1 / 49

Biochar - for Climate, Soils and Energy

Ron Larson What Biochar is How to Produce Biochar Biochar's Impact on Climate and Soils Who is Opposing and Why What it Takes to Have a Big Impact The Boulder and Other Conferences The Copenhagen Conference. Biochar - for Climate, Soils and Energy. Infertile >> Fertile << Biochar.

dale
Download Presentation

Biochar - for Climate, Soils and Energy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ron Larson What Biochar is How to Produce Biochar Biochar's Impact on Climate and Soils Who is Opposing and Why What it Takes to Have a Big Impact The Boulder and Other Conferences The Copenhagen Conference Biochar - for Climate, Soils and Energy

  2. Infertile >> Fertile << Biochar

  3. How Can Biochar Be Carbon-Negative?

  4. Biochar 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 carbon-negative, serving as a 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 impact of croplands.” (International Biochar Initiative Scientific Advisory Committee) What is Biochar

  5. 1. Slow Pyrolysis traditional (dirty, low char yields) and modern (clean, high char yields) 2. Flash Pyrolysis modern, high pressure, higher char yields 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 Major Techniques:

  6. 1973 US Congress - Policy 1977 NREL – Principal Scientist 1981 UN Conference - Nairobi 1982 USAID – Sudan 1994 Retired – Charcoal-making stoves 1995 Stoves list coordinator – mostly char 2004 First learned of Terra Preta 2006 ASES Solar Today Editorial (next) 2007 Start “Terra Preta” 2007 IAI Conference – NSW, Australia 2008 IBI-1 Conference – Newcastle, UK 2009 1st North American (USBI) - Boulder Ron Larson Biochar Background

  7. CHAIR’S CORNER Ron Larson, Ph.D. Positive Charcoal = Negative Carbon? Why adding charcoal to the Earth's soils will also address climate change. “….... Better than any other national group, 25x’25 can help ChAr get the R&D start that is critically needed. I look forward to hearing from readers on other ways we can “break new ground” with the barely recognized, but, I believe, most promising potential of ChAr. “● Nov. '06 Last lines that I wrote in Nov. 2006

  8. Two very short mentions of Biochar (in two chapters). ASES, Kutscher, Overend

  9. International Agrichar Initiative 2007 Conference April 29 - May 2, 2007 Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia 100 Attendees; Sponsor - Best Energy Chair?? Stephen Joseph First day at NSW Ag station (Lukas van Zweiten) (20 attendees) Many farmers; 2/3 from Australia Change from IAI to IBI First Large (?) Biochar Meeting

  10. Opening View at www.biochar-international.org

  11. 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 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”.

  12. 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 money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?”

  13. 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) credits 2. Additional C and Non-C emissions reductions from biochar systems 3. Bioenergy co-products (syngas, bio-oil, heat) 4. Water quality impacts (reduced nutrient leaching) IBI “Keys”, part 1

  14. 5. Enhanced productivity (crop and non-crop biomass) 6. Enhanced soil water retention 7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs 8. Waste reduction, utilization, and added-value 9. Reduced soil erosion, degradation 10. Agricultural intensification, reduced land conversion 11. Distributed, on-farm systems IBI “Keys”, concluded

  15. 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 • 3: Can add significant carbon-neutral energy (in many forms) • 4: N20, H20, Jobs, Rural Economic Development, National Security, Ocean acidification

  16. Lifetime of Char vs Compost

  17. One IBI Scenario

  18. Same, Barchart Formhttp://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/final%20carbon%20wpver2.0.pdf

  19. Cost Analysis • Almost no data • Costs seem to be less than $200/ton char – possibly even $100/ton • Sales price $500/ton common; larger in small quantitities; Maybe $200-$300. • Raw material cost for NREL approx $30/ton

  20. Fast Pyrolysis Fluidized Bed Reactor (2009 in press) JE Amonette • Example with a match • In Air or in Liquid • Air: flow through updraft and downdraft • Slow (more solids) • Fast (more liquids and gases)

  21. Similar, add dryer + generator

  22. Typical Pyrolyzer – Ref. IBI

  23. Four Temperature Influences

  24. Different feedstocks (Lehmann)

  25. Soils: Benefits of using biochar in the garden, Part 1 • 1 Enhanced plant growth • 2 Suppressed methane emission • 3 Reduced nitrous oxide emission (50% ?) • 4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?) • 5 Reduced leaching of nutrients • 6 Stored carbon in a long term stable sink • 7 Reduces soil acidity: raises soil pH • 8 Reduces aluminum toxicity • Ref. http://biochar.pbworks.com/FrontPage

