Biochar (Re: BIO-FUELS . . .)

[Jason.C...@gmail.com]

(New topic to avoid derailing the biofuels thread completely)

>Organic soil enrichment sounds like a job for biochar:
>http://www.biochar-international.org/
>-dl

I was wondering if anyone had any more information about biochar. It
certainly seems like a win-win-win-win... deal for everyone the way
the IBI puts it. I'm not really finding any negatives in published
research either, though the Web of Science only comes up with 28
results (and only 14 of those mention biochar in their titles) and
very few citations of these results. Are there any known negatives
about biochar? Any idea of the economics involved? It almost sounds
too good to be true, though I would hope that it isn't.

-Jason

[James Annan]

On Dec 7, 8:48 am, "jason.c.pat...@gmail.com"

<Jason.C.Pat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (New topic to avoid derailing the biofuels thread completely)
>
> >Organic soil enrichment sounds like a job for biochar:
> >http://www.biochar-international.org/
> >-dl
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any more information about biochar.  It
> certainly seems like a win-win-win-win...

Well I'm pleased to say that this group is now a sufficiently useful
resource that previous messages are worth looking at, eg:

<http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/search?
group=globalchange&q=biochar&qt_g=Search+this+group>

I remain a little dubious about the practical and economic aspects of
effectively making new coal and putting it back in the ground to
offset the coal we are digging up. Of course there are transport and
location issues, but we could just burn the biofuel completely and use
that energy...

James

[Jason Patton]

I'm just as curious about the soil fertility benefits, which is what
I'm not finding too many "gotchas" for and what I think makes this
sound like a worthwhile investment. The water quality (ground and
surface) aspect is interesting too, especially being in a state that
is responsible for much of the nutrient runoff that's caused the Gulf
of Mexico hypoxic zone. It's almost like biochar is some kind of
super-liming material.

Ultimately, though, what matters is if it's economic for farms to use
it. If so, there will be a market for it and it will probably be
used, if not, then it's unlikely that it will be used much. (Barring
any governmental involvement, of course)

-Jason

[David B. Benson]

On Dec 6, 3:48 pm, "jason.c.pat...@gmail.com"
<Jason.C.Pat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

> Are there any known negatives
> about biochar? Any idea of the economics involved?

Biochar is almost surely to include some VOCs (volatile organic carbon
compounds). More than just a little of this is quite bad. Some tests
suggest that soils with 30% biochar have overdone it and radishes
won't start.

On a large scale, assuming no centralized source of dry biomass
collected for other reasons, the cost will be about $120--150 per
tonne once spreading costs are included. Very oten biowastes are
collected anyway during harvest, dropping the cost down to around $75
per tonne after spreading. Modest amounts produce impressive returns
on investment for both maize and wheat (probably other crops as well).

Here is a useful link for you:

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/

[David B. Benson]

On Dec 8, 4:41 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
> $120--150 per tonne
> $75 per tonne

These costs may be too high, even for U.S. or Europe, but I
haven't the time to work up better ones just now.

[Tom Adams]

On Dec 8 2008, 7:41 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
wrote:

Lovelock thinks its mankind's last hope:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

He was interview by Gaia Vince:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t222/inkettes/SSAG%2022Feb2007/gaiavinceframedhigh.jpg

[Tom Adams]

On Jan 23, 10:28 am, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8 2008, 7:41 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 3:48 pm, "jason.c.pat...@gmail.com"
>
> > <Jason.C.Pat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Are there any known negatives
> > > about biochar?  Any idea of the economics involved?
>
> > Biochar is almost surely to include some VOCs (volatile organic carbon
> > compounds).  More than just a little of this is quite bad.  Some tests
> > suggest that soils with 30% biochar have overdone it and radishes
> > won't start.
>
> > On a large scale, assuming no centralized source of dry biomass
> > collected for other reasons, the cost will be about $120--150 per
> > tonne once spreading costs are included.  Very oten biowastes are
> > collected anyway during harvest, dropping the cost down to around $75
> > per tonne after spreading.  Modest amounts produce impressive returns
> > on investment for both maize and wheat (probably other crops as well).
>
> > Here is a useful link for you:
>
> >http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
>
> Lovelock thinks its mankind's last hope:
>

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to...

>
> He was interview by Gaia Vince:
>

> http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t222/inkettes/SSAG%2022Feb2007/gai...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Her blog is admirable as well:

http://wanderinggaia.com/

[Tom Adams]

On Jan 23, 10:28 am, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 8 2008, 7:41 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 3:48 pm, "jason.c.pat...@gmail.com"
>
> > <Jason.C.Pat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Are there any known negatives
> > > about biochar?  Any idea of the economics involved?
>
> > Biochar is almost surely to include some VOCs (volatile organic carbon
> > compounds).  More than just a little of this is quite bad.  Some tests
> > suggest that soils with 30% biochar have overdone it and radishes
> > won't start.
>
> > On a large scale, assuming no centralized source of dry biomass
> > collected for other reasons, the cost will be about $120--150 per
> > tonne once spreading costs are included.  Very oten biowastes are
> > collected anyway during harvest, dropping the cost down to around $75
> > per tonne after spreading.  Modest amounts produce impressive returns
> > on investment for both maize and wheat (probably other crops as well).
>
> > Here is a useful link for you:
>
> >http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
>
> Lovelock thinks its mankind's last hope:
>

> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to...

>
> He was interview by Gaia Vince:
>

> http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t222/inkettes/SSAG%2022Feb2007/gai...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Five year's ago nuke plants were our last hope, according to
Lovelock. Now it's charcold.

Lovelock may be the only person in history who lost a Nobel prize by
spouting off. He made the mistake of pooh poohing CFCs in the
atmosphere after he discovered them. Two other blokes (inspired my
Lovelock's discovery) got the prize, and there is room for 3 under the
rules.

(Not to say that charcold production is a bad idea)

[Bart Verheggen]

Hansen writes about biochar in his recent Target paper:

"Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential.
Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry,
and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility
while storing carbon for centuries to millennia [84]. Biochar
helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions
of GHGs such as N2O [85]. Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture
with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry
wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2
drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century [85]."

Both references (84 and 85) are from Lehmann, who appears to be the
central figure promoting biochar solutions.

By combining biochar production with energy production from biomass
through pyrolysis, the potential in both prevented fossil fuel
emissions and carbon fixation is much greater. Pyrolysis produces 3–9
times more energy than is invested in generating the energy [Lehmann
et al., 2006]. Combined with the positive side effects on soil
fertility a.o. it seems a promising strategy, though its global
potential in terms of CO2 sequestration is probably limited by the
land available for biomass production. The net environmental effects
will also be strongly determined by how the biomass was grown.

The only negative (or better, critical) note that I've come across re
biochar is that we don't know enough about its effects on soils:
“Much remains unknown about how charcoal influences the dynamics of
native soil organic carbon and its loss as CO2. As long as this
remains the case, strong advocacy for the addition of charcoal or
biochar to soil to offset human-induced CO2 emissions remains
premature.” [Wardle et al, 2008].

Bart

On Jan 23, 8:03 pm, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:28 am, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8 2008, 7:41 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 3:48 pm, "jason.c.pat...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <Jason.C.Pat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > Are there any known negatives
> > > > about biochar?  Any idea of the economics involved?
>
> > > Biochar is almost surely to include some VOCs (volatile organic carbon
> > > compounds).  More than just a little of this is quite bad.  Some tests
> > > suggest that soils with 30% biochar have overdone it and radishes
> > > won't start.
>
> > > On a large scale, assuming no centralized source of dry biomass
> > > collected for other reasons, the cost will be about $120--150 per
> > > tonne once spreading costs are included.  Very oten biowastes are
> > > collected anyway during harvest, dropping the cost down to around $75
> > > per tonne after spreading.  Modest amounts produce impressive returns
> > > on investment for both maize and wheat (probably other crops as well).
>
> > > Here is a useful link for you:
>
> > >http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
>
> > Lovelock thinks its mankind's last hope:
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to...
>
> > He was interview by Gaia Vince:
>

> >http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t222/inkettes/SSAG%2022Feb2007/gai...Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Five year's ago nuke plants were our last hope, according to
> Lovelock.  Now it's charcold.
>
> Lovelock may be the only person in history who lost a Nobel prize by
> spouting off.  He made the mistake of pooh poohing CFCs in the
> atmosphere after he discovered them.   Two other blokes (inspired my
> Lovelock's discovery) got the prize, and there is room for 3 under the
> rules.
>

> (Not to say that charcold production is a bad idea)- Hide quoted text -