The Case for Burying Charcoal

Comments

• Burying Energy hsfrey on 04/26/2007 at 1:37 AM

  Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

  The energy we get from burning carbon fuels comes from the oxidation of the carbon. Charcoal represents a large proportion of the carbon, and hence the energy in the fuel. By not burning the fuel completely, we'd simply get less energy out of it, so we'd have to burn more OTHER fuel to make up for the fuel we buried. This is like saying that you put half as much CO2 into the atmosphere if you dump half of your gasoline onto the ground and don't burn it. What am I missing here? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Burying Energy Buckwheat469 on 04/26/2007 at 2:32 AM

    Posts: 33 Avg Rating:

    It does sound a bit odd to have all of this usable energy in the form of carbon that we would just be burying. I like the idea of using it in fertilizers of some sort to enhance the growth of plants, but I know that the governments, in their infinite wisdom, will just bury it in fear. The point is that we would be reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere by burying a large portion of the plant byproduct, but if the plant produces a net zero CO2 footprint, then what is wrong with using the char for fuel and releasing the CO2? In the long-run, if we use the char in place of coal then we would be reducing the CO2 emissions by not using buried stores while allowing other plants (like grasses and mosses and other things) to grow while we used crops and trees and other biomass for fuel. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: Burying Energy RickJ on 04/26/2007 at 4:03 AM
      Posts: 7 Avg Rating:	The paper sumamry notes that displacing coal combustion by burning the char is better than burying - which makes sense, but the tech review summary does not make this clear. Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: Burying Energy tjh on 04/27/2007 at 12:45 PM

        Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

        The paper does say it may be better to displace coal with biomass than to turn the biomass into char and bury it, but that conclusion excludes the benefits that come from the byproducts of the analysis (i.e. hydrogen, methane, bio-oil) and the benefits of using the char to enhance soil fertility (i.e. more trees, more growth, larger carbon sink) and absorption of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide because of reduced decay. Factor these in and the pyrolysis/bury approach has better carbon savings. And if you can achieve that with coal, this is an even better proposition when it comes to less carbon-intensive fossil fuels such as natural gas, and even oil. In this regard, it may be better to replace coal with natural gas and save the biomass to create and bury char. Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • Re: Burying Energy RickJ on 05/02/2007 at 6:25 AM

          Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

          I agree there are wider sustainability benefits to making char, but burning biomass (or the char) to replace gas in a heating application, then using the gas to make power and displace coal has some pretty compelling GHG reduction numbers - none of which are relevent in many parts of the world where transport of the fuel to create grid power is prohibitively expensive. Certainly, this is an excellent idea & worth further investigation. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Sequestering Carbon their goal nekote on 04/26/2007 at 5:35 AM
      Posts: 122 Avg Rating:	The goal would seem to be to sequester Carbon that mostly comes out of the atmosphere. In essence, an entry for Branson's prize of $25 million for the best way to sequester a Gigaton, per year, of Carbon (or is it CO2?). This effort is to have a negative - not 0 - carbon foot print. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: Burying Energy green_tech_watch on 04/28/2007 at 4:33 PM

      Posts: 1

      Locking carbon in a solid form also makes it easier to transport for the purpose of sequestration. It is a lot of carbon per square centimetre. Think of capturing C02, compressing it, piping it or putting it into tankers. There would need to be much infrastructure to get this to happen. Then you have to find out where you can put the CO2. Carbon in solid form can be easily scattered on farmland. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Burying Energy zephod on 04/26/2007 at 5:29 AM

    Posts: 1

    I think you're missing the crucial difference between fossil and bio-fuel. Using fossil fuels is always carbon-positive (ie adding carbon to the cycle); burning biomass is carbon-neutral. But this burying of char, indeed energy inefficient, would have the benefit of making the whole process carbon-negative (ie taking carbon out of the cycle). Plus, the char works apparently as a natural soil enhancer. It almost sounds to good to be true, doesn't it? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Carbon Plus What? nick47g on 04/26/2007 at 1:40 PM
    Posts: 17 Avg Rating:	Pure carbon in the form of char, coke or petroleum coke is a Godsend to matalurgy, phamacuticles etc.  Moreover it has no sulfur, mercury or heavy metal in it that have to be delt with!!! So defacto sequester the coal and keep the toxics where they've been for 200 Million years! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• a better use than burying djs on 04/26/2007 at 4:33 AM

