| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
As noted in many previous posts I find agrichar to be very interesting, and applaud the work of researchers who are attempting to better understand how it improves soil, how to produce it most effectively and its relationship to soil microorganisms.
But that doesn't immunize them from criticism when they go over to the dark side. Johannes Lehmann, writing in a Nature commentary, engages in some counterproductive rent seeking.
To meet the challenges of global climate change, greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced. Emissions from fossil fuels are the largest contributor to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, so a reduction in fossil-energy use is a clear priority. Yet, because some emissions will be unavoidable, a responsible strategy also means actively withdrawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such carbon sequestration faces multi-faceted challenges: the net withdrawal of carbon dioxide must be long term and substantial, the process must be accountable and must have a low risk of rapid or large-scale leakage. One near-term technology that can meet these requirements is biochar sequestration. When combined with bioenergy production, it is a clean energy technology that reduces emissions as well as sequesters carbon. In my view, it is therefore an attractive target for energy subsidies and for inclusion in the global carbon market.Why would we want such an attractive and useful technology to be captured by politicians to advance their agendas? This completely misses the virtue of agrichar: it is worth while even if there is no climate change or GHG concern. People don't need encouragement to use agrichar as a soil amendment, they just need information and an opportunity to get some.
Right now those few who can get it in bulk quantities are paying serious money for it as a soil amendment. The lowest price I've heard of is $125 per ton in truckload quantities, about 20 tons or so at a time. Lehmann argues that:
biochar sequestration in conjunction with bioenergy from pyrolysis becomes economically attractive under one specific scenario, when the value of avoided carbon dioxide emissions reaches $37 per tonne.The unsubsidized value of agrichar is higher than that, it just isn't available. If it was available at $37 per ton it would sell like crazy. People pay more than that for agricultural lime, which is just crushed limestone rocks, mostly calcium carbonate, which is abundant and easily mined. Besides, among the chief beneficiaries of this technology are small growers in developing regions who make and use agrichar locally, perhaps as part of an integrated energy/fertilizer/soil amendment system.
As the benefits of agrichar become better understood and the information becomes more widely disseminated it will be used voluntarily. People will gladly pay for it since it reduces other costs such as fertilizer and water while increasing production. It will be worth at least as much as compost, manure, lime and other such bulk soil amendments used by growers - more than the $37 price point Lehmann cites. There's even a retail market for it in bags for back yard gardeners at a much higher price.
This is important. Agrichar should not be crufted up with political baggage or tainted by association with the various climate hysteria inspired carbon wheezes. That it sequesters carbon in a more durable form than forests or other organic forms is a plus, but not its primary value. It is just one of the multiple benefits of agrichar. That fact should not be lost in a blaze of hype. It's the wrong message.
Biochar production can also produce fuels and nitrogen fertilizer by capturing and processing the gasses given off from pyrolysis. There are several production options that determine the exact mix of fuel, fertilizer and char produced. The fuel and/or fertilizer are also products that have market value. When income from those products is added to income from the sale of char it doesn't seem to make any sense to subsidize its production or use.
But, politics isn't about sense, it's about power, status and money. Agrichar is a threat to the income and security of politicians and bureaucrats who exploit climate change. It's a better carbon sink and doesn't need any subsidies, regulations or coercion. This undermines some of the other exploits, exposes their weakness and inappropriateness for the current problem set. That can't be allowed. If agrichar isn't subsidized or controlled in some way, they'll try to make it illegal to protect their rackets. It's too good, too cheap and too free to be allowed to go unregulated.
Sadly, Lehmann's tryst with the dark side may be necessary given political reality. What an ugly mess we are making.
Update:
Philip restates the issue more clearly, and amplifies the core concepts.
Consider that terra preta has serious political problems in the offing. Charcoal production as a tool to combat global warming can be understandably counterintuitive. Char's mode of action in the soil is only partly understood, the degree of benefit to the soil is not well documented. Claimed char additions may be difficult to monitor.He also takes pains to distinguish char from CO2, since most of the weight in a ton of CO2 molecules is in the oxygen atoms, not the carbon atoms.Various blog and forum posts ask: Does the fuel value of charcoal provide a dangerous incentive to divert agrichar to fuel use? To overharvest biomass? Can the reality of terra preta nova be separated from marketing pitches by commercial pyrolysis interests?
In this environment, poor marketing choices will hurt the prospects of terra preta. We terra preta advocates need to distinguish our advocacy for improved soil from our advocacy of commercial pyrolysis and of char carbon sequestration. The value of char as a soil amendment can, and must, stand on its own merits. Only successful implementation of terra preta nova in stand alone and market driven settings can validate the fundamental benefits of biochar.
Proponents of terra preta hope to speed adoption by subsidizing it with carbon credits. Currently CO2 sequestering goes for about $4 per metric ton on the carbon credit market. Carbon dioxide units at full molecular weight can be converted into carbon units by dividing by 44/12 (see endnotes here). Thus the carbon credit value of amending soil with charcoal is currently $14.67 per metric ton, or $13.31 per ton. This could be a nice kicker but the soil amendment value of charcoal, at $100/ton, is the significant component.
After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology
can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.
Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.
The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;
Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.
Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030
by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf
The organization 25x25 (see 25x'25 - Home) released it's (first-ever, 55-page )"Action Plan" ; see http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/d...ActionPlan.pdf
On page 31, as one of four foci for recommended RD&D, the plan lists: "The development of biochar, animal agriculture residues and other non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, toward the end of integrating energy production with enhanced soil quality and carbon sequestration."
and on p 32, recommended as part of an expanded database aspect of infrastructure: "Information on the application of carbon as fertilizer and existing carbon credit trading systems."
I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.
There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture , I forgot the % that is waste, but when you add all the other cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG, the balanced number is around 24 Billion tons. So we have plenty of bio-mass.
Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.
If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of G. I. T. , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.
Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.
The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.
On the Scale of CO2 remediation:
It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons.
The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.
Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel CO2 emissions as stable charcoal in the soil.
University of Beyreuth TP Program, Germany http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=taxonomy/term/118
Also Here is the Latest BIG Terra Preta Soil news;
ConocoPhillips Establishes $22.5 Million Pyrolysis Program at Iowa State 04/10/07
This Earth Science Forum thread on these soils contains further links, and has been viewed by 19,000 self-selected folks. ( I post everything I find on Amazon Dark Soils, ADS here):
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html
You've pasted all this here before Erich. I'm enthused about char technologies, but find little value to the various advocacy groups seeking to leverage it to advance their political objectives. As stated, the technologies have intrinsic value, not merely political value. We would do well to pursue them even if there was no climate change movement.
In my view what is needed is continued pursuit of the soil science aspects to help potential users understand and apply the technologies. There is a parallel need for progress in the technologies involved in the production of char products. I'm optimistic that this will happen because char is so beneficial for agronomic systems. It's a good product.
If the IPCC and all the other UN talking shops disbanded tomorrow all of this would still be true. If all the politicians decided that they could not ride this issue to power and so stopped flogging it, char would still be an important thing for agriculture.
I'd like to see subsidies for all of the various energy systems and carbon hustles removed rather than subsidizing ever more products and processes.
Politics isn't a useful approach to our current problem set, but I know that none of the things I suggest will happen. We live in a political world. However, we still have enough freedom to point and laugh at the posers, and criticize them for their lame ideas and subsequent failures. Look at what they've done with ethanol or palm oil for example. They're making a mess of things, and we ought to say so, even though it has little effect.
Posted by: back40 at May 14, 2007 07:43 PM