To William, Ron and group, Permit me to add some points in favor of biochar to Ron's list. He mentions that soils are a larger sink for carbon than the atmosphere, and there is a need to increase soil carbon. Indeed about half the CO2 in the atmosphere came from soil sources, and the absence of soil carbon causes many ill effects. Sterile and saline soil resulting from overuse of fertilizer which kills off microbial life, desertified soil lacking vegetation that should buffer moisture and cool landscapes, deforested lands whose soil undergoes massive oxidation of newly exposed biota; these are cases of imbalances created in the carbon cycle which need to be corrected not only to control CO2 levels but to restore hydrology to normalize climate patterns.
Biochar is a valuable tool to boost and speed the process of re-establishing soil carbon. I hope that consideration of using biochar can be put in the bigger context of the many problems that can be solved by building carbon-rich living soil in the great variety of earth's landscapes. Brian On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:59:28 PM UTC-5, Ron wrote: > > Dr. Calvin and ccs > > See few inserts below > > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:34 PM, William Calvin <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > I start from urgency: lots of climate change in a decade with something of > a hiatus in near-surface air warming. Anything effective we do will have a > lead time and then a drawdown time. > > *[RWL1: Agreed.* > > > If that is to be no more than 25 years, we have to both counter the > additional emissions (say, 350 GtC) in that period but also remove 300-400 > GtC of the existing accumulation. So we are looking at more than 30 GtC/yr > of removal from the air, some of which will come from ocean surface > bicarbonate buffers reversing. > > *[RWL2: I agree with your numbers, but have been thinking 50 years - on > the theory we should perhaps go down at about the same rate we have come > up. I think biochar could do all of the 15 Gt C/yr half, if it expands to > include ocean biomass, which is not on very many plates. I concede not > many people are thinking many GtC/yr from biochar - but there are quite a > few. I think we will want more than one CDR approach; but I have come to > the conclusion that biochar has the most potential - and can be much larger > than is generally realized. Biochar application practice is known in many > countries over millennia.* > > > This time frame says we don't have time for anything that requires time > for trees to grow or a lot of development: known processes like > photosynthesis are preferable. 30GtC/yr requires a lot of space; on land, > it requires a lot of water. That's why I suggest ocean, using local > organisms that are sunk into the depths before they can rot. > > *[RWL3: I believe the time delays will not be in finding the necessary > raw biomass in time. I predict the time delay will be in finding > the needed funding. My vision for the long term biomass supply is first ag > residues, then coppicing, then rapid-growth perennials harvested annually > (as with sugar cane), then CAM-type photosynthesis (agaves, etc). All this > possibly supported by macro and micro algae (being more photosynthetically > efficient), both freshwater and oceans. With all of this, especially > oceans, maybe 15 GtC/yr is possible. If you are correct that you can do > 30GtC/yr with push-pull ocean resource, then about the same might be > (should be??) possible with that same resource placed into soils, rather > than back in the ocean. I say the same because the CO2 amount lost in > pyrolyzing can/will be offset with out-year increased productivity > (especially through improved fungi growth). And since BECCS can be coupled > with biochar, even the initial loss can be lower.* > > * The issue of water is of course one to worry about, but biochar is > touted as saving water, which in any case is totally recaptured upon > pyrolysis. But I am totally supportive of using ocean water/nutrients to > the maximum extent possible.* > > > I've sketched out such a process using push-pull pumps driven by wind and > wave, but I would expect a Second Manhattan Project to come up with > something better. > > *[RWL4: I am only proposing that further analysis might show that one > pull pump plus pyrolysis and soil deposition might be that “something > better”. My reading on your approach suggests there will be opposition, > that would not be there if the new biomass is transferred to soils.* > > > I can see biochar etc for longer term approaches, especially for > stabilizing CO2 once drawn down. But it does not pass my Big, Quick, and > Surefire Test. > > *[RWL5: Well I suppose any CDR approach can “stabilize” - and the > most likely for that will be the one found to be least cost during > the “Second Manhattan Project”.* > * As to whether biochar passes your “Big, Quick, and Surefire test”, let > me offer these points in biochar’s favor for doing so (in addition to my > 10-15 Gt C/yr comments above):* > * a. It has the important attribute of half the carbon being available > for carbon neutral energy (of any type); most CDR approaches consume > energy.* > * b. There is more existing carbon in soils than the atmosphere and above > ground biomass combined. And there is a cry for increasing that amount > which has been generally going down every year. So there is both room for > and a need for the CDR carbon.* > * c. The practice of biochar is applicable to essentially every hectare > of the 10+ Gha available. Inland labor is also ready, and already > knowledgeable about charcoal.* > * d. There is a (small but growing) flow of funds for energy and soil > improvement already for biochar. I believe the remaining needed funds for > CDR is as low as for any other approach, including push-pull.* > * e. Looked at from the social science side, I believe there are many > more supporters than detractors. I hope that push-pull won’t have to face > international approval processes, but I think it will. I doubt biochar > will have to - hundreds or thousands of biochar tests going on now and no > complaints that I know of.