Kevin: I have decided it best that I reply generally and not reply to your specifics. The reasons:
a. It will encourage you and others to write long comments on articles they have not read. I’ll bet there is a technical library somewhere near - or write the authors. b. You are trying to encourage use of the words “climatechar” and “geochar” that are nonsense words and will lead to confusion where none should exist. c. I don’t think you will ever agree that when biochar is placed in the ground you get two benefits automatically. There is no conflict between a CDR benefit and a soil benefit. That is me talking, not the article (which you have to read to understand). No one is going to put char in soil (only then called biochar) or anywhere for climate reasons alone. (There are serious proposals to do that for biomass, not char.) d. It should be obvious to anyone reading the abstract that of course this was a paper focussing on geoengineeering. I never claimed otherwise. What I did claim will not be good news to climate and biochar deniers - that biochar appears now to be at the top of the CDR alternatives. Four years ago it was near the bottom. I am talking CDR, not soil; these are different communities. Very different. With commensurate objectives. Who are not talking to each other. e. It is almost impossible to understand the argument when there is no consistency on the meaning below of blue and black print. Ron On Jan 5, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Kevin C <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]>: > >> >> 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 Paper is $39.95. I have not bought or read it; I have read only the > Abstract. >> >> The word “soil” appears three times - including in its definition of >> biochar. > > # What is tehir 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 is clearly a paper tailored for "Geoengineering Interests". The "char > material" suitable for meeting "Geoengineering Interests" can be very > different for teh char meeting "agricultural interests." It is deceptive, > misleading, and impractical to require or infer that "Geochar" is teh same as > "Biochar intended for agriculture" >> >> 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. > > # Are they simply saying "Biochar can be used in Agriculture, and it won't > interfere with out Geoengineering objectives"??? > > 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. > > # Are they saying "Once we get going with Geoengineering, a lot of char will > get used in Agriculture."??? If so, I would suggest they have "the cart > before the horse." > > The authors of this paper are >> saying so. > > # This is clearly a Geoengineering Paper, wrtitten by people with a > "Geoengineering Agenda." There is no indication that they know anything about > teh economic potential of "biochar" to be of direct benefit to the Farmer or > Grower. > > 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. > > # If they have overlooked the fact that there is energy released in the > charring process, this suggests that they know very little about it. >> >> So in sum, you are incorrect. > > # My statement was: >>> 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." > Based on the information contained in the Abstract, it isw difficult to see > where I am significantly in error. > > The article (peer-reviewed) > > # If the article was "peer reviewed" by "Geoengineering Peers", that does not > necesarily mean that ""biochar" is good for soils. It only means that > "biochar" is good for Geoengineering. > > 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). > > # An 11 page article on Geoengineering, that mentions "soils" only three > times cannot be considered as a strong recommender for the use of "biochar" > in agriculture. How could they "... rank biochar even higher than > afforestation....", when afforestation was not even in the competition??? > > # "Geochar" or "Climatechar" could be an excellent market for chars that were > unsuitable or inappropriate for use as "Growchar". I would suggest that "The > Char Market" would be better off if these different uses for char were > segregated. > > Kevin > > >> >> 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/
