Skip navigation
24comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Kevin Huang

Sep 12, 2011
12:50

Member


1 |
Share via:
This proposal is both well structured and thorough. While the steps outlined in this proposal seem technologically feasible, it seems that the overall feasibility is largely hindered by social, political, and economic factors. This proposal is suggesting significant, wide ranging, wholesale transformations of several fundamental institutions underpinning our society, not simply, say, just a change in our energy system, which is already complex enough. As such, because this proposal is advocating for such large scale transformations to our energy system (use of biochar for energy production), our economic system (new local currencies and monetary policies), and our social systems (biochar cookers as a centerpiece of our social routine), the feasibility of implementation for this proposal as a whole seems low. Although, I think components of this proposal could be more easily implemented, such as the use of biochar in energy production. This challenge largely stems from the daunting number of different actors that must be engaged and persuaded in order to implement each wholesale systemic change. To be successful at a meaningful scale, nearly everyone would have to buy in to this single idea (particularly true of the changes to the economic system proposed). Such changes, even if successfully implemented, would require significant amounts of time over which to occur. Additionally, a calculation for whether biochar can supply all the claimed benefits in this proposal at global scale would strengthen this proposal. For instance, what would be necessary to achieve our global annual power production from biochar, while still storing enough carbon in sequestered biochar to remain net carbon-negative each year at a fast enough pace to allow atmospheric CO2 concentrations to drop within a meaningful time frame to avoid irreversible climate change? How much biochar would need to be produced for burning and storing each year? Do enough sustainable biochar feedstocks even exist to meet those conditions?

Erich J. Knight

Sep 17, 2011
06:45

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
May I add in support; The Major Endorsements of NASA's Dr. Jim Hansen, , Gaia's Dr. James Lovelock, Nobel laureates; Al Gore and Dr. Mario Molina,(ozone work) Politicians; Tony Blair, Tony Abbott, Secretaries Salazar & Vilsack, Environmentalist; Tim Flannery, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson & his Carbon War Room. Dr. Mario Molina, PNAS Report on Reducing abrupt climate change; http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf+html Recent NATURE STUDY; Sustainable Biochar to Mitigate Global Climate Change http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html The future of biochar - Project Rainbow Bee Eater http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20090211-20142.html Black Swan of Biochar Short a nano material PV / thermoelectrical / ultracapasitating Black swan, What we can do now with "off the shelf" technology, what I proposed at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, to the EPA chiefs of North America. The most cited soil scientist in the world, Dr. Rattan Lal at OSU, was impressed with this talk, commending me on conceptualizing & articulating the concept. Bellow the opening & closing text. A Report on my talk at CEC, and complete text & links are here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy/message/3233 The Establishment of Soil Carbon as the Universal Measure of Sustainability The Paleoclimate Record shows agricultural-geo-engineering is responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. The unintended consequence, the flowering of our civilization. Our science has now realized these consequences and has developed a more encompassing wisdom. Wise land management, afforestation and the thermal conversion of biomass can build back our soil carbon. Pyrolysis, Gasification and Hydro-Thermal Carbonization are known biofuel technologies, What is new are the concomitant benefits of biochars for Soil Carbon Sequestration; building soil biodiversity & nitrogen efficiency, for in situ remediation of toxic agents, and, as a feed supplement cutting the carbon foot print of livestock. Modern systems are closed-loop with no significant emissions. The general life cycle analysis is: every 1 ton of biomass yields 1/3 ton Biochar equal to 1 ton CO2e, plus biofuels equal to 1MWh exported electricity, so each energy cycle is 1/3 carbon negative. Beyond Rectifying the Carbon Cycle; Biochar systems Integrate nutrient management, serving the same healing function for the Nitrogen and Phosphorous Cycles. The Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards are the royal road for the GHG Mitigation; The Bio-Refining Technologies to Harvest Carbon. The photosynthetic "capture" collectors are up and running all around us, the "storage" sink is in operation just under our feet, conversion reactors are the only infrastructure we need to build out. Carbon, as the center of life, has high value to recapitalize our soils. Yielding nutrient dense foods and Biofuels, Paying Premiums of pollution abatement and toxic remediation and the growing Dividend created by the increasing biomass of a thriving soil community. Since we have filled the air, filling the seas to full, soil is the only beneficial place left. Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

