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

[Kevin C]

Quoting "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>:

>
> 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 Paper is $39.95. I have not bought or read it; I have read only  
the Abstract.
>
>     The word “soil” appears three times - including in its  
> definition of biochar.

# What is tehir 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 is clearly a paper tailored for "Geoengineering Interests". The  
"char material" suitable for meeting "Geoengineering Interests" can be  
very different for teh char meeting "agricultural interests." It is  
deceptive, misleading, and impractical to require or infer that  
"Geochar" is teh same as "Biochar intended for agriculture"
>
>     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.

# Are they simply saying "Biochar can be used in Agriculture, and it  
won't interfere with out Geoengineering objectives"???

  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.

# Are they saying "Once we get going with Geoengineering, a lot of  
char will get used in Agriculture."??? If so, I would suggest they  
have "the cart before the horse."

  The authors of this paper are
> saying so.

# This is clearly a Geoengineering Paper, wrtitten by people with a  
"Geoengineering Agenda." There is no indication that they know  
anything about teh economic potential of "biochar" to be of direct  
benefit to the Farmer or Grower.

  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.

# If they have overlooked the fact that there is energy released in  
the charring process, this suggests that they know very little about it.
>
>   So in sum, you are incorrect.

# My statement was:
>> 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."
Based on the information contained in the Abstract, it isw difficult  
to see where I am significantly in error.

The article (peer-reviewed)

# If the article was "peer reviewed" by "Geoengineering Peers", that  
does not necesarily mean that ""biochar" is good for soils. It only  
means that "biochar" is good for Geoengineering.

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).

# An 11 page article on Geoengineering, that mentions "soils" only  
three times cannot be considered as a strong recommender for the use  
of "biochar" in agriculture. How could they "... rank biochar even  
higher than afforestation....", when afforestation was not even in the  
competition???

# "Geochar" or "Climatechar" could be an excellent market for chars  
that were unsuitable or inappropriate for use as "Growchar". I would  
suggest that "The Char Market" would be better off if these different  
uses for char were segregated.

Kevin


>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>