* > * f. The biochar name is only 6 + years old; it is not yet well known - > but is growing very rapidly (as can be seen at > www.biochar-international.org <http://www.biochar-international.org>)* > * g. There is a longer list.* > > > *Ron * > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Ronal W. Larson > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Dr. Calvin: >> >> My apologies. I failed to add CDR in my list of benefits for >> biochar. I failed because CDR is what I usually am pushing on this list. >> A good example I found today of where some folks place biochar for >> quantity and speed (what you are after) is this figure from a respected >> ocean acidification source: >> >> http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112161#0 >> >> Note that biochar is in the upper right hand corner, where we all want >> CDR to be. I would put biochar even higher than shown, because 1) it can >> heavily impact forestry as well as agriculture, and 2) it can start with >> ocean as well as land-based resources. >> >> See also a few inserts in your response below. >> >> >> <PastedGraphic-1.png> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 6:46 AM, William Calvin <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> For energy production, ocean has a number of possibilities. >> >> *[RWL1: Yes, and we should be pushing for all of them. But I >> don’t believe that many give the three big advantages of biochar produced >> from the ocean biomass you are promoting: 1) CDR, 2) energy, 3) out year >> soil-related advantages well beyond the initial placement of char in soils. >> I am just claiming that putting that produced carbon into soil can provide >> better economics and better benefits than putting it back into the ocean.* >> >> But I am focused on hauling down the atmospheric CO2 in a manner that is >> big, quick, and sure-fire. >> >> *[RWL2: Agreed we are way behind schedule. But I think biochar >> can move as fast as any technology. All of the developing world >> understands charcoal. There are huge employment opportunities. Soil >> scientists are available the world over. Pyrolysis is one of the >> world’s oldest technologies. Projects are going in all over the place - >> and no-one is asking for permission of anybody. These are strictly private >> transactions.* >> >> No amount of cleaner energy is going to clean up the excess CO2 >> accumulation in the air, though it is a good plan for the long-run. >> >> *[RWL3. Again - I apologize for not making it clear that I was on >> the same page with you - with ocean resources being used for new biomass >> production - primarily done for CDR purposes, but also having the other two >> non-competing benefits - one being energy. Actually biochar does reduce >> the amount available for energy, but we have enough photosynthesis >> potential to handle both global carbon neutral and global carbon negative >> needs - by a huge factor (solar input being 10^4 greater than today’s >> global annual energy consumption).* >> >> * I’d still like your opinion on placing the photosynthesis products >> back on land rather than back in the ocean.* >> >> >> >> *Ron* >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Ronal W. Larson >> <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> Dr. Calvin: >>> >>> 1. I’d like to follow up on your statement below: >>> >>> *Better to get nutrients by pumping up and then pumping down the new >>> green stuff --before it can decompose-- into deep waters that take a >>> thousand years to begin resurfacing and then are spread out over 10k years.* >>> >>> >>> 2. Since you wrote on this list about push-pull pumping 13 months ago, >>> Michael Hayes and others have been talking on this list about harvesting >>> the produced ocean biomass and using it on land - probably via pyrolysis >>> and biochar. The costs would be greater than for your approach, but also >>> the benefits - in useful energy (backup for wind/solar) and soil >>> productivity improvement. Also I have seen concerns about your >>> down-pushed biomass decomposing at depth. >>> >>> 3. What are your thoughts on this single pump-up approach - with >>> CDR in soils, not deep oceans? >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2014, at 7:08 AM, William Calvin <[email protected] <javascript:>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Oops, cut and paste left out the rest. Here again: >>> A rather lame assessment. >>> >>> Solar radiation management will have a big problem: an uneven >>> application will rearrange the winds and thus precipitation. Guess who they >>> will blame for the droughts. >>> >>> Doubling forests is the right amount of carbon but keeping it from >>> returning to the air via fire and rot is impractical; we cannot even do it >>> in rain forests. >>> >>> Iron blooms sink only 25% of the carbon into deep water and less than 1% >>> into sediments. Better to get nutrients by pumping up and then pumping down >>> the new green stuff --before it can decompose-- into deep waters that take >>> a thousand years to begin resurfacing and then are spread out over 10k >>> years. >>> >>> -WHC >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley >>> <[email protected]<javascript:> >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002557 >>>> >>>> Olson gives Spoerl Lecture on geoengineering, climate change solutions >>>> <snipped by RWL> >>>> >>> -- >>> William H. Calvin >>> [email protected] <javascript:> >>> WilliamCalvin.org<http://williamcalvin.org/> >>> >>> -- >>> 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javascript:> >>> . >>> 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<javascript:> >>> . >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> William H. Calvin >> [email protected] <javascript:> >> WilliamCalvin.org<http://williamcalvin.org/> >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > William H. Calvin > [email protected] <javascript:> WilliamCalvin.org > > > -- 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.