James Greyson

Sep 22, 2011
11:04

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Kevin, many thanks for your very helpful review. Brilliant to have expert input! Regarding feasibility there are 2 views. Usually people assume that a more limited proposal (eg just technical) will be more feasible. If the technology is good enough it will take off, with our fingers crossed. I'm not so sure about this as I've seen promising technologies (eg renewables) that still struggle decades after they should have become mainstream. Biochar is even one example. I can buy 50 kinds of gas heating boiler but there are no biochar-making boilers available and none even under development SFAIK. So I wonder whether biochar is an example of a change that is actually more feasible as an example of whole system change? The interconnectedness of social, technical and economic factors can even be used to accelerate change, despite needing to consider more of the inevitable complexity? I would like it too if there was a feasible low-change option for the future but that doesn't seem to be the world we're in. Monetary policy for example needs to change anyhow, irrespective of biochar, if we want to run economies at all in future ;-) So proposing a currency innovation that helps with local economies, national economies and climate security all together perhaps isn't so far-fetched after all? The experience of the USA in the 1930s suggests that local currencies can spring up overnight in response to need, without any planning, so it could be useful to start thinking in advance how to do this - and potentially even avoid another great depression. Another advantage of the proposal's economic theme is that it avoids the trap where a "daunting number of different actors that must be engaged and persuaded". The incentives provided in actions 2, 3 and 4 would do the persuasion for us :-) I think there was a misunderstanding regarding social feasibility; apologies if I gave the impression (without writing it) of "biochar cookers as a centerpiece of our social routine". I see energy from biochar as a valuable by-product of making biochar, which should be made available alongside other renewable options so that people can choose. There is no obligation or plan for it to become a centrepiece of routines for the whole society, even though that may end up as the outcome over time as orchards and forests expand as biochar production increases. I wouldn't say it's true that "nearly everyone would have to buy in to this single idea" for biochar-backed local currencies to happen. Biochar-related activities would provide good livelihoods for a proportion of the population (perhaps equivalent to the unemployed sector) but there is no need for everyone to do it, any more than everyone would need to be involved with solar panels. A nice benefit of local money circulation however is that nearly everyone would benefit from the increased velocity and supply of money in local economies. Have added a section about quantification of the potential for biochar, explaining that the maximum figures given in previous studies are more likely to be a minimum. There is of course no need for total global energy production to come just from biochar. I would be delighted to collaborate on a study with a more realistic view of biochar but the risk to bear in mind is that overemphasis on quantification can unintentionally impose imaginary barriers to progress. When we are in a hurry to get somewhere with climate initiatives we should get busy building more powerful policy engines rather than sit and calculate how we cannot get very far with existing policies. Climate is a massively bigger problem than society has been able to admit to itself so my suggestion would be to build the most powerful possible policy engine, combining maximising sustainable biochar and all other whole-system policy switches (http://bit.ly/7switches ). Thanks again for your great review. This has helped me clarify important points and improve the proposal. I'll send you a message to say I've replied and warmly welcome your follow-up. James

James Greyson

Sep 22, 2011
11:13

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Erich, many thanks for support, excellent references and valuable insights. Please click the team tab and join the team if you wish! James

Rasmus Kiehl

Sep 22, 2011
11:23

Member


5 |
Share via:
This proposal should include the concept of coppicing: using large amounts of biomass from trees without actually cutting down trees. Applied on a large scale (global coppice), it could dramatically increase the amount of biomass available for biochar production. This idea will be met with extreme opposition by the protectors of the (rain) forests. But we have to get them to realize that if we don't repair the climate, those forests are doomed (see: pine beetle in Rocky Mountains, Amazon rain forest drought of 2011 etc.) and will turn into deserts. Other valuable concepts to potentially include are biochar/integrated biorefinery for the production of liquid biofuels from pyrolysis gases, solar pyrolysis, staged pyrolysis to minimize tars, thermoelectric generators for electricity (see "Hastuden Nabe"), local steam networks to shift our energy use away from electricity and towards heat/steam, steam-powered appliances such as wood chippers, superheated steam for the preservation of biomass and food, "the biochar powered house", agave (grown in deserts) as feedstock for biochar, biochar to enable afforestation of marginal lands, algal turf scrubber for feedstock, SkySails and aerial ropeways to transport biochar over long distances, nuclear biochar/nuclear torrefaction, etc.

