A stealth effort to bury wood for carbon removal has just raised millions

[Greg Rau]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/15/1065016/a-stealth-effort-to-bury-wood-for-carbon-removal-has-just-raised-millions/

Kodama has raised more than $6 million from Bill Gates’ climate fund and other investors, as it pursues new ways to reduce wildfire risks and lock away carbon in harvested trees.

[Michael Hayes]

The CO2 emitting soil fungi will thank them.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 4:28 PM 'Greg Rau' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/15/1065016/a-stealth-effort-to-bury-wood-for-carbon-removal-has-just-raised-millions/

Kodama has raised more than $6 million from Bill Gates’ climate fund and other investors, as it pursues new ways to reduce wildfire risks and lock away carbon in harvested trees.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/E00BCE6F-D411-4424-A55A-F86018658C59%40ucsc.edu.

[Michael Hayes]

Tree bark collects a wide variety biota. Observing a pile of tree bark chips over a few years, as I have done in the past, will treat the observer to waves of different microbials moving through the pile. Mushrooms carry out what can be described as chemical warfare amongst themselves and other microbes. Tilting that battle in favor of a 'beneficial' mycelium can be rather hard.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeu.12116

The one exception is the cedar tree, it has been known by loggers for centuries that burying cedar trees will result in little to no decay. 

[Anderson, Paul]

From the article:     ”[Stirpe] also agreed to purchase about 415 tons of carbon dioxide eventually sequestered by the company for another $250,000, if that proof-of-concept project achieves certain benchmarks.”

 

That is US$602 per tonne CDR!!!!!    To bury wood.   

 

Maybe I should not offer CDR units for $100/tonne from my project in Kenya with real ag-residue biochar.  

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

         Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud

         Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Websites:    https://woodgas.com see Resources for 1) biochar white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) the Quick Picks for TLUD stove technology.  The full DrTLUD.com website is moving to woodgas.com .

                      https://capitalism21.org for societal reforms and free digital  novella “A Capitalist Carol”  with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 6:41 PM
To: Greg Rau <gr...@ucsc.edu>
Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] A stealth effort to bury wood for carbon removal has just raised millions

 

This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1ca7hn4WiE0qjiENHCX7khzT9A7XsJEV-DqfZ6xXz9ZDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[dan weinshenker]

I’m sure there are affordable measures to slow down or prevent decay. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 20, 2022, at 7:01 PM, Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/SA2PR03MB59329B5F4B5F9ECDB58C1996DBEB9%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Dan, autoclaving logs gets spendy and the sterilizion will last only until the log goes into the ground or even exposed to the air. Using antimicrobials changes the natural microbial communities in the surrounding soil. I know of no other way to stop, or even retard, microbial infections in woody debris even on a short term basis.

BTW, I'm a recently retired private forester.

Cedar is the only tree that I know of that comes with antimicrobial benefits. There may be other types of trees that do that, yet I do not know about all tree species on this planet.

Reducing the woody mass to biochar is now well known and provides ancillary benefits.

Below is a US Forest Service page on forest biochar:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/delivering-mission/apply/introducing-charboss-new-mobile-biochar-production-machine

[dan weinshenker]

I tracked down the attached article from 2008.  Seems feasible.

[dan weinshenker]

Here's another article from this year:

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 9:17 PM Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael Hayes]

Thanks, Dan

I'll skip over the forest floor biotics and look at the practical aspects, it's getting late for me.

Many folks talk about forest floor cleaning yet few have ever worked on such a crew. It is brutal hand work that uses chainsaws and winches pulling long cables (cables that destroy many of the plants in their way as do the dragged logs). However, forest floor cleaning is rather easy in tree plantations where the trees are all lined up, much like European commercial forests, yet its largely impractical in most American commercial forests that grow randomly.

BTW, I do prefer the European commercial forestry model over the US commercial forestry model. European foresters routinely collect branches that fall to keep their forest floor clean and the limbs are used for firewood. Most US forest are simply clear cut and left to regrow with some replanting involved.

