Dear Ron
Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]>:
Kevin:
I have decided it best that I reply generally and not reply to
your specifics.
# If you make specific claims, as you have done, and specific
statements are made to refute them, then "general replys" don't
suffice. General replies to a specific statement are "dodging the
bullet."
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.
# Making sweeping statements about an article behind a paywall, and
then refusing to deal with my specific "counterpoints" is
"intellectual evasion." If you wish to make specific statements,
please provide teh cite to support your claims, and not just an
Abstract, with teh paper being hidden behind a paywall.
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.
# That is your unsupported opinion. A "biochar" that contained
excessive levels of toxic heavy metals would clearly be unsuitable for
use as a "Growchar", but would be an excellent "producer outlet" as
"Climatechar" or "Geochar."
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.
# Of course not, but that is not the issue! The issue is equating
"Biochar",as "Growchar", with chars that could could indeed serve a
ghood purpose as "Geochar" or as "Climatechar", while being unsuitable
for use as a "Growchar".
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.
# That is the first time I have seen you acknowledge that probable
reality. However, if "Geoengineering" or "Carbon Credits" result in
payment for application of chars to soils, contaminated chars that
don't meet "Growchar Grade Biochar Standards" can be sold as "Geochar"
or "Climatechar". In the meantime, lets focus on building a palpable
economic case for teh use of "Growchar Grade Biochar" in agriculture.
(There are serious proposals to do that for
biomass, not char.)
# Please explain how biomass application to soils can have a "climate
benefit."
d. It should be obvious to anyone reading the abstract that of
course this was a paper focussing on geoengineeering. I never
claimed otherwise.
# Look at the Subject Heading of the thread you started. At the very
best, it is misleading, in that the "general impression" of the
meaning of "biochar" is "charcoal added to the soil for an
agricultural benefit". Not a "Geoengineering benefit.
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.
# This is what we call a "strawman." Who specifically is denying that
charcoal is not an excellent means of sequestering carbon?
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.
# That is quite understandable. The "Growchar" folks are interested in
trying to find ways to use charcoaql additions to agricultural soils
for an economic benefit, while the "Geochar" or "Climatechar" folks
are interested in changing teh climate or selling char for Carbon
Credit Payments.
e. It is almost impossible to understand the argument when there is
no consistency on the meaning below of blue and black print.
# Sorry about that... my e-mailer has a mind of its own. :-) My
comments are preceeded by a # sign.
Kevin
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/