  Posts: 20 Avg Rating:

  Higher temperature pyrolysis of biomass, to a CO + H2 mixture looks better. Adding more hydrogen (from water electrolysis, powered by solar cells) produces liquid fuels (methanol, gasoline by Fischer-Tropsch, etc) - the biomass thus can serve to make a "hydrogen economy" actually work by carrying the hydrogen in a convenient form in addition to furnishing the biological energy content. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: a better use than burying mbmurphy777 on 04/26/2007 at 2:49 PM
    Posts: 14 Avg Rating:	True, but the solar electrolysis and high temp nuc electrolysis and all the conversion steps would be less efficient than using the solar pannels or nuc plants to create electricity for electrified transportation. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: a better use than burying djs on 04/27/2007 at 4:04 AM
      Posts: 20 Avg Rating:	electrified transportation is beautiful, but liquid fuels will remain necessary for some forms of transport (air; sea [when the wind can't help]; remote locations). Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Credit due to South American Indians ericzundel on 04/26/2007 at 6:46 AM

  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:

  Charles C. Mann's book, "1491" describes how South American Indians used controlled burning to enrich the soil in a similar manner described in this article.  Their slow burning of biomass created carbon rich soil that greatly improved agricultural yields.  Furthermore, the effects are much more long lasting than other soil amendments, such as adding nitrogen fertilizer.  The "black earth" created hundreds of years ago is still supporting crops today. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Credit due to South American Indians AlanM on 04/26/2007 at 2:31 PM
    Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	The title is '1491' of course, not 1941. It's a great book about the people who lived in the Americas before Europeans arrived and settled. One of its themes is that there were lots more people here than we used to believe, and that they had richer civilizations than we want to believe. European diseases decimated them. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Water retention and land reclamation. Hardheadjarhead on 04/26/2007 at 9:55 AM
  Posts: 15 Avg Rating:	What would the char do for soils in arid areas?  Would we be able to increase soil fertility using stuff like this? If the char makes for increased crop yields, I see it as a money making and exportable product.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Forest fire? Viv on 04/26/2007 at 12:13 PM
  Posts: 9 Avg Rating:	Loading the soil with charcoal is not going to sound a good idea to a fireman, not when the severity and incidence of fires is on the increase. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Forest fire? mbmurphy777 on 04/26/2007 at 2:55 PM
    Posts: 14 Avg Rating:	Terra preta (the charcoal rich black earth) is not any more flammable than regular dirt. Fires need oxygen to burn, and packed dirt just doesn't allow for sufficient penetration. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Slash,chip & char abcarterjr on 04/26/2007 at 2:09 PM
  Posts: 45 Avg Rating:	FireSafeLandscaping near the Sitgreaves National Forest generates Juniper slash & string cut high plains grass that can be run thru a chipper then charcoaled into compost for the kitchen garden. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Good essay on possible uses of char from biomass mbmurphy777 on 04/26/2007 at 2:45 PM

  Posts: 14 Avg Rating:

  Some of the tech are not quite ready, of course, but there are several things to like here: http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independence-and.html It could allow replacement of natural gas and coal fired electricial generation and offset some liquid fossil fuels.  Transitioning to electrified transport would dramatically reduce the liquid fuels requirement, hence some of the surplus char could be sequestered. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• win win farmboy on 04/26/2007 at 6:53 PM

  Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

  Sequestering char has many advatages,the most important one is making use of waste stream products that add to the carbon in the atmosphere as they decompose. Items like agricultural, forestry, and manufacturing waste, why burn them, leave them on the forest floor or bury them in the land fill. Char benefits the soil through water retention and nutrient retention. Improved soil grows more biomass that takes more carbon out of the air, and needs less supplemental nitrogen which is derived from natural gas. Bring me your char and I will gladly bury it on my farm. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: win win TrueGrit on 04/27/2007 at 12:04 AM
    Posts: 1	You are right on track farmboy.  If you would like to enhance your position with substance I would recommend your review of http://www.eprida.com/news.php4 Eprida suggests that they have a method of converting basic charcoal into a soil fertilizer and paying farmers to bury it with their crops.  Farmers could have an endless supply. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Net of Char process rlindsl on 04/27/2007 at 3:28 PM

