[Stoves] [biochar-policy] New report, highly favorable to biochar

[Ronal W. Larson]

Kevin,  cc list

   Not sure if you bought and read the paper.  If so, congratulations, but I suggest you re-read it.  If you didn’t buy it or otherwise find it in a technical library, I hope you will.

    The word “soil” appears three times - including in its definition of biochar.  The major statement reads:

   "Of the three core geoengineering options, biochar performed most highly against the co-benefit criterion, scoring moderately through its co-benefits to agriculture, namely: improved soil conditioning; increased water retention and related lowered irrigation demands; and increased productivity and yields.”

    This (for co-benefits) is one of five rankings (out of eight) of “most highly” (the top score reported).

   The great beauty of biochar is there is zero conflict between the “geo/climate” function and the soil improvement function - apparently difficult for some to realize.  We are going to see a lot more biochar for soil improvement when more “geo/climate” analysts realize biochar is the best of their options.  The authors of this paper are saying so.  I don’t know any other that has, although that is pretty common for those starting to look at biochar on the soil side.

One of my complaints about the otherwise wonderful article is they failed to mention that biochar production also provides, not requires, energy.  This being important to the stoves list to which I am also now sending this exchange.

  So in sum, you are incorrect.  The article (peer-reviewed) has as much or more on soils as you could expect in a paper with its title - and this is ranking biochar higher even than afforestation (which was mentioned, but not in the competition).

Ron

 


On Jan 5, 2014, at 7:02 AM, Kevin C <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Dear Ron
> 
> This report seems to be reporting on charcoal being used as "Geochar", or "Climatechar". and not on "char" or "charcoal" used as an "agricultural additive."
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 
> Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>:
> 
>> List:
>> 
>>  1.   I yesterday obtained at local technical library this paper (which has a fee) :
>> 
>> ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change
>> Rob Bellamy a,b,c,*, Jason Chilvers a,c, Naomi E. Vaughan a,b, Timothy M. Lenton d
>> 
>> Global Environmental Change;
>> 
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
>> 
>> 2.  It provides the most favorable reporting on biochar of any comparative study I have yet read.  There are 8 decision criteria, ranked by a selected twelve persons, for three geoengineering technologies  (Biochar and Air capture on the CDR side and only sulfur aerosols on the SRM side).  There are also a similar small number of mitigation and adaptation votes.  The text is much more positive on biochar than the graphs would indicate.
>> 
>> 3.  I will later send more on the results.  Where the panel thought biochar fell down (Efficacy), I think the mapping team (the paper authors) were not sufficiently aware of biochar’s unique capabilities in out-year knock-on effects and in being able to apply geotherapy to land we have ruined.  They worry about land availability;  now I don’t.
>> 
>>  I can’t now recall how the paper came to my attention, but thanks if from this list.
>> 
>> Ron
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140105/2c4518d6/attachment.html>