Damn, one of the more promising ideas, biochar, seems to be a little less promising than hoped:
... a new study ... suggests that these supposed benefits of biochar may be somewhat overstated.
... They found that when charcoal was mixed into humus ... charcoal caused greatly increased losses of native soil organic matter, and soil carbon ... Much of this lost soil carbon would be released as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Therefore, while it is true that charcoal represents a long term sink of carbon because of its persistence, this effect is at least partially offset by the capacity of charcoal to greatly promote the loss of that carbon already present in the soil.
Oh, and you know that thing Al Gore talked about, where birds would emerge from their eggs only to find that their usual food had already peaked and declined because the changing climate had disconnected formerly co-evolved species? Well, caribou go next:
Fewer caribou calves are being born and more of them are dying in West Greenland as a result of a warming climate, according to Eric Post, a Penn State associate professor of biology. Post, who believes that caribou may serve as an indicator species for climate changes including global warming, based his conclusions on data showing that the timing of peak food availability no longer corresponds to the timing of caribou births.
...
The phenomenon, called trophic mismatch, is a predicted consequence of climate change, in which the availability of food shifts in response to warming, whereas the timing of demand for those resources does not keep pace. ... until now, the phenomenon had not been observed in terrestrial mammals. "Our work is the first documentation of a developing trophic mismatch in a terrestrial mammal as a result of climatic warming," said Post. "And the rapidity with which this mismatch has developed is eye-opening, to say the least."
New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Comments
View as Threaded
Jonas Posted 8:58 am
05 May 2008
I will ask Dr Wardle also to contact Gristmill to explain that his teams findings were described wrongly in the press release.
And I will ask Dr Steiner and Prof Lehmann to have post here too.
Watch this space.
May I ask JMG to read the article instead of the press release, and then think things true?
You will see that the findings do in no way diminish the potential of biochar.
The point is very simple: biochar is not meant for use in already humus-rich soils. The entire point is to use it in SOM-poor soils!
Oh no, yet another press release and interpretation that gets it quite wrong!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:23 am
05 May 2008
Jonas was an admin from over at Biopact. A website devoted to promoting biofuels.
Biopact closed down, to instead pursue a targeted biochar project.
Jonas has since insisted that biochar is the "only carbon negative" energy source available.
Jonas would not like it if biochar proved to not be a solution to dealing with global warming. (Much less if it made things worse.)
Permalink
Philip Small Posted 11:32 am
05 May 2008
Without some benefit to the recipient land user, it is doubtful that carbon sequestration alone will be able to generate much of a following for charcoal as a soil amendment. This added value is needed to persuade the diversion of charcoal from its competing use as a fuel. Improved soil health, as measured by soil microbial performance, is a tangible benefit.
The forest humus study soundly answers the camp that argues that charcoal, because it doesn't participate in biogeochemical cycling, cannot, in and of itself be expected to add to soil vitality. We needed a ten year study to shatter this simplistic assumption. To paraphrase an old aftershave advertisement: Thanks! We needed that!
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:35 am
05 May 2008
In fact, if I may be so humble, we were the only blog of note to do so - luckily, the concept of carbon-negative bioenergy is now gaining wider attention: e.g. by Nasa's James Hansen, whose team will soon publish a key paper recommending it as one of the key tools to combat dangerous climate change.
Amongst the other strategies mentioned by Hansen are... indeed, biochar and the establishment of other types of carbon sinks.
The paper does not mention any other renewables (wind, solar, hydro) because they can never withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere - these technologies remain carbon-positive and add CO2 to the atmosphere. (Greyfalcon is right: Biopact's often mentioned carbon-negative energy strategies are the only carbon-negative energy concepts.)
Let me quote the Hansen team's abstract and the crucial paragraph:
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
James Hansen1*,a,b, Makiko Satoa,b, Pushker Kharechaa,b, David Beerlingc, Robert Bernerd,
Valerie Masson-Delmottee, Mark Paganid, Maureen Raymof, Dana L. Royerg and James C. Zachosh
-a. NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
-b. Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10027, USA
-c. Dept. Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
-d. Dept. Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8109, USA
-e. Lab. des Sciences du Climat et l'Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CEA-CNRS-Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, CE Saclay, 91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
-f. Dept. Earth Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
-g. Dept. Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459-0139, USA
-h. Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
Description of what to do to draw CO2 from the atmosphere - needed to tackle dangerous climate change.
4.ANTHROPOCENE ERA
4.1. Tipping points
4.2. Target CO2
4.3. CO2 scenarios
4.4. Policy relevance
Desire to reduce airborne CO2 raises the question of whether CO2 could be drawn from the air artificially. There are no large-scale technologies for CO2 air capture now, but with strong research and development support and industrial-scale pilot projects sustained over decades it may be possible to achieve costs ~$200/tC [81] or perhaps less [82]. At $100/tC, the cost of removing 50 ppm of CO2 is ~$10 trillion.
Improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2. Deforestation contributed a net emission of 60±30 ppm over the past few hundred years, of which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today [2, 83, Figs S12, S14] [note: in a slash-and-char scenario at the tropical forest frontier, biochar reduces deforestation]. Reforestation could absorb a substantial fraction of the 60±30 ppm net deforestation emission.
Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing carbon for centuries to millennia [84]. Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N2O [85]. Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2 drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century [85].
In the Appendix we define a forest/soil drawdown scenario that reaches 50 ppm by 2150 (Fig. 6b). This scenario returns CO2 below 350 ppm late this century, after about 100 years above that level.
[The concept often described by Biopact - the only source to do so in-depth] More rapid drawdown could be provided by CO2 capture at power plants fueled by gas and biofuels [86]. Low-input high-diversity biofuels grown on degraded or marginal lands, with associated biochar production, could accelerate CO2 drawdown, but the nature of a biofuel approach must be carefully designed [85, 87-89].
A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality. A 50 ppm drawdown via agricultural and forestry practices seems plausible. But if most of the CO2 in coal is put into the air, no such "natural" drawdown of CO2 to 350 ppm is feasible. Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phase-out of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot of the 350 ppm level will be dim.
I think it's important that carbon-negative energy (which is obviously always based on biomass) is finally being recognized.
All we, over at Biopact, have said is that of the different strategies, biochar is probably one of the most feasible, socially and economically speaking - most notably so because it results in benefits for local farming communities, which is not the case for the idea of burning biomass in CCS-power plants, because that requires a centralist logic and a concentration of power; the latter strategy is also quite expensive. Biochar is more elegant in that it can be organised in a decentralised manner, on a very large scale independent of central power stations, and may contribute to improved food production amongst the poorest farmers; it is also less costly [see the Lehmann projections, and a summary of cost-estimates at the International Biochar Initiative].
Secondly, I'm not personally involved in the biochar project, but I do think it's interesting.
Thirdly, I invite you to visit the Terra Preta mailing list, so you can see what the real implications of professor Wardle's important research findings are for biochar.
Professor Wardle himself has participated in the discussion:
Terra Preta Mailing List.
Alternatively, you may want to check the concept as it is being explored by the Biochar Fund, where you can see that prof Wardle's findings have not that much relevance to biochar (since biochar is used in nutrient-deficient soils with low SOM-contents, at the tropical forest frontier, slowing deforestation and improving crop yields - the whole point of biochar. Using biochar in humus-rich soils like those of a Swedish forest is the exact contrary).
Biochar Fund.
Best, Jonas
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 3:10 pm
05 May 2008
(you have to be a subscriber to read the full text though)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:35 pm
05 May 2008
Biogas (from manure, garbage, and biomass waste) still offsets 20 times the effective GHG that it emits when burned.
And produces organic fertilizer. If 5% of our energy came from biogas from these sources (which otherwise cause huge methane release) the other 95% of GHG from the other sources would be offset.
Hard to believe? Yep. But on the other hand, I have tried to disprove it. It seems to be simple chemistry.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:39 pm
05 May 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
314159265 Posted 12:32 am
06 May 2008
See also: C/N ratio, http://compost.css.cornell.edu/calc/cn_ratio.html
So, the right use of "agrichar" would be to first soak it with nutritients (e.g. manure, or e.g. use it in a hominid carbon pissoir) and only then add it to the soil.
And so, I do not mix the carcoal into my compost, but put it under the heap. (I use big-chunk barbeque char there, mainly for aeration and fending off tree roots. (Later use in garden is a longer story.))
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:43 am
06 May 2008
Soak the charcoal in organic fertilizer, from your compost in your case, or in the case of large scale organic ag, soak the charcoal in organic fertilizer from biodigestors.
Maybe soaking wood chips in the biodigestor, as is done now on dairy farms, would be better, given the failure of biochar. Dairy biogas operations use wood chips for cow bedding, then the whole mess is put in the digestor. The wood chips partially digest and soften, then they are reclaimed and recycled into bedding again.
These could be used as organic soil amendment too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
314159265 Posted 1:16 am
06 May 2008
Using bbq char made from living hardwood trees, as I presently do for lack of other char, is of course BS...
But there are those vast masses of decaying trees killed by the pine/bark beetle (e.g. in Canada). These should be charred. But how to make dust of the big chunks? (I mean, imagine I'm a low tech c21st small farmer, bancrupt ex U.S. middle class, with no industrial equipment). So, perhaps let them cows do the work: Trample the chunks to dust plus add the nutritients?
Permalink
Biochar Posted 2:59 am
06 May 2008
The microbial biomass would not grow, it would be limited by C not by N. Each plastic pot has a wide C/N ratio but does not cause N immobilization because the pot is not consumed by the microbial population.
