biochar - for climate, soils and energy
TRANSCRIPT
Biochar - for Climate, Soils and Energy
Ron Larson
What Biochar isWhat Biochar isHow to Produce Biochar
Biochar's Impact on Climate and SoilsWho is Opposing and Why
What it Takes to Have a Big ImpactThe Boulder and Other Conferences
The Copenhagen Conference
for Climate, Soils and Energy
Ron Larson
What Biochar isWhat Biochar isHow to Produce Biochar
Biochar's Impact on Climate and SoilsWho is Opposing and Why
What it Takes to Have a Big ImpactThe Boulder and Other Conferences
The Copenhagen Conference
Infertile >> Fertile << BiocharInfertile >> Fertile << Biochar
How Can Biochar Be CarbonHow Can Biochar Be Carbon-Negative?
What is BiocharBiochar is a fine-grained charcoal high in organic carbon and largely resistant to decomposition. It is produced from pyrolysis of plant and waste feedstocks. As a soil amendment, biochar creates a recalcitrant soil carbon pool that is carbonnet withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in highly recalcitrant soil carbon stocks. The enhanced nutrient retention capacity of biocharamended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer requirements, but also the climate and environimpact of croplands.”
(International Biochar Initiative Scientific Advisory Committee)
What is Biochargrained charcoal high in organic
carbon and largely resistant to decomposition. It is produced from pyrolysis of plant and waste
As a soil amendment, biochar creates a recalcitrant soil carbon pool that is carbon-negative, serving as a net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in highly recalcitrant soil carbon stocks. The enhanced nutrient retention capacity of biochar-amended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer requirements, but also the climate and environ-mental
(International Biochar Initiative Scientific Advisory Committee)
Major Techniques:
1. Slow Pyrolysis traditional (dirty, low char yields) and modern (clean, high char yields)
2. Flash Pyrolysis modern, high pressure, higher char yieldshigher char yields
3. Fast Pyrolysis modern, maximizes bioproduction, low char yields
4. Hydrothermal Carbonization under development, wet feedstock, high pressure, highest “char” yield, a different char
Major Techniques:
1. Slow Pyrolysis traditional (dirty, low char yields) and modern (clean, high char yields)
2. Flash Pyrolysis modern, high pressure,
3. Fast Pyrolysis modern, maximizes bio-oil production, low char yields
4. Hydrothermal Carbonization under development, wet feedstock, high pressure, highest “char” yield, a different char
Ron Larson Biochar Background� 1973 US Congress � 1977 NREL – Principal Scientist� 1981 UN Conference � 1982 USAID – Sudan� 1994 Retired – Charcoal
1995 Stoves list coordinator � 1995 Stoves list coordinator � 2004 First learned of Terra Preta� 2006 ASES Solar Today Editorial (next)� 2007 Start “Terra Preta”� 2007 IAI Conference � 2008 IBI-1 Conference � 2009 1st North American (USBI)
Ron Larson Biochar Background1973 US Congress - Policy
Principal Scientist1981 UN Conference - Nairobi
SudanCharcoal-making stoves
1995 Stoves list coordinator – mostly char1995 Stoves list coordinator – mostly char2004 First learned of Terra Preta2006 ASES Solar Today Editorial (next)2007 Start “Terra Preta”2007 IAI Conference – NSW, Australia
1 Conference – Newcastle, UKNorth American (USBI) - Boulder
Last lines that I wrote in Nov. 2006
CHAIR’S CORNERRon Larson, Ph.D.
Positive Charcoal = Negative Carbon?Why adding charcoal to the Earth's soilswill also address climate change.
“….... Better than any other national 25x’25 can help ChAr get the R&D start that is critically needed.
I look forward to hearingother ways we can “breathe barely recognized,promising potential of ChAr
Last lines that I wrote in Nov. 2006
Positive Charcoal = Negative Carbon?Why adding charcoal to the Earth's soilswill also address climate change.
