Kevin, cc list
Not sure if you bought and read the paper. If so, congratulations, but I
suggest you re-read it. If you didn’t buy it or otherwise find it in a
technical library, I hope you will.
The word “soil” appears three times - including in its definition of
biochar. The major statement reads:
"Of the three core geoengineering options, biochar performed most highly
against the co-benefit criterion, scoring moderately through its co-benefits to
agriculture, namely: improved soil conditioning; increased water retention and
related lowered irrigation demands; and increased productivity and yields.”
This (for co-benefits) is one of five rankings (out of eight) of “most
highly” (the top score reported).
The great beauty of biochar is there is zero conflict between the
“geo/climate” function and the soil improvement function - apparently difficult
for some to realize. We are going to see a lot more biochar for soil
improvement when more “geo/climate” analysts realize biochar is the best of
their options. The authors of this paper are saying so. I don’t know any
other that has, although that is pretty common for those starting to look at
biochar on the soil side.
One of my complaints about the otherwise wonderful article is they failed to
mention that biochar production also provides, not requires, energy. This
being important to the stoves list to which I am also now sending this exchange.
So in sum, you are incorrect. The article (peer-reviewed) has as much or
more on soils as you could expect in a paper with its title - and this is
ranking biochar higher even than afforestation (which was mentioned, but not in
the competition).
Ron
On Jan 5, 2014, at 7:02 AM, Kevin C <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Ron
>
> This report seems to be reporting on charcoal being used as "Geochar", or
> "Climatechar". and not on "char" or "charcoal" used as an "agricultural
> additive."
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]>:
>
>> List:
>>
>> 1. I yesterday obtained at local technical library this paper (which has
>> a fee) :
>>
>> ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for
>> tackling climate change
>> Rob Bellamy a,b,c,*, Jason Chilvers a,c, Naomi E. Vaughan a,b, Timothy M.
>> Lenton d
>>
>> Global Environmental Change;
>>
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
>>
>> 2. It provides the most favorable reporting on biochar of any comparative
>> study I have yet read. There are 8 decision criteria, ranked by a selected
>> twelve persons, for three geoengineering technologies (Biochar and Air
>> capture on the CDR side and only sulfur aerosols on the SRM side). There
>> are also a similar small number of mitigation and adaptation votes. The
>> text is much more positive on biochar than the graphs would indicate.
>>
>> 3. I will later send more on the results. Where the panel thought biochar
>> fell down (Efficacy), I think the mapping team (the paper authors) were not
>> sufficiently aware of biochar’s unique capabilities in out-year knock-on
>> effects and in being able to apply geotherapy to land we have ruined. They
>> worry about land availability; now I don’t.
>>
>> I can’t now recall how the paper came to my attention, but thanks if from
>> this list.
>>
>> Ron
>
>
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
