Is biochar being funded as a carbon capture technology?

[Terry Mock]

Is biochar being funded as a carbon capture technology? If not, why? If so, please provide examples.

 

Why does the http://sites.google.com/site/pnwbiochar/sustainability-protocol page state under Protocol Guiding Principles that biochar "Does not require subsidies for profit"?

 

Thanks,

 

Terry Mock

Executive Director

Sustainable Land Development International

www.SLDI.org

http://blog.sldi.org/2009/03/03/beyond-the-bailout-%e2%80%a6-a-bigger-problem%e2%80%a6-and-a-solution/

---

 

The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/science/earth/01carbon.html?_r=1

A Bid to Cut Emissions Looks Away From Coal

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: October 31, 2009

WASHINGTON — As Congress debates legislation to slow global warming by limiting emissions, engineers are tinkering with ways to capture and store carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas.

But coal-fired power plants, commonly identified as the nation’s biggest emissions villain, may not be the best focus...

Carbon dioxide typically makes up only 10 percent to 12 percent of a coal plant’s emissions, they note, and the gas is so mixed with pollutants that it is difficult to separate.

Cheaper strategies for sequestering carbon dioxide could prove especially important if Congress passes a law setting up a so-called cap-and-trade system...

Last month, the Energy Department announced $44 million in grants to develop the technology, known generally as carbon capture.

...biomass fuels, derived from wood, waste and alcohol, could offer an even better opportunity for carbon capture. If an electric plant burns wood chips or other plant material in place of coal, it produces a stream of smoke from which carbon dioxide can be taken and then injected deep into the earth.

The advantage is that if a tree is cut down and burned in a boiler, a new tree can grow in its place, and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That makes the process “carbon negative;” for each ton burned, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will decline...

[John]

Terry,

1. I know of no current funding of biochar as carbon capture
technology. I would say the reason for this is that the biochar
platform has not been fully accepted and still requires a rigorous set
of protocols and methodologies --Full Life Cycle Analysis Standards--
in order to qualify for such funding...

2. The reason that it is stated under the Protocol Guiding
Principles that biochar "Does not require subsidies for profit" is
that (in my opinion) biochar needs to stand on its own merits and
value streams. We need to prove the value of biochar production and
use to society. I do not see subsidy payments as a means to achieving
this, nor do I see research grants as subsidies. Further research
certainly should supported with grant money. What I am talking about
here --"Does not require subsidies for profit"-- is not to mean that
biochar projects should not see money for carbon capture. Carbon
capture is part of biochar's value stream-- we simply should not
expect society to subsidize biochar projects in the same way we
subsidize commodity agriculture and fossil fuels. We should prove that
our projects are carbon negative and then we should expect to be payed
the value of the recalcitrant carbon. Some projects should receive
funding for research --relatively short term grants, not long term
subsidies. The hope would be that the initial funding of certain
projects would lead to actual value being attributed to biochar. In
my opinion out of hand subsidizing in agriculture and energy has been
a colossal environmental mistake and it would likely cause real
problems for biochar. We must prove a real value in biochar to
society and then base our ability to develop biochar projects on that
value...





On Nov 2, 7:11 am, "Terry Mock" <tm...@sldi.org> wrote:colossal
colossal