  Posts: 12 Avg Rating:

  Logging will be a significant source of potential char. It would be most carbon efficient to use excavators to return to a logging site the next fall after the debris has cured/dried and then bury it and ignite it. After it has charred it could be exhumed and used at that site or trucked to other locations. If you are going to truck the char, you should do an analysis comparing that to trucking the raw biomass to a char facility that could utilize the waste heat in the process. The most efficient use of char sequestration would be onsite and it would enrich the depleted soil lowering the cost and total use of fertilizers in silviculture. The onsite char utilization would be a benefit to the thinning of high fuel load forsets in the western United States where the biomass is remote and of little economic value.  These forest lands tend to have marginal soils that would benefit from this treatment. A sequestration subsidy might move these fuel load reduction projects into... the black.  Sorry. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Make coal or soil from biomass in hours! Greg on 05/26/2007 at 12:41 PM
  Posts: 3	A similiar aproach for a negative CO2 balance from biomass was published by Max Planck Institute already last year. But here we can get other valuable materials like coal or topsoil for vegetation of eroded areas. Have a look at the following link: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/multimedia/mpResearch/2006/heft03/3_06MPR_20_25.pdf Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Heavy Metals Adsorption erinbyers on 06/25/2007 at 11:09 AM
  Posts: 1	If bio char can adsorb heavy metals from the rain, to me this begs the question of whether this increases the amount of heavy metals absorbed by the plants, and entering our diet.  Any comments? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	The Case for Burying Charcoal Michael Angel on 11/23/2008 at 4:00 AM
  Posts: 1	See Tera preta/Earth Science sub forum and join in the discussion of this important issue http://hypography.com/forums/search.php?searchid=330538 Many soil micro-organisms from worms down can immobilise toxic metals. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: The Case for Burying Charcoal africharcoal on 11/23/2008 at 6:14 AM

    Posts: 1

    The UN REDD - Mitigating the RISKS for communities! UN Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Programme has been proposed as one of the possible routes through which local communities and indigenous peoples can gain financial benefits from forestry in the emerging global trade on Carbon .  This market is estimated to be worth billions of dollars and projected to grow exponentially over the coming years. Deforestation and degradation of forests is estimated to contribute up to 34% of the global carbon emissions.  The idea behind REDD is therefore to work within the forestry sector using the carbon trading framework to address this significant emission. The REDD framework proposes to deliver cuts in emissions by either mitigating the destruction of existing forests through financial incentives to avoid their destruction or by supporting the   development of new forest cover that will capture the carbon released from other sources. Communities view of risk? The REDD framework uses a differed method of payment for the services of carbon sequestration or storage performed by the growing trees (forestry).  The buyer of carbon will only pay if they have guarantees that the carbon they purchase is actually stored in the trees.  If the trees by any chance are cut or destroyed through some activity, the carbon will be released back to the environment.  In such a case, the most likely outcome would be that the buyer of the stored carbon will consider the investment not to have matured and differ their payment. This shifts the risk on to the seller of carbon (the community) who misses out on the financial incentives.  Additionally, if the buyer of the carbon is not obliged by stringent laws to meet a certain level of emissions cut within a specified time period, the ultimate looser is the environment. If char was used as the option would REDD need to differ the payment?  NO! The carbon burried by communities within a biochar framework is guaranteed capture! NO? more: http://www.shalinry.org Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: The Case for Burying Charcoal erichj on 11/23/2008 at 5:01 PM

      Posts: 4

      You Have covered the basic links,here's a few more with some duplication; Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY! Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle. Charles Mann ("1491") in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage. I think Biochar has climbed the pinnacle, the Combined English and other language circulation of NGM is nearly nine million monthly with more than fifty million readers monthly! We need to encourage more coverage now, to ride Mann's coattails to public critical mass. Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague's ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text I love the "MEGO" factor theme Mann built the story around. Lord... how I KNOW that reaction. I like his characterization concerning the pot shards found in Terra Preta soils; so filled with pottery - "It was as if the river's first inhabitants had thrown a huge, rowdy frat party, smashing every plate in sight, then buried the evidence." Biochar data base; http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node I also have been trying to convince Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story, with pleading emails to him Since the NGM cover reads "WHERE FOOD BEGINS" , I thought this would be right down his alley and focus more attention on Mann's work. I've admiried his ability since "Botany of Desire" to over come the "MEGO" factor (My Eyes Glaze Over) and make food & agriculture into page turners. It's what Mann hasn't covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article and your transition team The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar in the 07 & 08 farm bill, http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate soils; Cornell, ISU, U of H, U of GA, Virginia Tech, New Zealand and Australia. Glomalin's role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil food web in Terra Preta soils. The International Biochar Initiative Conference Sept 8 in New Castle; http://www.biochar-international.org/ibi2008conference/aboutibi2008conference.html Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all? This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability. Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it. Michael Pollan is well briefed about Biochar technology, but did not include it in his "Farmer & Chief" article to the candidates, but Pollan was approached by Obama's people and asked for a condensed version. He replied that if he could solve the problems of US agriculture in less than 8000 word he would have. but I'm sure Biochar will be his 8001th word. Erich 540 289 9750 PS, Other concerns & Questions & Biochar studies at ACS Huston meeting & Grants; Total CO2 Equivalence: Even before the total CO2 equivalent credits are validated they should be on the product label. Once a commercial bagged soil amendment product, every suburban household can do it, The label can tell them of their contribution, a 40# bag = 150# CO2 = 160 bags / year to cover my personal CO2 emissions.( 20,000 #/yr , 1/2 average) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html Full carbon credit validation should easily follow the path that has garnered carbon credits for no-till practices. But that is just the Carbon! I have yet to find a total CO2 equivalent number taking consideration against some average field N2O & CH4 emissions. The New Zealand work shows 10X reductions. If biochar also proves to be effective at reducing nutrient run-off from agricultural soils, then there will also be a reduction in downstream N2O emissions . This ACS study implicates soil structure / N2O connection; http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Paper41955.html Biochar at ACS; There were no Biochar studies last year , this year dozens; Most all this work corroborates char dynamics we have seen so far . The soil GHG emissions work showing increased CO2 , also speculates that this CO2 has to get through the hungry plants above before becoming a GHG. The SOM, MYC& Microbes, N2O (soil structure), CH4 , nutrient holding , Nitrogen shock, humic compound conditioning, absorbing of herbicides all pretty much what we expected to hear. Biochar Studies at ACS Huston meeting; 578-I: http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4231.html 579-II http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4496.html 665 - III. http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4497.html 666-IV http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4498.html Biochar Grants: IBI Site; http://www.biochar-international.org/policyintheus.html CSREES Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/stakeholder/an_stakeholder_afri.html Sustainable Agriculture; The goals of sustainable agriculture are to provide a more profitable farm income, to promote environmental stewardship, and to enhance the quality of life for farm families and their communities. CSREES promotes sustainable agriculture through national program leadership and funding for research and extension. It offers competitive grants programs and a professional development program, and it collaborates with other federal agencies through the USDA Sustainable Development Council. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/sustainableagriculture.cfm Natural Resources & Environment (NRE), ( this seems the best fit for Biochar) NRE programs strengthen the nation's capacity to address critical environmental priorities and contribute to improved air, soil, and water quality; fish and wildlife management; enhanced aquatic and other ecosystems; the sustainable use and management of forests, rangelands, watersheds, and other renewable natural resources; and a better understanding of global climate change, including its impact on the diversity of plant and animal life. NRE programs also demonstrate the benefits and opportunities of sustainable development, and contribute to the economic viability of agriculture and rural communities realizing the impact of environmental policies and regulations. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/nre/nre_all.htm Rate this comment: (Reply)