high degree of confidence that our results represent a conservative estimate of the avoided GHG emissions achievable in each scenario. ". I know three of the five authors; one of them gave a (much less-documented) estimate that was an order-of-magnitude higher. [RWL response #1 . I was referring to Professor Johannes Lehmann, who has used the phrase "5.5 to 9.5 Gt /yr" in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2006) 11: 403–427 C Springer 2006 DOI: 10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5 BIO-CHAR SEQUESTRATION IN TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS – A REVIEW JOHANNES LEHMANN1,∗, JOHN GAUNT2 and MARCO RONDON3 http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/MitAdaptStratGlobChange%2011,%20403-427,%20Lehmann,%202006.pdf Tim Lenton has repeated this higher number. [RWL response #2: "The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration " Timothy M Lenton† Carbon Management (2010) 1(1), 145–160 I believe the most recent paper by Jim Hansen, which I think proposes 100 GtC of new standing forests, is assuming larger land use change than is assumed in this paper, or by those promoting BECCS. RWL response #3 : "The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future" James Hansen1, Pushker Kharecha1, Makiko Sato1, Paul Epstein2, Paul J. Hearty3, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg4, Camille Parmesan5, Stefan Rahmstorf6, Johan Rockstrom7, Eelco J.Rohling8, Jeffrey Sachs1, Peter Smith9, Karina von Schuckmann10, James C. Zachos11 [http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf] This seems to have not yet been published. I was referring to my interpretation of the early ppm drop in his Figure 5.] "In my view, there is probably one Gha available for reforestation and the paper limits the agroforestry total to 170 Mha (all with latitude less than 25 degrees). [RWL response #4 : There is a total of about 13 Gha globally (seen in many of these citations), and many giving the breakdown by category. See more justification for the 1 Gha number below. The 170 Mha in Woolf is from is from the agroforestry row of their Table 1.] "They also assume only about 4 tC/ha-yr to be available (with about half going into char - about 30% of their total annual combined carbon neutral and carbon negative peak). I believe we will do appreciably better than this assumed 400 grams C/sqm-yr in the tropics (with about half of this parameter being available for sequestration). [RWL response #5 . This 4 tC/ha-yr was calculated by me from their supplementary material.] "Resources that receive little/zero consideration in this paper include a. The ocean - having an NPP roughly equal to that of land. [RWL response 6 (a1) : I was thinking of roughly 60 GtC/yr for land and oceans. I find somewhat smaller numbers at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5374/237.abstract http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/energyflow/energyflow.html ( This one (found by googling) is one I will come back to- as it talks about human use of NPP "Mangroves have always been highly regarded for char making - and can be harvested sustainably. [RWL response 7(a2) . (These obtained by Googling - restorationists believe mangrove replacement is a key need. Lots of papers on this) http://www.reefball.com/reefballcoalition/mangroves.htm http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/world-bank-gef-project-supports-mangrove-planting-in-kiribati/ There are numerous more citations on this topic. "Artificial nutrient upwelling and macroalgae are not mentioned. [RWL response 7(a3): Upwelling often mentioned on this Geo list. I first read about macroalgae (kelp) for energy in the 1970's. This is partly covered below in response.] b. Freshwater microalgae - which provides potential access to the Gha of deserts. RWL response 8 (b) Of course there are thousands of papers on algae - and hundreds of (?) species of algae - so maybe some will find a Biochar partnership 8b1. Here is one link that suggests (via James Lovelock) some hope: http://www.re-char.com/2010/04/21/ocean-algae-to-biochar-a-discussion-with-dr-james-lovelock/ (Jason Aramburu, CEO of Re:char, is a friend) 8b2. http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/11898/ 8b3. http://www.usebiochar.com/algae-scale-up-equipment-speeds-time-to-commercialization-for-researchers-and-biomass-producers/ (googling found this pairing many more times. ) c. Fire-prevention possibilities (possibly another 1 GtC/yr) RWL response 9 (c) 9c1. The most thorough analysis I have seen was performed by Winrock staff. I think it possible that Biochar would have made it economically attractive http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2006_conference/presentations/2006-09-14/2006-09-14_KADYSZEWSKI.PDF 9c2. Estimates of CO 2 from fires in the United States: implications for carbon management Christine Wiedinmyer and Jason C Neff Carbon Balance and Management 2007, 2 :10 doi:10.1186/1750-0680-2-10 http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/2/1/10 " Fires cover 3–4 million km 2 of the globe each year and are responsible for the release of 2–3 Pg of carbon to the atmosphere" 9c3. Of courses many more in the google entry "annual carbon release fires". This is a favorite topic for foresters. "d. Conversion of considerable pasture and idle land (there is only a minimum assumed conversion of farm land - as noted above for agroforestry. As noted above considerably higher values than 4 tC/ha-yr are in the literature.) RWL response 10 (d) 10d1. http://www.biochar-international.org/node/2288 10d2. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/archive/rothamsted2010/UKBRC2010_Bell_2.pdf 10d3 http://www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/Symposium/pdf/1596.pdf RWL: Temporary stopping (half-way) point. More coming. It would be helpful to know more exactly what would be of interest. -- 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.