  26. Benefits of using biochar in the garden, concluded • 10 Increased soil aggregation due to increased fungal hyphae • 11 Improved soil water handling • 12 Increased available Ca, Mg, P, and K • 13 Increased soil microbial respiration • 14 Increased soil microbial biomass • 15 Stimulated symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legumes • 16 Increased arbuscular mycorrhyzal fungi • 17 Increased cation exchange capacity

  27. IBI Example News Items • Fertiliser demand is heating up Weekly Times Now 10/06/2009 • UK researchers aim to prove farm climate cure Reuters 10/06/2009 • Agriculture to Play a Major Role in Mitigating Climate Change; Treehugger 10/05/2009 • The Biochar debate Environmental Research Web; 10/03/2009

  28. Examples of Claimed Results • Now dozens of Improved productivity photos like these • Terra-Preta soils in Amazon – up to 2 meters deep.

  29. Stocks & Flows

  30. BiofuelWatch (BFW) Opposition -1 • First seen in Sept, 08 (Newcastle Confer'ce) • Two main: Almuth Ernsting & Rachel Smolker • Claim #1. Biochar = Biofuels (untrue) • Claim #2. Biofuels = Rainforest Destruction • considerable truth, but not for Biochar • carbon credits can control • Standards are being developed

  31. BFW Opposition, concluded • Claim #3 – Longevity in soil not proven • they no or inappropriate citations • large amount of millenial life-time data • 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

  32. Geoengineering • This perspective on geoengineering apparatus from Wall Street Street Journal 15 June, '09 Jamais Cascio

  33. Royal Society Criteria & Ranks • Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria. • Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-the-climate-a-clear-perspective-from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq

  34. Royal Society Comparison - 1

  35. Royal Society Comparison - 2

  36. Royal Society Recommendation ! • 1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation should not be formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon residence time and impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.

  37. One view in Science • “Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria.” • Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-the-climate-a-clear-perspective-from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq

  38. Recent NRC Report on Biology • "A better fundamental understanding of plant growth and productivity, as well as of how plants can be conditioned or bred to tolerate extreme conditions and adapt to climate change, will be key components in increasing food production and nutrition in all areas of agriculture to meet the needs of 8.4 billion people by 2030 (Census Bureau, 2008), while allowing adequate land for energy production and environmental services." • [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? id=12764]

  39. Convention on Biodiversity • “Therefore, given this conversion and emissions associated with degradation, the current terrestrial stock of ~2,400 Gt is possibly about 40% below the natural reservoir when at equilibrium with current climate.” http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-43-en.pdf

  40. Where the land stock exists

  41. Ten Wedges? • a. Total land area 15 G ha • b. Assumed available 2 G ha • c. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /ha-yr • d. Assumed annual carbon 10 Gt C/ha-yr • e. Assumed annual char 5 Gt C/ha-yr • f. Annual sequestered = b*e10 Gt C/yr • Aside: Conversion 10 Gt/ha = 1 kg/m2

  42. Ten Wedges? (cont'd) • Antonietti suggests 2 million plants – each operating on 10 sq km (1000 ha) • very short transport distance! • In Gha, this is exactly same as above: 2 Gha “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 excess CO2. 0.6 Gha/.3 G people = 2 ha/capita. If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr

  43. Ten Wedges? (concluded) • “Heritage CO2”: • 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) • B. For US: “owns” about 30% of the present excess CO2. 0.6 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

  44. 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) Met Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove) Had two posters (policy) • Maybe five companies Good report by Albert Bates (eco-village) • Approved Boulder (regional, not intern'l)

  45. Boulder Conference • Big plus to have USDA Secr. Tom Vilsack About 300 (essentially sold out) Sunday visit to BEC (mobile unit) • Nice response to Dave Yarrow re nutrition Same for Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove) First detailed LCA (Cornell) New method on lifetimes (Florida) • Maybe ten companies Good report in “The Economist” • Formed USBI

  46. Copenhagen • Conference of the Parties (COP-15) • Two weeks in December. • Thousands of delegates, press, NGOs • In September, dropped the word “Biochar” from the draft document • Not clear why. (claim for needed speed in getting finished)

  47. 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).

  48. 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) • 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?)

  49. Conclusion • From Markus Antonietti (Hydrocoal): • “Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken ?” • “Why not even think 'Negative'?”

More Related