Question: What policy framework can best encourage biochar? The Australian Government has introduced carbon credits http://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi
An alternative policy framework is described at the Biochar Economy, at: http://knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/the-biochar-economy/7y50rvz9924j/88 Cheers! Sam Carana On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Tim Lenton has repeated this higher number. 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. 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). 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). > Resources that receive little/zero consideration in this paper include > a. The ocean - having an NPP roughly equal to that of land. Mangroves > have always been highly regarded for char making - and can be harvested > sustainably. Artificial nutrient upwelling and macroalgae are not > mentioned. > b. Freshwater microalgae - which provides potential access to the Gha of > deserts. > c. Fire-prevention possibilities (possibly another 1 GtC/yr) > 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.) > e. Potential for improved bioenergy species productivity (little past > emphasis by geneticists on energy crops). > f. There is little on the ability to manage forests to increase (maybe > double or triple?) annual productivity by keeping the canopy open, using > multiple species and multiple levels in forests, and employing a lot of > people for coppicing etc.. > g. Little emphasis on emphasizing the advantages of more extensive > reforestation of tropical areas - where annual productivity can triple that > in temperate zones. (But we can do both, where temperate land is idle.) > h. No assumed increase in soil productivity due to Biochar application > (and the terra preta literature talks of double and triple soil productivity > increase). > i. HTC - hydrothermal conversion (of moist resources, such as MSW, > feedlot effluent, etc) - where HTC proponents talk about a potential for > half of future carbon sequestration via that route. > j. The use of charcoal-making stoves for the half of the world now > predominantly getting their energy (very inefficiently) from biomass. This > can be expanded readily to larger scale operations presently having zero > fossil fuels. > k. The potential role of Biochar for supporting (intermittent) wind and > solar - as biomass can provide needed energy storage. > l. I believe they show soil organic carbon (SOC) decreasing - and most > Biochar analysts assume an increase. > m. Any sense of political urgency - as being pushed by the 350 ppm > movement (including Dr. Hansen) > n. No discussion of what can happen with new policies that might come > out of different politics. > > None of the above dozen possible resource expansion areas requires > cutting existing forests, nor use of peat regions. > > I am also looking into the details of the paper's comparisons with > combustion, etc. I think this may also have been conservative. For > instance if one has added annual productivity after applying char, credit > should be given for that additional annual growth (even if cut annually) and > standing biomass. I believe no such credit is given although it would be the > main claim for a new forest. > > There are a few other similar Biochar papers striving to get at the > details. It is on these details that we must now concentrate - and the > Wolff-Amonette paper contains as much or more detail as any I have seen. To > repeat, their arguments are well supported - albeit mostly using the most > conservative number in a spectrum. I am only declaring that our CDR world > is large enough to have both conservative and more optimistic views being > discussed. I would love to have further conversation with anyone on this > list re my concerns on this paper being overly conservative. > > Thanks again to Greg for bringing this excellent paper to the list's > attention. > > Ron > > ________________________________ > From: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:40:22 PM > Subject: [geo] Biochar Nature paper > > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html?WT.ec_id=EXTERNAL&WT.mc_id=NC1108CE061 > > Production of biochar (the carbon (C)-rich solid formed by pyrolysis of > biomass) and its storage in soils have been suggested as a means of abating > climate change by sequestering carbon, while simultaneously providing energy > and increasing crop yields. Substantial uncertainties exist, however, > regarding the impact, capacity and sustainability of biochar at the global > level. In this paper we estimate the maximum sustainable technical potential > of biochar to mitigate climate change. Annual net emissions of carbon > dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide could be reduced by a maximum of > 1.8 Pg CO2-C equivalent (CO2-Ce) per year (12% of current anthropogenic > CO2-Ce emissions; 1 Pg=1 Gt), and total net emissions over the course of a > century by 130 Pg CO2-Ce, without endangering food security, habitat or soil > conservation. Biochar has a larger climate-change mitigation potential than > combustion of the same sustainably procured biomass for bioenergy, except > when fertile soils are amended while coal is the fuel being offset. > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