Better than any other national group, 25x’25 can help ChAr get the R&D start that is
hearing from readers on“break new ground” with
but, I believe, mostChAr. “● Nov. '06
ASES, Kutscher, Overend
Two very shortTwo very shortmentions ofBiochar (in two chapters).
ASES, Kutscher, Overend
First Large (?) Biochar Meeting
– International Agrichar Initiative 2007 Conference
April 29 - May 2, 2007 Terrigal, New South Wales, AustraliaTerrigal, New South Wales, Australia
100 Attendees; Sponsor Chair?? Stephen Joseph
First day at NSW Ag station (Lukas van Zweiten) (20 attendees)Many farmers; 2/3 from AustraliaChange from IAI to IBI
First Large (?) Biochar Meeting
International Agrichar Initiative 2007 Conference
May 2, 2007 Terrigal, New South Wales, AustraliaTerrigal, New South Wales, Australia
100 Attendees; Sponsor - Best EnergyChair?? Stephen Joseph
First day at NSW Ag station (Lukas van Zweiten) (20 attendees)Many farmers; 2/3 from Australia
Opening View at www.biochar-international.org
Opening View at international.org
James Lovelock guardian.co.uk; 24 March 2009
“I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eaten”.
James Lovelock ; 24 March 2009
“I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon
industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things
James Lovelock, cont'dguardian.co.uk; 24 March 2009
“There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?”
James Lovelock, cont'd; 24 March 2009
“There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2
IBI “Keys”, part 1
The keys to advancing biochar are recognition of biochar’s climate benefits, and the elucidation of biochar’s many value streams, including:
1. Biochar sequestration, and possible carbon (C) credits2. Additional C and Non-from biochar systems3. Bioenergy co-products (syngas, bio4. Water quality impacts (reduced nutrient leaching)
IBI “Keys”, part 1
The keys to advancing biochar are recognition of biochar’s climate benefits, and the elucidation of biochar’s many value streams, including:
1. Biochar sequestration, and possible carbon
-C emissions reductions
products (syngas, bio-oil, heat)4. Water quality impacts (reduced nutrient
IBI “Keys”, concluded
5. Enhanced productivity (crop and nonbiomass)6. Enhanced soil water retention7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs8. Waste reduction, utilization, and addedvalue9. Reduced soil erosion, degradation10. Agricultural intensification, reduced land conversion11. Distributed, on-farm systems
IBI “Keys”, concluded
5. Enhanced productivity (crop and non-crop
6. Enhanced soil water retention7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs8. Waste reduction, utilization, and added-
9. Reduced soil erosion, degradation10. Agricultural intensification, reduced land
farm systems
Biochar Claims, Simplified List
� 1: Will remove Carbon From Atmosphere – in Gigaton per year levels (Gt C/yr)
� 2: Will restore soil carbon and increase soil productivity soil productivity
3: Can add significant carbonenergy (in many forms)
� 4: N20, H20, Jobs, Rural Economic Development, National Security, Ocean acidification
Biochar Claims, Simplified List
1: Will remove Carbon From Atmosphere in Gigaton per year levels (Gt C/yr)2: Will restore soil carbon and increase
3: Can add significant carbon-neutral energy (in many forms)
4: N20, H20, Jobs, Rural Economic Development, National Security, Ocean
Lifetime of Char vs CompostLifetime of Char vs Compost
One IBI ScenarioOne IBI Scenario
Same, Barcharthttp://www.biochar
international.org/sites/default/files/final%20carbon%20wpver2.0.pdf
Barchart Formhttp://www.biochar-
international.org/sites/default/files/final%20carbon%20wpver2.0.pdf
Cost Analysis
� Almost no data
� Costs seem to be less than $200/ton char possibly even $100/tonpossibly even $100/ton
� Sales price $500/ton common; larger in small quantitities; Maybe $200
� Raw material cost for NREL approx $30/ton
Cost Analysis
Costs seem to be less than $200/ton char –possibly even $100/tonpossibly even $100/ton
Sales price $500/ton common; larger in small quantitities; Maybe $200-$300.
