Biochar - for Climate, Soils and Energy

Ron Larson

What Biochar isHow to Produce Biochar

Biochar's Impact on Climate and SoilsWho is Opposing and Why

What it Takes to Have a Big ImpactThe Boulder and Other Conferences

The Copenhagen Conference

Infertile >> Fertile << Biochar

How Can Biochar Be Carbon-Negative?

What is BiocharBiochar is a fine-grained charcoal high in organic carbon and largely resistant to decomposition. It is produced from pyrolysis of plant and waste feedstocks. As a soil amendment, biochar creates a recalcitrant soil carbon pool that is carbon-negative, serving as a net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in highly recalcitrant soil carbon stocks. The enhanced nutrient retention capacity of biochar-amended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer requirements, but also the climate and environ-mental impact of croplands.” (International Biochar Initiative Scientific Advisory Committee)

Major Techniques:1. Slow Pyrolysis traditional (dirty, low char yields) and modern (clean, high char yields)

2. Flash Pyrolysis modern, high pressure, higher char yields

3. Fast Pyrolysis modern, maximizes bio-oil production, low char yields

4. Hydrothermal Carbonization under development, wet feedstock, high pressure, highest “char” yield, a different char

Ron Larson Biochar Background 1973 US Congress - Policy 1977 NREL – Principal Scientist 1981 UN Conference - Nairobi 1982 USAID – Sudan 1994 Retired – Charcoal-making stoves 1995 Stoves list coordinator – mostly char 2004 First learned of Terra Preta 2006 ASES Solar Today Editorial (next) 2007 Start “Terra Preta” 2007 IAI Conference – NSW, Australia 2008 IBI-1 Conference – Newcastle, UK 2009 1st North American (USBI) - Boulder

Last lines that I wrote in Nov. 2006

CHAIR’S CORNERRon Larson, Ph.D.

Positive Charcoal = Negative Carbon?Why adding charcoal to the Earth's soilswill also address climate change.

“….... Better than any other national group, 25x’25 can help ChAr get the R&D start that is critically needed. I look forward to hearing from readers on other ways we can “break new ground” with the barely recognized, but, I believe, most promising potential of ChAr. “● Nov. '06

ASES, Kutscher, Overend

Two very shortmentions ofBiochar (in two chapters).

First Large (?) Biochar Meeting– International Agrichar Initiative 2007

Conference

April 29 - May 2, 2007 Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia

100 Attendees; Sponsor - Best EnergyChair?? Stephen Joseph

First day at NSW Ag station (Lukas van Zweiten) (20 attendees)Many farmers; 2/3 from AustraliaChange from IAI to IBI

Opening View at www.biochar-international.org

James Lovelock guardian.co.uk; 24 March 2009

“I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eaten”.

James Lovelock, cont'dguardian.co.uk; 24 March 2009

“There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?”

IBI “Keys”, part 1

The keys to advancing biochar are recognition of biochar’s climate benefits, and the elucidation of biochar’s many value streams, including:

1. Biochar sequestration, and possible carbon (C) credits2. Additional C and Non-C emissions reductions from biochar systems3. Bioenergy co-products (syngas, bio-oil, heat)4. Water quality impacts (reduced nutrient leaching)

IBI “Keys”, concluded

5. Enhanced productivity (crop and non-crop biomass)6. Enhanced soil water retention7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs8. Waste reduction, utilization, and added-value9. Reduced soil erosion, degradation10. Agricultural intensification, reduced land conversion11. Distributed, on-farm systems

Biochar Claims, Simplified List

1: Will remove Carbon From Atmosphere – in Gigaton per year levels (Gt C/yr)

2: Will restore soil carbon and increase soil productivity 3: Can add significant carbon-neutral energy (in many forms)

4: N20, H20, Jobs, Rural Economic Development, National Security, Ocean acidification

Lifetime of Char vs Compost

One IBI Scenario

Same, Barchart Formhttp://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/

final%20carbon%20wpver2.0.pdf

Cost Analysis

Almost no data

Costs seem to be less than $200/ton char – possibly even $100/ton

Sales price $500/ton common; larger in small quantitities; Maybe $200-$300.

Raw material cost for NREL approx $30/ton

Fast Pyrolysis Fluidized Bed Reactor (2009 in press) JE Amonette

Example with a match In Air or in Liquid Air: flow through updraft and downdraft

Slow (more solids) Fast (more liquids and gases)

Similar, add dryer + generator

Typical Pyrolyzer – Ref. IBI

Four Temperature Influences

Different feedstocks (Lehmann)

Soils: Benefits of using biochar in the garden, Part 1

1 Enhanced plant growth 2 Suppressed methane emission3 Reduced nitrous oxide emission (50% ?) 4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)5 Reduced leaching of nutrients6 Stored carbon in a long term stable sink7 Reduces soil acidity: raises soil pH 8 Reduces aluminum toxicity

Ref. http://biochar.pbworks.com/FrontPage

•Benefits of using biochar in the garden, concluded

10 Increased soil aggregation due to increased fungal hyphae

11 Improved soil water handling12 Increased available Ca, Mg, P, and K13 Increased soil microbial respiration14 Increased soil microbial biomass15 Stimulated symbiotic nitrogen fixation in

legumes16 Increased arbuscular mycorrhyzal fungi17 Increased cation exchange capacity

IBI Example News Items • Fertiliser demand is heating up Weekly Times Now 10/06/2009

• UK researchers aim to prove farm climate cure Reuters 10/06/2009

• Agriculture to Play a Major Role in Mitigating Climate Change; Treehugger 10/05/2009

• The Biochar debate Environmental Research Web; 10/03/2009

Examples of Claimed Results

• Now dozens ofImproved productivityphotos like these

• Terra-Preta soils inAmazon – up to2 meters deep.