Also, the personal 'vision' the first papers' author shared involves a 'network of roads' throughout a forest, yet the logging road construction that I've observed uses rather large equipment, diesel exhaust beltching mechanical monsters, and such road construction destroys a great deal of life down to the soil microbial level....for years...as such roads are typically compacted after the flora and fauna are removed. 

If this goes forward, I would recommend dumping lots of biochar in the trenches with the woody biomass....why not? The biochar will last far longer than the logs.

I could go on, yet let me end here by stating that I view this work as being overly idealized by someone who may have little if any practical experience with an actual commercial forest, atleast in the US.

As a marine side note, someone once proposed sinking logs to the bottom of the Ocean as a CDR yet I just found out that, rather remarkably, there are lignin eating microbes in the deep. 

[Ken Caldeira]

A classic relevant text on the issue of biomass burial is Metzger et al, 2002 (attached).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016136202309

It makes the argument that since biomass has a higher carbon-to-energy ratio than, say, natural gas, it would be better to bury the biomass and burn the natural gas.

If you would bury the wood and burn methane, you would reduce CO2 emissions by about twice of what you would get by burning the wood instead of the methane.

It is somewhat surrealistic to see issues that a few lone wolves were howling in the dark about several decades ago become mainstream conversations today.

Ken Caldeira

Senior Scientist (Emeritus)

Carnegie Institution for Science

Dept of Global Ecology

260 Panama St, Stanford CA 94305 USA

+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

https://climate-energy.org/

Senior Scientist, Breakthrough Energy:https://breakthroughenergy.org/our-team/ken-caldeira/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1dwEO_QPsa3VihVh4CeS%2B%3Dtx3K9BvKLZ3kXd_wiSdtxYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

System of systems engineering can often help address the shortcomings in any one of the systems being used. 

What I'm waiting to see is a forest Biochar stove that runs the emissions through a grow tank, preferable growing azolla for its nitrogen fixing ability. The plant will use the CO2 and the hydrogen will pass through. Using wood as a source of H2 fuel while generating both fertilizer and Biochar would help address the triple needs of emissions reduction via the H2 fuel, C sequestration via the Biochar, and fertilizer to regrow the plant. Forest floors typically have minimal nutrients and burying the floor waste will take the nutrients in the waste out of circulation.

Moreover, collection and burial of forest waste, IMO, offers limited benefits for a plant that can take years to double its biomass, some microalgae can double it's mass within hours or days. The use of biomass, any biomass for any reason, one must first look at the biomass doubling rate. Speaking as a recently retired private forester, most tress have one of the worst rates of biomass doubling in the plant kingdom and thus we need to maximize the long-term benefits we get from them via a system of systems approach.

[Julio Friedmann]

This basic premise, that the higher value of biomass is in carbon removal than in energy, was made in the ICEF BiCRS Roadmap (PDF link here) and recently deepened with new analysis by Woodall & McCormick (Assessing the optimal use of biomass: Carbon and energy price conditions for the Aines Principle to apply)

This is called the Aines Principle, after Dr. Roger Aines, who worked on the ICEF report.

J

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC1VXcgzLu6QQxEcUDnnoYfUVuw%2Bb15mJiA9n1YOHohiZg%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Hawkins]

The Metzger paper also estimates there would be still greater removal  benefits from burning the waste biomass and capturing and sequestering the combustion emissions (what we now call BECCS).  But, as we know, current biomass to power projects involve pelletizing whole trees and burning that without sequestration. (Drax)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAKNUXC1VXcgzLu6QQxEcUDnnoYfUVuw%2Bb15mJiA9n1YOHohiZg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chris Van Arsdale]

Maybe obvious, but it seems like an intermediate approach would be ideal over Metzger's two extremes.

While one could pelletize on site for BECCS, transporting to a power plant is going to be cost prohibitive pretty quickly, we'd then have the normal CO2 offtake problem, and lose out on nutrient recycling.

It seems easier to pyrolyze on site, and transport only the pyrolysis oil and/or gas byproduct to a power plant while burying the char. Burying entire logs (or chipped biomass) certainly simplifies the equipment in the field, but has some serious repercussions as discussed earlier in the thread.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAFQgMPbVqD9m0zCi4evhYHSMcC_9PJgNoDhSFsVCpfDhmw%2BTNA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Chis, in the near future, we may see H2 fueled heavy equipment.

https://www.forconstructionpros.com/equipment/earthmoving/article/21940605/large-machinery-oems-explore-hydrogen-future

By generating H2 in the forest and using it for forest work, as opposed to diesel, the C math will, rather obviously, significantly change.