Raw material cost for NREL approx
Fast Pyrolysis Fluidized Bed Reactor (2009 in press) JE
� Example with a match� In Air or in Liquid� Air: flow through updraft and downdraft
� Slow (more solids)� Fast (more liquids and gases)� Fast (more liquids and gases)
Fluidized Bed Reactor (2009 in press) JE Amonette
Example with a match
Air: flow through updraft and downdraft
Fast (more liquids and gases)Fast (more liquids and gases)
Similar, add dryer + generatorSimilar, add dryer + generator
Typical Pyrolyzer Typical Pyrolyzer – Ref. IBI
Four Temperature InfluencesFour Temperature Influences
Different feedstocks (Lehmann)Different feedstocks (Lehmann)
Soils: Benefits of using biochar in the garden, Part 1
1 Enhanced plant growth 2 Suppressed methane emission3 Reduced nitrous oxide emission (50% ?) 4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)5 Reduced leaching of nutrients6 Stored carbon in a long term stable sink7 Reduces soil acidity: raises soil pH 8 Reduces aluminum toxicity
Ref. http://biochar.pbworks.com/FrontPage
Soils: Benefits of using biochar in the garden, Part 1
1 Enhanced plant growth 2 Suppressed methane emission3 Reduced nitrous oxide emission (50% ?) 4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)5 Reduced leaching of nutrients6 Stored carbon in a long term stable sink
Reduces soil acidity: raises soil pH 8 Reduces aluminum toxicity
http://biochar.pbworks.com/FrontPage
•Benefits of using biochar in the garden, concluded
10 Increased soil aggregation due to increased fungal hyphae
11 Improved soil water handling12 Increased available Ca, Mg, P, and K13 Increased soil microbial respiration13 Increased soil microbial respiration14 Increased soil microbial biomass15 Stimulated symbiotic nitrogen fixation in
legumes16 Increased arbuscular mycorrhyzal fungi17 Increased cation exchange capacity
Benefits of using biochar in the garden, concluded
10 Increased soil aggregation due to increased
11 Improved soil water handling12 Increased available Ca, Mg, P, and K13 Increased soil microbial respiration13 Increased soil microbial respiration14 Increased soil microbial biomass15 Stimulated symbiotic nitrogen fixation in
16 Increased arbuscular mycorrhyzal fungi17 Increased cation exchange capacity
IBI Example News Items• Fertiliser demand is heating up
Weekly Times Now 10/06
• UK researchers aim to prove farm climate cureReuters 10/06/2009Reuters 10/06/2009
• Agriculture to Play a Major Role in Mitigating Climate Change; Treehugger 10/05/2009
• The Biochar debateEnvironmental Research Web; 10/03/2009
IBI Example News ItemsFertiliser demand is heating up
06/2009
UK researchers aim to prove farm climate cure
Agriculture to Play a Major Role in Mitigating Climate Change; Treehugger 10/05/2009
Environmental Research Web; 10/03/2009
Examples of Claimed Results
• Now dozens ofImproved productivityphotos like these
• Terra-Preta soils inAmazon – up to2 meters deep.
Examples of Claimed Results
Stocks & Flows
BiofuelWatch (BFW) Opposition • First seen in Sept, 08 (Newcastle
Confer'ce)
• Two main: Almuth ErnstingSmolker
• Claim #1. Biochar =
• Claim #2. Biofuels = Rainforest Destruction
– considerable truth, but not for – carbon credits can control– Standards are being developed
BiofuelWatch (BFW) Opposition -1First seen in Sept, 08 (Newcastle
Ernsting & Rachel
= Biofuels (untrue)
= Rainforest
considerable truth, but not for Biocharcarbon credits can controlStandards are being developed
BFW Opposition, concluded
• Claim #3 – Longevity in soil not proven – they no or inappropriate citations– large amount of millenial life
• Claim #4 – Increased productivity • Claim #4 – Increased productivity unproven
– selective negative citations– ignore/deny all of Terra Preta
• Claim #5 – Toxicity– only supposition, zero neative data– Char now used medicinally– excellent absorber
BFW Opposition, concluded
Longevity in soil not proven they no or inappropriate citationslarge amount of millenial life-time data
Increased productivity Increased productivity
selective negative citationsignore/deny all of Terra Preta
only supposition, zero neative dataChar now used medicinallyexcellent absorber
Geoengineering
• This perspective ongeoengineeringapparatusfrom Wall StreetStreet JournalStreet Journal15 June, '09
Jamais Cascio
Geoengineering
Royal Society Criteria & Ranks
• Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria.