James Greyson

Sep 22, 2011
12:11

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I agree, have added it in the feasibility section. Would expect that coppicing should be acceptable to rainforest campaigners if mixed with standards (uncoppiced trees) and planting is done on previously deforested land? Have referenced your great list of technical possibilities in Actions 1. What is nuclear biochar? Not sure how well highly centralised nuclear power can mix with highly decentralised biomass sources and biochar sinks (soils)? Wonder if algae would be better eaten/composted/digested since it's wet? Would love to see more about a biochar powered house.

Claudia Munera

Sep 22, 2011
07:31

Member


7 |
Share via:
Regarding the comment about coppicing (above), I think that the location of the project will be very important since it does not necesarily need to be located in pristine areas of forest. For example, areas with a high pressure and densities of invasive plants where restoration programs are going on, will benefit using biomass for biochar from the invasive species of plants. That may reduce the pressure over native forests if coppice is not an option due management restrictions. Other option, for projects that are close to monocrops as oil palm is using the great ammount of residual biomass from the plantations. I think this kind of projects would have effect at a local level but at a global level it may be difficult, however that is the challenge. And finally, it would be important to consider the social, biological and climate realities of the areas where the biochar project will be run. For example, it may be different in Europe than in the Amazonia, or in Africa than the Patagonia (local economies, local productions...).

James Greyson

Sep 23, 2011
04:25

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Claudi, yes exactly. It doesn't sound right to coppice intact rainforest but thanks to our historical failure to protect it, there is lots of degraded and even abandoned land that can be reforested, including coppice/pollard etc. Yes agricultural wastes are a typical biochar feedstock. Biochar from oil palms could even be a way to boost reforestation and 'pay back' some of the damage done when the plantations arrived. Yes there will be differences between localities. And also similarities since for example everyone needs to cook. This proposal is not prescriptive about how to do it locally and just tries to set out what would be needed everywhere, since biomass is growing (almost) everywhere and the climate is in trouble everywhere.

Dennis Peterson

Sep 23, 2011
10:11

Member


9 |
Share via:
I found some discussion of nuclear biochar: http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2114 Note this is from the "energy from thorium" forum. Liquid flouride thorium reactors were initially designed for use in nuclear airplanes. A thorium-based power system could be quite decentralized. (See my Cycling Carbon proposal for details.) I've seen biologists argue that mass extinction is an even bigger problem than climate change. So I'm not too keen on ideas about sacrificing rainforests to fix climate. But we can go a long way with biochar, without doing that. Farms cover a pretty impressive percentage of land area, and agave can produce biochar very efficiently....here's someone who claims $50/ton for agave-sourced biochar: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/7954 Another approach is efficient cookstoves producing biochar in the third world. This gives villagers a way to make money on carbon credits, while reducing deforestation and improving their health. (Links for that are in my proposal too.)

James Greyson

Sep 23, 2011
11:37

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Denis, maybe some nuclear airplanes could fly between biomass sources, zapping it into biochar? (Joking!) For most technologies, decentralisation is a happy outcome. Not so sure for nuclear, given our nutty world with potential for nutty plots targeting radioactive sites. Biochar is such a simple easy technology it seems a shame to add radioactive materials to the ingredients? Luckily I'm not proposing sacrificing even one leaf of a rainforest. Am trying to suggest biochar as a way to regenerate lost forests. The Fixing Systems proposal includes ways to end the loss of nature (leading as you say to mass extinction), including inverting the human worldview of 'belonging' http://bit.ly/switch5 Let's hope this happens. Yes, efficient biochar-making cookstoves are part of this proposal. My particular interest is simplified designs that can be made locally from local scrap materials. Thanks for your helpful ideas and links :-)

Dennis Peterson

Sep 23, 2011
02:42

Member


11 |
Share via:
Just to be clear, I don't support nuclear airplanes :) ...I'm not sure whether nuclear biochar makes sense, I hadn't come across the idea before today. My thinking is to use advanced nuclear to replace coal plants, with the waste heat used for desalination or to produce liquid fuels from ambient CO2. Biochar and other techniques would absorb whatever fossil emissions remain. Glad you agree on forests, I was mainly responding to comment #5 on that. Worldstove has been adapting stove designs to local preferences, with the stoves made locally except for one high-precision component. Participants are selling carbon credits at $2.59/ton, which is way less than anything else I've seen. An opensource design that can be made entirely locally would be even better, I'm looking forward to seeing how that progresses.