Stocks & Flows

BiofuelWatch (BFW) Opposition -1• First seen in Sept, 08 (Newcastle

Confer'ce)

• Two main: Almuth Ernsting & Rachel Smolker

• Claim #1. Biochar = Biofuels (untrue)

• Claim #2. Biofuels = Rainforest Destruction– considerable truth, but not for Biochar– carbon credits can control– Standards are being developed

BFW Opposition, concluded• Claim #3 – Longevity in soil not proven

– they no or inappropriate citations– large amount of millenial life-time data

• Claim #4 – Increased productivity unproven– selective negative citations– ignore/deny all of Terra Preta

• Claim #5 – Toxicity– only supposition, zero neative data– Char now used medicinally– excellent absorber

Geoengineering

• This perspective ongeoengineeringapparatusfrom Wall StreetStreet Journal15 June, '09

Jamais Cascio

Royal Society Criteria & Ranks

• Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria.

• Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-the-climate-a-clear-perspective-from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq

Royal Society Comparison - 1

Royal Society Comparison - 2

Royal Society Recommendation !

• 1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation should not be formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon residence time and impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.

One view in Science

• “Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low against all four criteria.”

• Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengineering-the-climate-a-clear-perspective-from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq

Recent NRC Report on Biology• "A better fundamental understanding of plant

growth and productivity, as well as of how plants can be conditioned or bred to tolerate extreme conditions and adapt to climate change, will be key components in increasing food production and nutrition in all areas of agriculture to meet the needs of 8.4 billion people by 2030 (Census Bureau, 2008), while allowing adequate land for energy production and environmental services."

• [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? id=12764]•

Convention on Biodiversity

“Therefore, given this conversion and emissions associated with degradation, the current terrestrial stock of ~2,400 Gt is possibly about 40% below the natural reservoir when at equilibrium with current climate.”

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-43-en.pdf

Where the land stock exists

Ten Wedges?

a. Total land area 15 G hab. Assumed available 2 G ha

c. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /ha-yrd. Assumed annual carbon 10 Gt C/ha-yre. Assumed annual char 5 Gt C/ha-yr

f. Annual sequestered = b*e 10 Gt C/yr Aside: Conversion 10 Gt/ha = 1 kg/m2

Ten Wedges? (cont'd)Antonietti suggests 2 million plants – each

operating on 10 sq km (1000 ha)• very short transport distance!• In Gha, this is exactly same as above: 2

Gha

“Heritage CO2”: Assume 2 Gha/6 G people = 1/3 ha per capita = 3000 m2 (if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)

For US: “owns” about 30% of the present excess CO2. 0.6 Gha/.3 G people = 2 ha/capita. If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr

Ten Wedges? (concluded)“Heritage CO2”: A. For world: Assume 2 Gha/6 G people = 1/3 ha per capita = 3000 m2 /capita(if 50 yrs, then 60 m2/yr as world average)

B. For US: “owns” about 30% of the present excess CO2. 0.6 Gha/.3 G people

= 2 ha/capita = 20,000 m2 per person ( If 50 yrs, then 400 m2/yr per person)

C. In char terms : half these amounts in kg

Newcastle Conference (Sept. 08)

• Biggest name was Tim Flannery (Aus)About 200 (a full house in City council)No early site visits

• Traveled with Andrew Heggie (forester)Met Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove)Had two posters (policy)

• Maybe five companiesGood report by Albert Bates (eco-village)

• Approved Boulder (regional, not intern'l)

Boulder Conference• Big plus to have USDA Secr. Tom VilsackAbout 300 (essentially sold out)Sunday visit to BEC (mobile unit)

• Nice response to Dave Yarrow re nutritionSame for Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove)First detailed LCA (Cornell)New method on lifetimes (Florida)

• Maybe ten companiesGood report in “The Economist”

• Formed USBI

CopenhagenConference of the Parties (COP-15)

Two weeks in December.Thousands of delegates, press, NGOs

In September, dropped the word “Biochar” from the draft document

Not clear why. (claim for needed speed in getting finished)

Ideas from Peak Oil Conference

1. “We” have been ignoring the Peak Oil driver too much. Probable peak last year. General agreement very soon if not already.

2. Shale gas may not be the panacea claimed. Huge differences in views by experts.

3. Almost no mention of climate topics.

4. Almost no mention of Biomass (or other).

Ideas from Peak Oil Conference

5. Biochar can make a huge contribution on Peak Oil (use of non-char portion of biomass)

6. Need to emphasize water more (not much needed to char; HTC produces water)

7. Need to emphasize small scale; low capital

8. Look again at EROEI (Use 30 GJ/t C?) 7 Gt C/yr goes with 500 Quads/yr = 500 EJ/yr.

So 500E18/7E9 t C = 70 GJ/t Carbon. Off roughly by factor of 2 (the non-char energy?)

Conclusion

From Markus Antonietti (Hydrocoal):

“Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken ?”

“Why not even think 'Negative'?”