Transcript Introducing a New Product - Denver Climate Study Group

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
Infertile >> Fertile << Biochar
How Can Biochar Be Carbon-Negative?
What
is
Biochar
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 biocharamended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer
requirements, but also the climate and environ-mental
impact of croplands.”
(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
higher char yields
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
1977
1981
1982
1994
1995
2004
2006
2007
2007
2008
2009
US Congress - Policy
NREL – Principal Scientist
UN Conference - Nairobi
USAID – Sudan
Retired – Charcoal-making stoves
Stoves list coordinator – mostly char
First learned of Terra Preta
ASES Solar Today Editorial (next)
Start “Terra Preta”
IAI Conference – NSW, Australia
IBI-1 Conference – Newcastle, UK
1st North American (USBI) - Boulder
Last lines that I wrote in Nov. 2006
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
ASES, Kutscher, Overend
Two very short
mentions of
Biochar (in two
chapters).
First Large (?) Biochar Meeting
–
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
Opening View at
www.biochar-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
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, cont'd
guardian.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?”
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) 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”, concluded
5. Enhanced productivity (crop and non-crop
biomass)
6. Enhanced soil water retention
7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs
8. Waste reduction, utilization, and addedvalue
9. Reduced soil erosion, degradation
10. Agricultural intensification, reduced land
conversion
11. Distributed, on-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
3: Can add significant carbon-neutral
energy (in many forms)
4: N20, H20, Jobs, Rural Economic
Development, National Security, Ocean
acidification
Lifetime of Char vs Compost
One IBI Scenario
Same, Barchart Form
http://www.biocharinternational.org/sites/default/files/final%20carbon%20
wpver2.0.pdf
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
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)
Similar, add dryer + generator
Typical Pyrolyzer – Ref. IBI
Four Temperature Influences
Different feedstocks (Lehmann)
Soils: Benefits of using biochar in
the garden, Part 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Enhanced plant growth
Suppressed methane emission
Reduced nitrous oxide emission (50% ?)
Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)
Reduced leaching of nutrients
Stored carbon in a long term stable sink
Reduces soil acidity: raises soil pH
Reduces aluminum toxicity
Ref. 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 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
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
Examples of Claimed Results
• Now dozens of
Improved productivity
photos like these
• Terra-Preta soils in
Amazon – up to
2 meters deep.
Stocks & Flows
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
BFW Opposition, concluded
•
•
Claim #3 – Longevity in soil not proven
–
–
Claim #4 – Increased productivity
unproven
–
–
•
they no or inappropriate citations
large amount of millenial life-time data
selective negative citations
ignore/deny all of Terra Preta
Claim #5 – Toxicity
–
–
–
only supposition, zero neative data
Char now used medicinally
excellent absorber
Geoengineering
• This perspective on
geoengineering
apparatus
from Wall Street
Street Journal
15 June, '09
Jamais Cascio
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/geoengi
neering-the-climate-a-clear-perspectivefrom-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
Royal Society Comparison - 1
Royal Society Comparison - 2
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.
One view in Science
•
“Using
•
Read more:
http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengi
neering-the-climate-a-clear-perspectivefrom-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
biochar to sequester
carbon dioxide is also surprisingly
low against all four criteria.”
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]
•
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
Where the land stock exists
Ten Wedges?
a. Total land area
b. Assumed available
15 G ha
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*e
Aside: Conversion
10 Gt C/yr
10 Gt/ha = 1 kg/m2
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
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
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)
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
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)
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
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?)
Conclusion
From Markus Antonietti (Hydrocoal):
“Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken
?”
“Why not even think 'Negative'?”