• Read more: • Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-the-climate-from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
Royal Society Criteria & Ranks
Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four
http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengi-a-clear-perspective-
society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
Royal Society Comparison Royal Society Comparison - 1
Royal Society Comparison Royal Society Comparison - 2
Royal Society Recommendation !
• 1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as and ocean fertilisation formally accepted as methods for formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon residence timeand impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.
Royal Society Recommendation !
1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as biocharand ocean fertilisation should not be formally accepted as methods for formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their
carbon residence timeand impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.
One view in Science
• “Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria.”low against all four criteria.”
• Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-the-climate-from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
One view in Science
Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria.”low against all four criteria.”
http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengi-a-clear-perspective-
society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
Recent NRC Report on Biology• "A better fundamental
growth and productivity,plants can be conditionedextreme conditions andchange, will be key componentsfood production and nutritionfood production and nutritionagriculture to meet thepeople by 2030 (Censusallowing adequate landand environmental services
• [http://www.nap.edu/catalogid=12764]
•
Recent NRC Report on Biologyfundamental understanding of plant
productivity, as well as of howconditioned or bred to tolerate
and adapt to climatecomponents in increasing
nutrition in all areas ofnutrition in all areas ofthe needs of 8.4 billion
(Census Bureau, 2008), whileland for energy productionservices."
edu/catalog.php?
Convention on Biodiversity
“Therefore, given this conversion and emissions associated with degradation, the current terrestrial stock of ~2,400 Gt is possibly about 40%is possibly about 40%reservoir when at equilibrium with current climate.”
http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-43-en.pdf
Convention on Biodiversity
Therefore, given this conversion and emissions associated with degradation, the current terrestrial stock of ~2,400 Gt
40% below the natural 40% below the natural reservoir when at equilibrium with
http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd
Where the land stock existsWhere the land stock exists
Ten Wedges?
a. Total land areab. Assumed available
c. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /hac. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /had. Assumed annual carbon 10 Gt C/hae. Assumed annual char
f. Annual sequestered =
Aside: Conversion
Ten Wedges?
15 G ha2 G ha
c. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /ha-yrc. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /ha-yrd. Assumed annual carbon 10 Gt C/ha-yre. Assumed annual char 5 Gt C/ha-yr
f. Annual sequestered = b*e 10 Gt C/yr
10 Gt/ha = 1 kg/m2
Ten Wedges? (cont'd)
Antonietti suggests 2 million plants operating on 10 sq km (1000 ha)
• very short transport distance!• In Gha, this is exactly same as above: 2
GhaGha
“Heritage CO2”: Assume 2 1/3 ha per capita = 3000 m2 (if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)
For US: “owns” about 30% of the present excess CO2. 0.6 Ghaha/capita. If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr
Ten Wedges? (cont'd)
suggests 2 million plants – each operating on 10 sq km (1000 ha)very short transport distance!