Ed Revill

Sep 25, 2011
07:49

Member


12 |
Share via:
Hi yes I like your views on both the use of biochar and of the problems with the current economic models and of quantitive easing, (I could go on about that but will save it for another time...) In comment #2 you point out that there are no biochar/woodgas hot water boilers commercially available. I have made a simple heat exchanger out of stainless steel pipe which I have used to heat a tea urn and bain marie as part of a mobile catering unit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsATDiIoqhg I am in the process of using a similar heat exchanger to convert my domestic water heating system to run on one of my modified biochar producing rocket stoves (see above link, I will put a better video on youtube as soon as I get hold of a video camera!) Currently all my heating and cooking produces biochar and I hope to have carbon neg baths before the end of next week! Heat exchangers like this are simple, very cheap and easy to make if you or a friend can do a water tight weld in stainless steel. They can be used on most stoves (including tluds) as part of a flue outlet. There is no point in having an efficient stove if the heat is not effectively captured.

James Greyson

Sep 26, 2011
04:56

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Dennis, I'd guessed you saw nuclear airplanes as a flight of fancy. Yes, since coal needs phasing out it's good to consider all techie options, and swapping the power source in coal plants is a definite option if it's possible to know that liquid thorium will work soon. Another option would be the 'Fix the system' proposal in the CoLab where the energy inefficiency of linear (resource-to-junk) economics is quickly phased out. The Factor 10 Institute claim a potential 80% reduction in energy demand which would allow many existing power plants to be just switched off. This is good to consider especially in China where they're keen on both coal and circular economy. My open-source design is complementary to WorldStove as a DIY option. Have had many enquiries from prospective user communities so will get it out there as soon as I can locate a sponsoring partner. Fingers crossed :-)

James Greyson

Sep 26, 2011
07:36

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hi Ed, you might enjoy also my other proposal on the CoLab, https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/4/planId/13801 where public money creation is offered as a source of climate financing (with the side-benefit of avoiding global economic meltdown!). I like your simple heat exchanger. These designs that can work in any country are very important and people like you are walking proof of the need for currency schemes that can support your expertise and work. Yours is the first combined rocket-anila biochar stove I've seen - nice one. I guess you know when the woodchip is charred when the flame shrinks? I've done something sort of similar where the sideways heat is used to dry fuel for the next batch in a top-lit stove. James

Erich J. Knight

Sep 26, 2011
09:37

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
In the links of the CEC talk I posted before is the current status of Arturo's Agave work; Agave Border Initiative (ABC), Arturo Velez sent his Agave-Derived Biofuels creation of a Bi-National Border Consortium to foster large-scale use of agave as energy crop. His steering committee; Dr. Soll Sussman, Coordinator of the Border Energy Forum, as well as the National Coordinators of the Bor­der 2012 Binational Environmental Program, Dr. Steve Kaffka, Director of the California Biomass Collaborative and Dr. Matthew A. Jenks, Coordinator for the Western Regional USDA-ARS Biomass Research Center, US Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, USDA. Government agencies, private initiative, farmers/ranchers/foresters associations, academia/researchers, NGO and entrepreneurs are welcome to participate. The Western US States produce only ~0.3% of the total USA biomass production, but by planting 25 million hectares of agave on marginal dryland, these States could produce 1.6+ Billion tonnes of dry biomass every year, the same amount the whole US currently produces. In Mexico he is working with CONOSIL, with six hundred and seventy thousand members. They own at least 40 million hectares of land. They are VERY interested in the Agave Project. Especially the States with more semiarid and arid land (upper half of Mexico). CONOSIL is a member of the International Family Forestry Alliance. CONOSIL: http://www.conosil.org.mx/ , Arturo is the National Administrative Coordinator. http://www.slideshare.net/agaveproject/Agave-Project-Presentation I just learned he has also started a Nigerian/African"GREAT GREEN WALL" shelterbelt project! I look forward to hearing more about his efforts in Tanzania and Kenya and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, also. It is fantastic to hear that he has established a Second "Pilot Plantation" has in Northern California,

James Greyson

Sep 29, 2011
07:29

Member


16 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks Erich, very interesting big scale action. I guess they've looked at the effect of large scale singl-crop planting on the desert ecosystems? Probably it's possible to do it in a way that allows diverse flora and fauna to thrive?

