Bruce etal 1. Yes, 1000 t/ha is an interesting large number for biochar. I have seen numbers of 250 and 300 t C per ha for terra preta.
2. I noted this conference mainly because there are few occasions to see a full booklet of biochar abstracts prior to a biochar conference. 3. I was a little disappointed, after skimming today. There was very little on geoengineering (on CDR), and a lot called biochar that would not be allowed at most biochar conferences. The term “biochar” was being used for biomass total combustion - nothing going into soils. Better the name “bio-coal” as in one paper, but still wondering why presented at this conference. Also saw the word “Pyrochar” for the first time; had a very high conversion temperature. 4. Some of the best geoengineering work re biochar is being done in the UK - and I saw nothing from those biochar experts. There were considerable papers from Germany, which has done good biochar work, but most was on what I usually see called HTC (Hydrothermal Carbonization), but there also called “hydrochar”. An international nomenclature is not yet worked out - in part because of translation difficulties, since the English “charcoal" and “coal” have many permutations. 5. Quite a bit on biochar related to phosphorus and nitrogen retention or release, which I have not seen earlier. 6. I am afraid that most of the results confirm that biochar will be making more sense where the soils are worse than in the Nordic countries. I saw no major downers, but not as many positives as usual. Still, it is nice to see so many working on the topic - and wish I could be there to see more of the results that were promised Ron On Jan 10, 2014, at 6:27 AM, French, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding the abstracts provided in the announcement for the conference in > Finland, on page 10 of your > link:http://www.njf.nu/filebank/files/20130405$191103$fil$QsY7Gv05Ha3cMV4m3EYo.pdf > “S1-2 Soil nutrient enrichment in a half century old “Terra Preta” in > Sweden” discusses the results from biochar additions totaling 1000 t/ha after > 50 years; a good window into what might be expected for use by the ag sector > (at high latitudes?). > Bruce > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 9:36 PM > To: Ken Caldeira > Cc: RAU greg; Geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Yale blog on SRM > > Ken etal - > > see below > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Ron, > > Biochar is a storage strategy that can be applied at any scale. It is > possible that biochar could be part of a geoengineering system, but if > someone were to set up a little biochar facility in their backyard to improve > soil quality and store a little carbon while doing so, few observers would > consider this to be a "geoengineering" project. > [RWL1: Agreed, but the field tests are getting bigger rapidly. When > should anyone (especially ETC) be saying they are too big? An authoritative > report on the present status of biochar field testing is > http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Field_Studies_Final_May_2013.pdf, > which says some are on-going, with reports likely soon. Mentioned because > some are likely soon (I thought already) at 100’s of hectares. > I believe the scale of biochar use in Japan could already be called large > scale, with dozens of rice hull pyrolysis units selling biochar in large > quantities. > But (I hope obviously), I am mainly trying to explore how ETC and others > respond to the article's one sentence (below) using the words “CBD” and "any > geoengineering" > > > Similarly, geologic CO2 storage can be part of a carbon geoengineering (i.e., > CDR) system if it were hooked up to a large scale biomass energy facility, > and this were replicated at global scale, but geologic CO2 storage in itself > is not considered "geoengineering" under most definitions. > [RWL2: I recognize that the “S” in BECS or BECCS has been used to mean > both “storage” and “sequestration”. I don’t think it should make any > difference in my main question of whether the sentence I quoted below about > coupling “moratorium” with “any” includes BECS/BECCS. I think ETC would > likely say yes to a moratorium on BECS - but I am interested in opinions on > geologic storage as they might affect discussion of biochar, since both > require the same resource. I’d also appreciate hearing more on using > “storage” vs “sequestration”. > > > I would therefore advocate that biochar be considered a candidate carbon > storage medium, and argue that biochar research and experiments do not in > themselves constitute geoengineering research and experiments. I would argue > that biochar field experiments are no more geoengineering field experiments > than are, say, experiments aimed at looking at carbon stored by > reforestation, etc. > [RWL3: Of course I appreciate your efforts to resolve these semantic > issues. Thanks for your efforts there. > But I still see a difference in a) whether biochar and BECCS are > geoengineering and b) how they are to be governed. I don’t believe anybody > benefits if biochar is removed from the list of geoengineering technologies; > this is the best forum I know to compare and discuss both SRM and CDR > options. > So I have to respectively disagree with your last sentence (and I > include reforestation - which use can/must be a major part of biochar > discussions). I don’t see how biochar's inclusion should depend on”research > and experiments” (in your first sentence) and full-blown early implementation > with financial support (my goal). But maybe that was not your intent. > A little off topic, but googling to respond on “large scale”, I found an > interesting “Nordic Biochar Conference" coming up in about a month in > Finland, that I don’t think has been well publicized. Finland could be the > first country to really go large scale with biochar. See > > http://www.njf.nu/filebank/files/20130405$191103$fil$QsY7Gv05Ha3cMV4m3EYo.pdf > > Again thanks for your response and apologies for disagreeing in part. Ron > > > Best, > > Ken > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> > wrote: > Greg and list: > > 1. I’ll let others answer the “fair?” question. In general, I am pleased > with what e360.yale have been doing. > > 2. I mostly was pleased that the word “geoengineering” was mostly (not > always) preceded by “solar” in the article cited by Greg. Not pleased that > the word “CDR” never once appears. > > 3. But in the fourth paragraph from the end, we read (emphasis added): > "This led to a 2008 Convention on Biological Diversity moratorium > against iron fertilization, which in 2010 was expanded to any geoengineering." > > 4. To the best of my knowledge, there is no-one anywhere paying attention > to this “moratorium” re biochar. Biochar’s main opponents are even saying > there has not been enough testing. My question is whether ETC (which led the > CBD fight) or anyone feels we should pull the biochar community into (an > ETC-CBD) line? > > Ron > > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Barking mad or a necessity? Fair and balanced - you decide. > Greg > > http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/?goback=%2Egde_2792503_member_5827066925661843458#%21 > > > "... Raymond Pierrehumbert has called the scheme "barking mad." " > > "...Robock argues that while modeling and indoor experiments should be > pursued, outdoor field trials are problematic. "You can’t see a climate > response unless an experiment is so large as to actually be geoengineering," > Robock says." > > "Keith concludes that it "makes sense to move with deliberate haste towards > deployment of geoengineering," so long as early work supports the theoretical > promise of the technique. Caldeira is less bullish, saying, "Climate change > is not going to extinguish us as a species. Geoengineering will always be a > decision, not a necessity." " > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