Permalink
Biochar Posted 3:03 am
06 May 2008
This is the example of humus rich Swedish forest soils. The Terra Preta example is different (low respiration rates in absence of an easily degradable organic substance). Chernozems are another example. Charcoal can led to the formation of very persistent SOM and this in environments and soils with low carbon sequestration capacity. Nobody proposed to apply charcoal as a C sink in humus rich soils. It can be a mean of carbon sequestration in depleted soils (e.g. southeastern US). Due to agriculture most soils have lost 50% of their original carbon content. The recalcitrance of charcoal allows SOM build up beyond the carrying capacity of a soil.
In some cases increased decomposition might be even desired. Composting of manures and other green biomass would be increased and emissions of CH4 and N2O reduced. Organically applied nutrients might be faster available for plants if applied with charcoal and leaching of nitrogen reduced.
This study proves once again the recalcitrant nature of charcoal and shows that we have to do much more research in the field to determine appropriate applications for charcoal as a C sink. I am confident that there are many management options.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:29 am
06 May 2008
I think biochar shows a lot of promise, as do other appropriate technologies for improving the soil and crop yields.
Good discussion. I was suprised that the tests were being conducted in the Swedish forests, since as I understood it, the Terra Preta techniques were developed in the tropics for their characteristic soils.
A problem when we're talking about things like biochar is our modern assumptions: we assume that technologies are simple, that they can be plugged in anywhere and are either a huge success or are fatally flawed. That sort of thinking doesn't work well with agriculture or biological systems, which are complex and varied. ("Always a lot of 'buts'," says one plant specialist).
About biochar in the media. It would be helpful to have press releases or postings to help put scientific studies like this in perspective.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
314159265 Posted 8:03 pm
27 May 2008
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/fre ...
I wonder why some people are so eager to jump on this "failure"-of-biochar story. Perhaps because they prefer rocket science, nucular, or genetic engineering over such a simple stone age tech like charcoal?
-----------------
BTW, last year I raised (after germination in normal soil) some garden angelic on almost 100% charcoal (vol, air spacing excluded) which I first had soaked in mostly stinging nettle manure. They did quite well, slightly better than those that accidentally grew outside my garden (poor soil, granite sand/gravel). After re-potting into more humus/compost soil in late Summer and out-potting this Spring, they are now looking almost as good as those raised stationary in my best soil.
My garden is 4y old. Before I came there was grass, sands, gravel on yellow granite. My most important gardening tool is the xxl crowbar to break out them rocks. The deep holes I filled with bbq charcoal at the bottom. Since I have not much compost, and the farmer's manure heap is far away, I mix lots of charcoal into the soil I produce, and no longer do I waste my pee.
Things are growing quite well.
You might examine my garden in about 5y to see how biochar works in boreal climes...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
28 May 2008
Combustion promoted as a way to balance GHG is always problematic. It has that large CO2 problem right from the start. How to mitigate that?
I would use solid oxide fuel cell technology to produce electricity from the wood gas, with the waste heat powering the charring operation. And limit the biomass used to dead wood that poses signifigant forest fire risk.
The fact that biochar does not persist in soil as long as previously thought is offset by it's ability to rejuvenate rain forest soil. Given the rainfall leaching and fast composting in these soils, it might be the only organic way to restore devestated crop land soil in former rain forest eco-systems.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
314159265 Posted 3:50 am
28 May 2008
And quite surely the humus goes away because of C/N ratio imbalance.
That expertiment was about charcoal and forest fires, not charcoal and agriculture! Nobody would put carbon into good soil without adding nitrogen (by manure or by legumes).
Of course, for a sequestration method, you need to char woody stuff that would decompose (or burn completely) anyway soon. E.g. those bark beetle eaten forests in U.S. and Canada. Lotsa CO2 emissions potentially to avoid there, plus the energy harvested by pyrolysis.
Not that I'm not for other methods (e.g. biogas). We need a diverse and distributed portfolio of solutions.
Cheers,
Florifulgurator
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:11 pm
30 May 2008
I would like to see terra preta experiments with char soaked in organic fertilizer. It might repeat the spectacular results of the real terra preta. As long as one sticks to sticks that would otherwise burn and uses the char to restore soil, it seems to be worthy of more research.
All these possible schemes need to be compared in terms of GHG balancing effects. Then the diverse mix should consist of the very best.
I suspect wind,solar thermal furnace factory cogeneration, solar PV, solar cogeneration on buildings, wind/wave power platforms offshore, plugin hybrid vehicles, bikes, cars, trucks, geo heat exchange heating/cooling, biogas/organic farming, solid oxide fuel cell/turbine distributed backup cogeneration, high speed commuter rail in tubes, tuned inductive charge strips under highways, all these would be winners,
And I like to go on and on about why i think so. As you may have noticed, hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink