Re: [biochar] [soil-age] Biochar cost estimates to remove 100 ppm CO2 [1 Attachment]

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Erich Knight

unread,
Jan 20, 2015, 8:11:40 AM1/20/15
to biochar, se-bi...@googlegroups.com, Soil Age
My question is about considering the out-year benefits. 
Next year or next crop cycle with no char additions, what can be expected?
At best ROI doubles with no additional incurred cost, or some fraction of that first year return.

This seems a most persuasive sales tool. A sort of compounding interest on char investments made.
How long does it last?, At what rate does it decline?, How soon must a reinvestment be made to maintain these returns?

These same questions need to be answered for SOC increases & GHG emissions reductions. How many more earth worms, microbes and fungi? For how long?

My single char applications in 2009 maintained an elevated earth worm count for the two years I counted them, The second year soy planting showed about the same 20% increases in yield as the first year corn plantings.

The field, now in pasture grass, shows no obvious differences in grass growth six years later, but these questions make me want to pull out my spade & soil screen and recount my worms for my own edification.

Cheers,

Erich

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA. 22840
  540-289-9750   

Policy & Community Chairman
2013 North American Biochar Symposium
Harvesting Hope: The Science & Synergies of Biochar
October 13-16, 2013 at UMASS Amherst
http://pvbiochar.org/2013-symposium/


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:32 AM, 'Ronal W. Larson' rongre...@comcast.net [biochar] <bio...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from Ronal W. Larson included below]

Rick and List:

1.  Disclaimers:  
a.  I know Rick Wilson a little.  
b.  I would not normally continue a dialog from and about a commercial company; that is not the purpose of this list.  But the attachment discussed below has characteristics that can benefit and advance all biochar companies and research.  This list is definitely about that.  I hope other companies will supply detail like we find in this attachment.  The specific document (his attachment noted below) might get lost in second transmission, so it can be found also at:
c.  CP’s success or failure is more apt to influence other biochar companies than any other activity I see on the horizon.  Best we know how they are proceeding.

2.   For ease of others, I include the table from Rick’s attachment:    
The main point of the table is the bottom-most number - 66%  (the ratio of the roughy $5k net return difference in the next to bottom row to the roughly $7.5k difference in total operating cost just above it).  This would seem to be a fine return for most of us, but of course has some risk. 

        I hope Rick can tell us what is wrong with reporting a much larger return by dividing the same $5k net return difference by the $1.6k cost of the biochar.   This gives a 300+% percent return, not 66% (I’m trying to help future salespersons here).   I understand the difference between dividing by about $7.5k and $1.6k, but most of the risk is in the $1.6k portion.
3.  I also changed over to a square meter basis (using 4047 sqm in an acre and that a tray is 12 pints = 12 pounds).  Then a sqm yields about 12*1.85  = 22.2 lbs  (almost exactly 10 kg), making each pound of strawberries have a production cost of about 69 cents  (about 25-30% of what I often pay).  The biochar cost for the square meter is about 40 cents,  for a tray about 21 cents and for a pound less than 2 cents.  That 2 cent additional cost for the biochar was able to reduce the cost of producing a tray by 52 cents, meaning that the profit per tray jumps by 52 cents from 69 cents to $1.21 - a profit increase of 76%.  Why this is not 66% or 300% is not clear to me,  but again one of Rick’s salespersons might want to use this number.  A large super market should love biochar for its providing more reason to give less to the grower.   Maybe even insist on biochar being used?
I use small (1 sqm) areas and pounds (not trays) to give myself a better sense of what is happening with the $1600 extra per acre for the char.  I hope I have not made any errors in these conversions.  If anything, I feel Rick and CP are undervaluing the return to a farmer.

4.   In small print at the bottom of the above table is the name David Holden.  Easy to find his firm by googling, where he mentions his work for CP and Rick by giving this cite: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/12/11/cool-planet-a-company-that-makes-biochar-and-gasoline/, where he and Rick are quoted.  Apparently there may be similar tables for 20% , not 40%, fertilizer reduction.  Maybe also for reducing the water amount by 20% and 40%, which could be very different from the constant $1000/acre of this table in some locations.   I was surprised to learn that strawberries are 92% water.

5.  I did the above in part to see what a strawberry farmer with 100 acres might have been able to earn from carbon credits, were they available.  Not enough data available even for the biochar portion, since the $1600 could mean anything from 1 to 4 tonnes.  If 2 tonnes and credits were worth about $35/tonne CO2 or $100/tonne biochar, then 100 acres X 2 X $100 would give an added $20 k - probably worth his/her while.  But there is a 25% increase in biomass, which should be worth something in today’s voluntary (soon REDD+??) market for forests  (and can dead plants [and the roots]) have a market value (for more char)?).  Also the reduction in fertilizer has a carbon value, as well as the new biochar itself possibly helping to prevent some N2O release from the smaller amount needed.  Lastly, there was presumably some increase in microbe, fungi, etc. weight that someone should claim.  I’d be surprised if these didn’t more than double the first - meaning another $50 k - or $500/acre.  This is only about 1% of the revenue, but is about 10% of the profit - so not to be ignored.   My interest is in being able to report to the geoengineering community that there are CDR activities happening without credits today - and that a small credit could help all biochar companies - not just CP.
I think I understand why Rick is not mentioning CO2 and carbon below - but the topic is pretty important in “geoengineering” circles.
I think it impressive that there is no mention of the amount of biochar that was applied - only its per acre cost.  In Rick’s approach, the physical amount is immaterial - only that the returns more than cover that cost.  I hope that as further returns and testimonials come in, that we can hear of sales where the $ return per unit area are lower, but a longer return period is acceptable for less profitable crops. 

6.  I could not find the above strawberry balance sheet at the CP website - but there are several other crop reports at the CP biochar site.  Presumably also at least some are based on the consultancy of Mr. David Holden, whose work seems thorough.   I will try to report on those if they say something different.  A brief first look says that the above table gives more information than anything else available at the CP site.

7.  To repeat,  this table is by no means hard scientific data that has gone through a peer review.  But it was developed for an audience that could be unforgiving if not reliable.  I greatly appreciate being able to discuss it - and hope this list will encourage more biochar sales talk - especially when it can be of value to all biochar producers.  

There is further good information below from Rick.

Ron

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Rick Wilson rww...@yahoo.com [biochar]" <bio...@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [biochar] [soil-age] Biochar cost estimates to remove 100 ppm CO2 [1 Attachment]
Date: January 17, 2015 at 6:53:08 PM MST

[Attachment(s) from Rick Wilson included below]

Mike,
We have found that increasing the WHC increases the average water concentration in the soil, and reduces variations in water concentration during the day, one of the reasons that biochar makes bigger plants.

Increasing WHC of soil also in general reduces water loss by reducing evaporation, and drainage.    What we see in commercial Ag is that the economic optimum is to maintain watering, loose less using biochar, but the savings ends up in the larger plant, which drives the economics.  In California, which is suffering water rationing, farmers must plant fewer acres, but can maintain production. For turf, we don't want more grass, so we cut back water and maintain plant growth.  

In California we see a huge incentive to use our product in high value agriculture.  Consider an acre of strawberries, which sells for around $50,000 USD.  Increase yield, maintain water, with say 3-5 cubic yards of CoolTerra, great economics.  I've included a brochure showing how the economics work. 

The key to low value crops is we have to reduce dosage of biochar by orders of magnitude and hope to get favorable yield.  Greg Butler recently completed wheat trials in Australia using CoolTerra at #31 pounds per acre through precision application with seed.  We saw a 9.1% yield increase, with a 50% reduction in DAP (from 100KG per hectare to 50KG).   The fertilizer savings alone justifies prices of biochar of around $700/ton.  We do not believe that biochar holding fertilizer is why we need less fertilizer, but rather the retained water holding the fertilizer preventing losses.  

Rick


From: "mikethe...@aol.com [biochar]" <bio...@yahoogroups.com>
To: bio...@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar] [soil-age] Biochar cost estimates to remove 100 ppm CO2

 
Rick,

How does improving the water holding capacity of char effect the plant water relations vs the soil water relations ?

If one of the goals of the increased water holding capacity char is better plant drought stress than a high WHC char could be but one tool that a high-value crop grower can use to assist the plants with water stress. 

How do the economics (E) and logistics (L) compare for a high WHC char in relation to other tools, whether chemical, biological, or physical, that improve plant-water relations ?    What does the cost/benefit ratio look like ?

My sense is that, given the E&L limitations of char whether high WHC or not, that a low volume high value approach could be crafted.  In any case, at the end of the day, it must produce value for the user as they define value.

my 3 cents,

Mike










__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from Ronal W. Larson | View attachments on the web

1 of 1 File(s)

Posted by: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongre...@comcast.net>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages