[Tanada]

Well, from the article you provided, spiritof1976:

"Biochar is different from the dry charcoal that you'd burn in a grill: It is produced by heating plant waste to 400 to 500 degrees C in the absence of oxygen—a process known as low-temperature pyrolysis—which makes a substance that has a greater number of smaller pores than charcoal. (The better to trap carbon dioxide with.) The process used to make biochar is a closed, sustainable one: Biomass is fed into the oxygen-free burners and turned into the char. The gases that are released during the reaction is then captured and converted into electricity (from combustible gases) or biofuel, while the remaining char is safe to throw directly into the soil. Biochar does the rest of the work underground. The substance improves the ground's composition and fertility by locking in water and nutrients, thereby reducing the need for fertilizers while boosting crop yields. It also stores the carbon from the plant materials that made it— around 50 percent of the carbon produced from converting biomass into biochar can be trapped—and traps even more carbon from decomposing plants in the soil."

It sounds like each step in the process of making biochar (which I only learned about just now, thanks!) is efficient. No oxygen used in burning means less C02 produced, correct? The gases released during the process are used, and the rest of the char then goes into the soil, where it helps hold water and nutrients. Then it works toward carbon sequestration, as it has a "greater number of smaller pores" than charcoal.

Sounds pretty good to me, but I'm no scientist . I suppose the process where the gases are converted to electricity could be a little expensive, but Tanada or someone with expertise in this area could give an opinion about this.

Not an expert on Biochar but I read everything on it I can find. When you pyrolize the organic material to convert it into char you can capture the gasses and use them to run a slightly modified gas turbine electric powerplant. Most of those in the USA currently burn Natural Gas with distillate fuel as a substitute on site in case of pipeline supply interruptions. By placing a biochar manufatory at a GT electric powerplant and adding the appropriate fuel gas injector you can directly use the gas released by pyrolisys as fuel for the production of electricity.

My biggest hope for biochar isn't the carbon sequestration, it is the increasing of the soil organic content (SOC) which is what makes topsoil dark colored in the first place. Tests done on different soils with low organic content all show improvement from the addition of biochar. The biggest hurdle we have in keeping people from starving once Peak Oil really starts biting us is going to be maintaining sustainible agriculture and biochar has the reputation for turning sand and clay into loamy and fertile topsoil. I am hoping that this turns out to be a real phenomenom and not just another pipe dream. If it works as claimed then keeping people from either starving to death or wiping out the last of the worlds Jungles in slash and burn agriculture can be accomplished.

[WildRose]

Thanks, Tanada. Yes, let's hope it's potential can be realized. The soil-improving characteristics are really exciting.

[mos6507]

I have kind of an oddball thought here, but does any of the biochar ever make its way back into plant matter? The whole idea is that it's permanently sequestered, right? That means it is inert and just stays there like a rock for eternity. If that's the case, wouldn't widescale biochar present some logistical issues longterm as it will raise up the level of the land?

If you take all the extra CO2 that is in the atmosphere and instantly sequester it as carbon black wouldn't you wind up with a Vesuvius-grade layer of soot across all landmasses?

It seems that if this were taken to an extreme level there would need to be a permanent disposal location for the excess biochar.

[Ludi]

I have kind of an oddball thought here, but does any of the biochar ever make its way back into plant matter? The whole idea is that it's permanently sequestered, right? That means it is inert and just stays there like a rock for eternity. If that's the case, wouldn't widescale biochar present some logistical issues longterm as it will raise up the level of the land?

If you take all the extra CO2 that is in the atmosphere and instantly sequester it as carbon black wouldn't you wind up with a Vesuvius-grade layer of soot across all landmasses?

It seems that if this were taken to an extreme level there would need to be a permanent disposal location for the excess biochar.

Even if you improve your soil in a more gradual manner, the soil level will increase. Some folks who have done rotational grazing, which increases the humus and carbon content of the soil dramatically, see an increase in the soil level. Joel Salatin's farm is an example of this. He writes about it in his book "You Can Farm."

[Tanada]

I have kind of an oddball thought here, but does any of the biochar ever make its way back into plant matter? The whole idea is that it's permanently sequestered, right? That means it is inert and just stays there like a rock for eternity. If that's the case, wouldn't widescale biochar present some logistical issues longterm as it will raise up the level of the land?

If you take all the extra CO2 that is in the atmosphere and instantly sequester it as carbon black wouldn't you wind up with a Vesuvius-grade layer of soot across all landmasses?

It seems that if this were taken to an extreme level there would need to be a permanent disposal location for the excess biochar.

Yes and no, it is estimated that all of the conventional petroleum, natural gas and coal combined contain about 5 Teratons of carbon. Up to this point it is estimated we have released about 350 Gigatons or .35 Teratons. About 10% of the land area of the Earth is used for farming, grazing or forest. Much of the rest is desert or mountains that are totally unsuitible for it. 10% of the Earths land area is 5.7 Megamiles^2 or 14.8 Megakm^2. 350,000/5.7=61,403 tons/mi^2 or 23,648 tons/km^2. 61,403/640=96 tons/acre. 96,000kg/43650 ft^2= 2.2kg/ft^2 . Now 2.2kg sounds like a lot of carbon until you remember that dirt weighs about 46kg. Distributing 2.2 kg through the top foot of the soil gets you a volume increase of about 4% or .57 inches increase in height. I am too lazy to do all the in between calculations for hectares, square meters etc etc but .57 inches is 14.5 mm near enough.

Something else to keep in mind, the USA has purportedly lost about 4 inches of topsoil in most places that are farmed, so if you converted all the conventional fossil fuels through the cycle into charcoal that was added to the soil you would get 8.14 inches or 207mm of increase in soil height. That is presuming you put it all on just the 10% or the world covered in farms, forests and grasslands. If you spread it further afield by depositing it in desert areas, swamps and alpine tundra the depth goes down proportianately.

[Graeme]

'Biochar' goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal

Giant microwave ovens that can "cook" wood into charcoal could become our best tool in the fight against global warming, according to a leading British climate scientist.

Chris Turney, a professor of geography at the University of Exeter, said that by burying the charcoal produced from microwaved wood, the carbon dioxide absorbed by a tree as it grows can remain safely locked away for thousands of years. The technique could take out billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year.

Fast-growing trees such as pine could be "farmed" to act specifically as carbon traps — microwaved, buried and replaced with a fresh crop to do the same thing again.

Turney has built a 5m-long prototype of his microwave, which produces a tonne of CO2 for $65. He plans to launch his company, Carbonscape, in the UK this month to build the next generation of the machine, which he hopes will process more wood and cut costs further.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/charcoal-carbon

[AgentR]

Reducing the slope of the warming curve is one thing; and perhaps even a reasonably possible expectation.

I know of no science that would indicate a cooling as a result of CO2 sequestration.

From a political and economic point of view, I think its clear that CO2 concentrations will continue to rise; not fall, as a result of human activity and natural feedbacks. All the treaties and good intentions not withstanding.

[Graeme]

We shall see. This looks very promising to me.

NZ Company Makes Shortlist In UK Climate Challange

New Zealand charcoal technology company Carbonscape™ is one of only five companies to make the shortlist in a global competition, the FT (Financial Times UK) Climate Change Challenge.

The prestigious competition seeks the most exciting innovations and practical ideas to reduce carbon emissions and make the world more resilient to the climate change ahead.

Carbonscape™ has been formed by a group of directors who have impressive renewable energy and sustainable business credentials. They are: knowledge broker and technology start-up expert, Nick Gerritsen; renewable energy developer Vicki Buck; Professor Chris Turney of the University of Exeter and author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past; climate change entrepreneur; businessman Hamish Macfarlane and angel investor Tim Langley. International climate change campaigner and 2007 Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery recently joined the board.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0903/S00474.htm

[mos6507]

'Biochar' goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal

Those microwaves better be powered by nukes or renewables, otherwise you're just generating CO2 while you sequester.

[Tanada]

As I feared would happen Big Coal is now funding research into using coked coal as a soil amendment instead of Biochar.

On the bad side of this Biochar is the only easy method we have of drawing CO2 out of the air that is financially rewarding for the people doing it. If Powdered coke can do the same thing it will be so much cheaper due to industrial scales of production that Big Ag will gladly use it instead of Biochar.

On the good side, if it does work as a soil amendment it will go a long way to eliminating wasted fertilizer which will cut runnoff pollution from big ag, which would be a very good thing IMO. Also it would make it more freasible to feed everyone without destroying what is left of the world's wild area's.

PDF on Coke 'agrichar'

Simple calculations show that if all the world’s proven conventional FHC reserves (about 1,000 G ton C) were processed by pyrolysis, and the coke produced were used as an agrichar at a terra preta rate of 250 ton/ha, this would suffice to cover 4 Gha: about one third of all the planet’s ice-free land. Coincidentally, the world’s ice-free land (about 12 Gha) could be split into approximately three equal parts. One part is fertile land suitable for agriculture and livestock pastures; another part is forest (Amazonas, Siberia, Canada, etc.); and the third part is infertile land (deserts and other arid lands). Therefore, hypothetically 4 Gha of infertile land would be available in the world for land-cover change
by additional coke produced from FHC reserves, looking toward the conversion of that infertile land to a new 4 Gha of fertile land.

[billg]

As I feared would happen Big Coal is now funding research into using coked coal as a soil amendment instead of Biochar.

On the bad side of this Biochar is the only easy method we have of drawing CO2 out of the air that is financially rewarding for the people doing it. If Powdered coke can do the same thing it will be so much cheaper due to industrial scales of production that Big Ag will gladly use it instead of Biochar.

On the good side, if it does work as a soil amendment it will go a long way to eliminating wasted fertilizer which will cut runnoff pollution from big ag, which would be a very good thing IMO. Also it would make it more freasible to feed everyone without destroying what is left of the world's wild area's.

PDF on Coke 'agrichar'

Very interesting to consider...I can see all the positives....but I'm quite doubtful that the destructive methods employed by the coal industry could be offset by any resulting benefits to wildlife preservation and/or enhancements to the sustainability of large-scale agriculture. Are there any environmentally friendly ways to mine for coal?

Today, I spent about an hour pulverizing some charcoal left over from all the wood stoves on the property here. I'm planning on experimenting with it in the garden this year to see for myself what kind of effects it has on crop yields. Good article here about using biochar in the garden.

What biochar does in the soil is several things that increase soil health. Initial testing supports increased water retention, plant growth, soil stability and reductions of organic fertilizers. The porous texture of the biochar provides an environment for microbes to flourish. “Biomass from woody charcoal has an interior layer of bio-oil condensates that microbes consume, and is equal to glucose in its effect on microbial growth.” ~ Christoph Steiner, EACU 2004. Biochar also absorbs nutrients in the soil. What is special about biochar is its effectiveness at retaining most nutrients and making them available to plants much better than other organic materials such as compost or manures. This is also true for phosphorus (P) which is not at all retained by ‘normal’ soil organic matter.[2] "Soils with biochar additions are typically more fertile, produce more and better crops for a longer period of time." ~ Johannes Lehmann[2]

Dave's Garden

[dohboi]

I'm doubtful it will do much to "solve" global warming, but biochar does sounds like a pretty good description of what the much of the earth is going to look like once runaway global warming has run it's course.

[mos6507]

Here's your biochar. Slightly radioactive, unfortunately.

[davep]

It's just another attempt to find a techno-fix that big business can get their paws on.

That chap who did a bunch of tests with biochar never even compared it to using compost. Compost and humus generally have a far more versatile role than merely holding nutrients, they provide for the whole living web of the soil. Biochar does not support life in the soil. It is inert and fits in nicely with the whole industrial agricultural approach of seeing the soil as merely a support for external fertilisers.

[Ludi]

Compost and the subsequent humus are also MUCH easier to produce. Simply layer material on the soil. No special low-temperature low-air burning required. It all happens on its own.

[gnm]

My experiments with bio-char are working great on my nasty thick clay soil. The areas where I have raked it in and re-seeded with drought tolerant clovers are doing real well. Significantly better than seeded bare clay areas. The coal bits get crushed ever finer just though walking around on it now and then and are starting to blend into the soil.

-G

[Ludi]

I certainly think biochar has its place for those who want to use the technique. It just seems like too much work to me. What you describe, gnm, with low-temperature burning of slashed brush, is an easy modification of the concept. But still too much work for me, and I would worry about grassfire danger with the burn piles. Not to mention the fact we're under a burn ban most of the time now. Don't want to get the volunteer fire dept out for nothing! Your situation is different, with no close neighbors.


(I hope I'm not confusing you with someone else, gnm )

[davep]

My experiments with bio-char are working great on my nasty thick clay soil. The areas where I have raked it in and re-seeded with drought tolerant clovers are doing real well. Significantly better than seeded bare clay areas. The coal bits get crushed ever finer just though walking around on it now and then and are starting to blend into the soil.

-G

Have you done a comparison with compost?

[gnm]

Yes. Compost is superior but I don't have easy access to a lot of compost and this has proven an easy method of not only getting rid of all the slash I have but putting it to good use as well. Heres what I found.

clay - poor
biochar alone - good
compost alone - better
biochar plus green alfalfa - better (nearly same results as compost alone - by green I mean spreading feed bales out)
biochar + compost - best

So now I am focusing on raking in biochar and then seeding it with green mulches (such as clover) to improve large areas of soil where it would not be economical to spread good compost.

Ludi - You remember right - and yes - it is a bit of work. I hate hauling slash. But it beats chipping/shredding for sure.

-G

[Vogelzang]

You're wasting your time.

Princeton Physicist Tells Congress Earth in 'CO2 Famine' -- Increase 'Will Be Good for Mankind'
Dr. Will Happer, once fired by Al Gore, challenges former vice president's much-published claim that warming debate over.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer ... 13407.aspx