, this is exactly same as above: 2
“Heritage CO2”: Assume 2 Gha/6 G people = 1/3 ha per capita = 3000 m2 (if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)
For US: “owns” about 30% of the present Gha/.3 G people = 2
ha/capita. If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr
Ten Wedges? (concluded)“Heritage CO2”:
A. For world: Assume 2 = 1/3 ha per capita = 3000 m2 /capita
(if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)(if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)
B. For US: “owns” about 30% of the present excess CO2. 0.6 Gha= 2 ha/capita = 20,000 m2 per person
( If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr per person)
C. In char terms : half these amounts in kg
Ten Wedges? (concluded)
A. For world: Assume 2 Gha/6 G people = 1/3 ha per capita = 3000 m2 /capita
(if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)(if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)
B. For US: “owns” about 30% of the present Gha/.3 G people
= 2 ha/capita = 20,000 m2 per person ( If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr per person)
C. In char terms : half these amounts in kg
Newcastle Conference (Sept. 08)
• Biggest name was Tim Flannery (Aus)About 200 (a full house in City council)No early site visits
• Traveled with Andrew Heggie (forester)• Traveled with Andrew Heggie (forester)Met Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove)Had two posters (policy)
• Maybe five companiesGood report by Albert Bates (eco
• Approved Boulder (regional, not intern'l)
Newcastle Conference (Sept. 08)
Biggest name was Tim Flannery (Aus)About 200 (a full house in City council)
Traveled with Andrew Heggie (forester)Traveled with Andrew Heggie (forester)Met Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove)Had two posters (policy)
Maybe five companiesGood report by Albert Bates (eco-village)
Approved Boulder (regional, not intern'l)
Boulder Conference
• Big plus to have USDA About 300 (essentially sold out)Sunday visit to BEC (mobile unit)
• Nice response to Dave Yarrow re nutritionSame for Nathaniel MulcahySame for Nathaniel MulcahyFirst detailed LCA (Cornell)New method on lifetimes (Florida)
• Maybe ten companiesGood report in “The Economist”
• Formed USBI
Boulder Conference
Big plus to have USDA Secr. Tom VilsackAbout 300 (essentially sold out)Sunday visit to BEC (mobile unit)
Nice response to Dave Yarrow re nutritionMulcahy (World Stove)Mulcahy (World Stove)
First detailed LCA (Cornell)New method on lifetimes (Florida)
Maybe ten companiesGood report in “The Economist”
CopenhagenConference of the Parties (COP
Two weeks in December.Thousands of delegates, press,
NGOsNGOs
In September, dropped the word “Biochar” from the draft documentNot clear why. (claim for needed
speed in getting finished)
CopenhagenConference of the Parties (COP-15)
Two weeks in December.Thousands of delegates, press,
In September, dropped the word ” from the draft document
Not clear why. (claim for needed speed in getting finished)
Ideas from Peak Oil Conference
1. “We” have been ignoring the Peak Oil driver too much. Probable peak last year. General agreement very soon if not already.
2. Shale gas may not be the panacea claimed. Huge differences in views by experts.
3. Almost no mention of climate topics.
4. Almost no mention of Biomass (or other).
Ideas from Peak Oil Conference
1. “We” have been ignoring the Peak Oil driver too much. Probable peak last year. General agreement very soon if not already.
2. Shale gas may not be the panacea claimed. Huge differences in views by
3. Almost no mention of climate topics.
4. Almost no mention of Biomass (or other).
Ideas from Peak Oil Conference
5. Biochar can make a huge contribution on Peak Oil (use of non-char portion of biomass)
6. Need to emphasize water more (not much needed to char; HTC produces water)needed to char; HTC produces water)
7. Need to emphasize small scale; low capital
8. Look again at EROEI (Use 30 GJ/t C?) 7 Gt C/yr goes with 500 Quads/yr = 500 EJ/yr. So 500E18/7E9 t C = 70 GJ/t Carbon. Off roughly by factor of 2 (the non
Ideas from Peak Oil Conference
5. Biochar can make a huge contribution on char portion of biomass)
6. Need to emphasize water more (not much needed to char; HTC produces water)needed to char; HTC produces water)
7. Need to emphasize small scale; low capital
8. Look again at EROEI (Use 30 GJ/t C?) 7 Gt C/yr goes with 500 Quads/yr = 500 EJ/yr. So 500E18/7E9 t C = 70 GJ/t Carbon. Off roughly by factor of 2 (the non-char energy?)
Conclusion
From Markus Antonietti (Hydrocoal):
“Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken “Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken ?”
“Why not even think 'Negative'?”
Conclusion
From Markus Antonietti (Hydrocoal):
“Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken “Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken
“Why not even think 'Negative'?”