Biochar - for Climate, Soils

and Energy

Ron Larson

What Biochar is
How to Produce Biochar
Biochar's Impact on Climate and Soils
Who is Opposing and Why
What it Takes to Have a Big Impact
The Boulder and Other Conferences
The Copenhagen Conference
Infertile >> Fertile << Biochar
How Can Biochar Be Carbon-Negative?
Carbon
 What
Biochar is a fine-grained
is Biochar
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,
carbon serving as a
net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in
highly recalcitrant soil carbon stocks.
The enhanced nutrient retention capacity of biochar-
biochar
amended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer
requirements, but also the climate and environ-mental
environ
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

bio
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
Charcoal 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-11 Conference – Newcastle, UK

2009 1st North American (USBI) - Boulder
Last lines that I wrote in Nov. 2006

CHAIR’S CORNER
Ron Larson, Ph.D.
Positive Charcoal = Negative Carbon?
Why adding charcoal to the Earth's soils
will 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
“brea new ground” with
the barely recognized, but, I believe, most
ChAr “● Nov. '06
promising potential of ChAr.
 ASES, Kutscher, Overend

Two very short

mentions of
Biochar (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 Energy

Chair?? Stephen Joseph
First day at NSW Ag station (Lukas van
Zweiten) (20 attendees)
Many farmers; 2/3 from Australia
Change from IAI to IBI
 Opening View at
www.biochar-international.org
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
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'd
guardian.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) credits
2. Additional C and Non--C emissions reductions
from biochar systems
3. Bioenergy co-products
products (syngas, bio-oil,
bio heat)
4. Water quality impacts (reduced nutrient
leaching)
 IBI “Keys”, concluded

5. Enhanced productivity (crop and non-crop

non
biomass)
6. Enhanced soil water retention
7. Reduced chemical fertilizer inputs
8. Waste reduction, utilization, and added-
added
value
9. Reduced soil erosion, degradation
10. Agricultural intensification, reduced land
conversion
11. Distributed, on-farm
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
carbon
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 Form
http://www.biochar-
http://www.biochar
international.org/sites/default/files/final%20carbon%20
wpver2.0.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.
$200

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 emission
3 Reduced nitrous oxide emission (50% ?)
4 Reduced fertilizer requirement (10% ?)
5 Reduced leaching of nutrients
6 Stored carbon in a long term stable sink
7 Reduces soil acidity: raises soil pH
8 Reduces aluminum toxicity

Ref. http://biochar.pbworks.com/FrontPage
 Benefits of using biochar in the
•Benefits
garden, concluded
10 Increased soil aggregation due to increased
fungal hyphae
11 Improved soil water handling
12 Increased available Ca, Mg, P, and K
13 Increased soil microbial respiration
14 Increased soil microbial biomass
15 Stimulated symbiotic nitrogen fixation in
legumes
16 Increased arbuscular mycorrhyzal fungi
17 Increased cation exchange capacity
 IBI Example News Items
• Fertiliser demand is heating up
Weekly Times Now 10/06 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 of
Improved productivity
photos like these

• Terra-Preta soils in
Amazon – up to
2 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
life 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 on
geoengineering
apparatus
from Wall Street
Street Journal
15 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/geoengi
neering-the-climate--a-clear-perspective-
from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
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

• “Usingbiochar to sequester
carbon dioxide is also surprisingly
low against all four criteria.”
• Read more:
http://2020science.org/2009/09/01/geoengi
neering-the-climate--a-clear-perspective-
from-the-royal-society/#ixzz0TZYheANq
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."
services

• [http://www.nap.edu/catalog
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 ha

b. Assumed available 2 G ha

c. Assumed annual biomass 20 Gt /ha-yr

/ha
d. Assumed annual carbon 10 Gt C/ha-yr
C/ha
e. 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
Gha 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
Gha 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 companies

Good report by Albert Bates (eco-village)
(eco

• Approved Boulder (regional, not intern'l)

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

• Nice response to Dave Yarrow re nutrition

Same for Nathaniel Mulcahy (World Stove)
First detailed LCA (Cornell)
New method on lifetimes (Florida)

• Maybe ten companies

Good report in “The Economist”

• Formed USBI
 Copenhagen
Conference of the Parties (COP-15)
(COP

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
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
non energy?)
 Conclusion

From Markus Antonietti (Hydrocoal):

“Warum nicht mal „Negativ“ denken

?”

“Why not even think 'Negative'?”