Kathleen and all,
Thanks for your great comments (in two messages retained below.)
I think we should analyze further the graphic and comments:
[Chart: How Do Carbon Storage Techniques Stack Up?]A. How old is this graphic? Is it still a reasonable starting point for discussion? What changes are justified?
B. We should be happy if any one or combination can do the needed task to reverse climate change, but a daunting task, and daunting prospects if we fail.
C. DACCS and BECCS “claim” high potential, but the costs are so high and the “product” is CO2 in some form that requires storage and has no other uses (and dangers of escape).
D. The chart seems to emphasize 5 Gt CO2e per year as “what can be accomplished”, but Biochar is down at the 2 Gt / yr level. Where do these numbers come from? The “Drawdown” book and project also does not give much credit to Biochar potential.
E. Afforestation and Reforestation (at 3.5 Gt/yr) seems nice, but that means more and more forests each year, but for how long, and forever??? is not possible because there is not that much space, and forests either become stable or even rot, meaning that “harvest” of forests is essential, and also the “storage” of wood so that it does not decay is assumed. UNLESS it can be pyrolyzed!!!!! So how can the forestry stuff get to be 3.5 Gt and Biochar is only allocated 2 Gt/yr?
F. Forests also count if the wood (or charcoal) is taken as a substitute for fossil fuels, which is not storage but helps stop the use of fossil fuels. Therefore, char-MAKING should be much more highly valued.
Should this be discussed more here? Your responses will give the answers.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<www.drtlud.com>
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 11:08 AM
To: Biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [biochar] Al Gore’s right about carbon capture and sequestration
***************** (second message from Kathleen ********
Sorry the comparative CCS graphic seems to not have gone through. It can be found here: insideclimatenews.org/news/12102018/global-warming-solutions-negative-emissions-carbon-capture-technology-ipcc-climate-change-report . It is a bit of a bummer that the text in this article did not include much if anything about biochar!
******************** (first message from Kathleen is below *******
Hello all – Coincidentally I just blogged about this topic earlier today, so my two cents is posted here: fingerlakesbiochar.com/safety-nets-biochar/
I would urge my fellow charists to avoid phrases like ‘biochar is certainly a technically sound way to remove carbon from the atmosphere’. Biochar obviously is not removing carbon from the atmosphere but rather is preventing some of the carbon removed by plants and trees from going back to the atmosphere. Perhaps it is a subtle difference, but it is important. (This is why Ithaka emphasizes “photosynthesize, carbonize” – it is a two step process.) I think that kind of language is why biochar gets confused with carbon capture technologies.
As to the comment about biochar being one of the more expensive NETs, that is not what some of the research shows (see graph – sorry I can’t find the source at the moment). I have not read the underlying data used to develop this graph and I know that costs are extremely variable but when all factors are considered, this seems like it could be relatively accurate (or will be at scale). It is probably high for some scenarios when alternative organics management is considered.
(same graphic snipped from here.)
The interesting thing which is already starting to differentiate biochar from BECCS is that it is definitely beginning to scale around the world. Some models will succeed while others won’t, but still there is an awful lot of biochar production coming on line from what I hear and see. In my neck of the woods on the commercial front, we will soon have a new technology carbonizing woody residues, and another later in 2019 carbonizing combined sludge and wood. On the academic front Cornell now has an excellent carbonizer for both research and commercial collaboration (focus is on Ag waste) as does the Rochester Institute of Technology (focus is on food waste). The wheels are spinning faster in many different directions for biochar.
Wishing us all a prosperous new year filled with every more successful sequestration opportunities!
Kathleen
image001.jpg@01D1A9DA.3F10B800“/>