Moreover, foresters are always looking for ways to increase their profits from a crop that takes decades to even partially mature. Short-term profits are needed in such a long-term crop cycle. By giving the forest owner relatively short-term profits without harvesting the trees may reduce the harvest of the trees. Many trees are harvested simply to pay for yearly land taxes.

[Julio Friedmann]

A quibble with David's summary.

Many emerging large BECCS projects in Europe involve burning municipal solid waste (MSW) for power and capturing that.

No pelletizing and tree harvesting involved.

As is so often the case, there's a good way and a poor way of doing something.

Best to focus on how to get the good projects done and avoid bad projects.

J

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:49 AM David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAFQgMPbVqD9m0zCi4evhYHSMcC_9PJgNoDhSFsVCpfDhmw%2BTNA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Wil Burns]

Dear Julio,

 

I’m curious which European BECCS projects are using MSW. Two of the biggest ones that I know of, the new Drax facility in the UK and Stockholm Exergi’s plant are using pellets, forest residue or imported biomass (the Stockholm project is sourcing about 30% from the Baltics). wil

 

WIL BURNS Visiting Professor Environmental Policy & Culture Program Northwestern University   Email: william...@northwestern.edu   Mobile: 312.550.3079   1808 Chicago Ave. #110 Evanston, IL 60208 Wil Burns – Faculty Website (northwestern.edu)   Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following Calendly scheduling links:  60-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/phone-call 30-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30min 15-minute phone call: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15min 30-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/30-minute-zoom-call 15-minute Zoom session: https://calendly.com/wil_burns/15-minute-zoom-call   I acknowledge and honor the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa, as well as the Menominee, Miami, and Ho-Chunk nations, upon whose traditional homelands Northwestern University stands, and the Indigenous people who remain on this land today.

 

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Julio Friedmann
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 5:33 PM
To: David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; dan weinshenker <danwein...@gmail.com>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] A stealth effort to bury wood for carbon removal has just raised millions

 

A quibble with David's summary.

Many emerging large BECCS projects in Europe involve burning municipal solid waste (MSW) for power and capturing that.

No pelletizing and tree harvesting involved.

 

As is so often the case, there's a good way and a poor way of doing something.

Best to focus on how to get the good projects done and avoid bad projects.

 

J

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:49 AM David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Metzger paper also estimates there would be still greater removal  benefits from burning the waste biomass and capturing and sequestering the combustion emissions (what we now call BECCS).  But, as we know, current biomass to power projects involve pelletizing whole trees and burning that without sequestration. (Drax)

 

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:33 PM Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:

A classic relevant text on the issue of biomass burial is Metzger et al, 2002 (attached).

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016136202309

 

It makes the argument that since biomass has a higher carbon-to-energy ratio than, say, natural gas, it would be better to bury the biomass and burn the natural gas.

 

If you would bury the wood and burn methane, you would reduce CO2 emissions by about twice of what you would get by burning the wood instead of the methane.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJi2W083kukDvFM%2BQh7o6a_afP0%2BsvqFV7Kp%3DNOWX-iMSMb-1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hawkins, David]

Thanks Julio. My comment was limited to “current biomass to power projects," by which I mean ones that are operating.  Are there in fact other operating  biomass power plants that are using waste materials and not wood?

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Julio Friedmann <fried...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 6:33:24 PM
To: David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; dan weinshenker <danwein...@gmail.com>; Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJi2W083kukDvFM%2BQh7o6a_afP0%2BsvqFV7Kp%3DNOWX-iMSMb-1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

My local MSW incinerator plant was shutdown due to pollution as it was difficult to maintain the high temps needed for a clean burn.

We now have small plasma incinerators that can generate rather clean H2/CO2 gasses and an inert gravel-like solid waste :

 June 2013

• ·
  https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=cengin_gradprojects

However, I've never run across such units being used for biomass gasification. I would like to see nations paying municipalities to install small plasma incinerators in each neighborhood as that would likely save the community lots of money and better serve the environment. Moreover, once H2 cars come online, having a neighbor H2 filling station would likely be popular....bring your trash and get fuel.

[Ning Zeng]

Dear all:  I offer some brief responses re wood burial, Wood Harvesting and Storage (WHS) and Wood Vault (WV):

- On Ken's 'lone wolf howling' comment, yes there are quite a few more people and organizations working on it seriously now, but not enough good research and guidance, IMHO.

- On preventing decomposition, WV engineering  protocol requires burying wood below the biologically active top soil and cover with low-permeability material such as clay (< 10^-8 m/s saturated hydraulic conductivity). This leads to anaerobic condition that decomposers like fungi, termites, worms and beetles can not survive. The buried wood stays in a stagnant geological state: essentially a 'reverse coal' process, accelerated by human engineering.

-  I would not touch natural forests for conservation and other reasons. However, there is plenty of sustainable wood availability. A 2013 paper (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0624-0) estimated a 2-10 GtCO2/y potential. The higher limit of 10 (< 5% of terrestrial net primary productivity and 1/4 of current FFE ) requires managed forests. Operation on existing plantation would not introduce additional disturbance to soil, while careful harvesting techniques can minimize it. The lower 2 GtCO2/y rate can be supplied with currently unexploited wood residuals, often with great co-benefits. For instance, US Forest Service estimates that 600 Mt of biomass will need to be thinned in the America West in the next 10 years, and the default plan is pile burn. Another example is urban waste wood: 36 million trees fall in US cities each year, and mostly ended in mulch piles.

- A key strength of WHS is its simplicity, which translates into its low-cost. It does not require unknown technology, but does require careful coordination and interdisciplinary considerations. It can already be scaled up now.

Best Regards and Happy New Year!

- Ning

[Michael Hayes]

Dear, Ning.

It's always a pleasure to address the actual authors, thank you for making yourself available.

I only have experience in managing a second growth mountain forest which is on glacier till, a highly permeable ground. However, whenever I dig a long trench and fill it back in, the top soil gets mixed into the sublayer material and thus I'm mixing the top biotics in with the non biotic lower soil and leaving something of a water and biotic conduit from the surface to the bottom of the trench. It typically takes a year before I can drive on top of the finished ditch without sinking into it, unless I compact it.

For me to use your method, I would have to import lots of clay to cap off the wood, compact that clay, and then cover the trench. The fuel use cost for all of that, and expensive equipment time, would be difficult to recover via a C credit. The C costs may actually exceed the C storage. In areas that have clay soil, which are typically poor crop lands the above C math and upfront economic costs would obviously be somewhat better. 

Below is a new study on the difference between dry and wet clay soil relative to buried timber that you may be interested in. In brief, clay above the water line still allows microbial migration:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964830522001500

Finally, I have access to ~450 acres of commercial forest between my land and commercial timber land owned by a power company. They are interested in C issues and take their scrap timber to a wood fired power plant. If you would like to install a test sites in a 'worst case senario' soil, I already have a truckload of fallen and stacked logs that were taken a year ago. I'm N of Seattle, a heavy commercial timber area.

Thanks again for engaging.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/e726261f-d155-4648-8a00-7cc3c89be404n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dan Galpern]

Greetings Ning,

You note that you "would not touch natural forests for conservation and other reasons," but also that the "US Forest Service estimates that 600 Mt of biomass will need to be thinned in the America West in the next 10 years." 

Do you think that the Forest Service has in mind for that quantity only the "thinning" of non-natural forests? If so, why?

Dan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/e726261f-d155-4648-8a00-7cc3c89be404n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ning Zeng]

Hi Michael, Dan: Thank you!

I host an open forum 'Conversation in the Vault' on WHS. You are most welcome to join to discuss your questions and possibilities. It is informal. The forum occurs on the first Tuesday of each month. The next event is tomorrow 4-6pm ET. The zoom link is below.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PmF851nQofV4be3COm62Mi3oo2bzj-WWKvJBQCOvLcc

Wish you a happy and prosperous new year!
-Ning