Erich J. Knight

Oct 1, 2011
07:50

Member


17 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
PRO-NATURA INTERNATIONAL has the largest numbers of agroforestry soil-C & Biochar projects. Certainly the largest NGO, across the global south. They are very sensitive in both design and co-opting local social values for creating self perpetuated systems. Like the Exponential growth of biologic systems. http://pronatura.org/index.php The Biochar Fund has doubled subsistence farmer's incomes; Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all, that , and the size of the Biochar corn root balls http://www.biochar-international.org/cameroon WorldStoves in Haiti ; http://www.charcoalproject.org/2010/05/a-man-a-stove-a-mission/ Secretary Hillary Clinton Makes a big Announcement with The Global Stove Initiative; State Dept. Release; 100 million clean-burning stoves in kitchens around the world. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147494.htm Biochar Work in Nine Developing Countries: http://www.biochar-international.org/9country World Bank Study: The survey data from 150 biochar projects located in 38 developing countries is available now on the IBI website at: http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Survey_5-11-11_online.pdf. The IBI now has 33 biochar affiliates around the world -- including in China, India, Japan UK, US, Australia, Korea, Canada, Italy and Israel. Note also that our Japanese colleagues in the Japan Biochar Association have a very long tradition of biochar use and have been developing "modern methods" over the last thirty years. A governmental act officially acknowledged charcoal as a "soil ameliorator" back in 1988 and have completed work using Biochar as an in situ sorbent of Cd, and starting work on heavy metal radio-isotopes. My 6 year advocacy for thermal conversion has ranged from academic, industry, policy, research & education, culminating recently in a briefing to the EPA chiefs of north America. The other big success this last year were instigating field trials for mercury remediation by DuPont, not published yet, and in collaboration with ORNL, they reported to me initial results of a 95% reduction in Hg uptake into the food web! Also my instigation of Biochar field trials at the Rodale Institute in 2009 have been re-instituted by Dr. East and Dr. Elain Engham.

2011 Judges

Oct 11, 2011
06:44

Member


18 |
Share via:
Overall assessment: Interesting niche solution but impact likely to be relatively narrow. Specific comments and suggestions for improvement: - While the proposal is interesting and developed in sufficient detail it focuses on a small part of the global economy. Biochar might definitely have a role to play but it is unclear from the proposal how the idea might scale up to be a significant contribution to climate change mitigation. The proposal has little to offer for the global economy as a whole, and does not make any proposals for a variety of other equally important issues that should be considered in order to seriously address the contest challenge. - Biochar indeed is an interesting possibility, but a more detailed analysis of its potential is needed, including e.g., more clarity on the magnitude of possible global greenhouse gas emissions savings due to use of twigs rather than other fuels.

James Greyson

Oct 16, 2011
07:11

Member


19 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Judges, I appreciate this feedback though it's not clear if you had an opportunity to read through the proposal since it answers all the concerns you pose. Niche? No, biochar "uniquely provides renewable energy, carbon mitigation, adaptation and sequestration". Narrow? No, "this is whole system change where the climate, ecosystems and economies all recover together". Scalable? Yes, "Biochar can be quickly and easily scaled up to create 'biochar economies' that rapidly cut fossil fuel dependence, remove accumulated wastes from the atmosphere, regenerate soils, expand ecosystems and boost the recovery of communities and their finances." Offer to global economy? Yes, "Transactions in local money would be included in national GDP accounts, allowing biochar to trigger local, national and international recovery of employment, economic activity..." Related proposals? Yes, "check out my allied proposal Fix the system - get a global 'circular economy' which could support biochar as well as allow the whole global economy to phase out further worsening impacts such as climate change." Analysis of potential? Yes, "quantifications of potential would require a major research project and cannot be given here. However I would say that previous estimates of maximum potential (such as the recent Nature study, ref. 9 below) should instead be considered as a minimum. Hence the global potential for biochar is at least 1.8 Pg CO2 -C equivalent (CO 2 -Ce ) per year or 12 % of current anthropogenic CO 2 -C e emissions; 1 Pg = 1 Gt." Just twigs? No, "Making biochar is easily done using simple equipment and easily accessible surplus biomass or agricultural residues". Not sure how much it helps to cite biochar as "an interesting possibility" if the role of the expert academic community is to dismiss rather than explore? In any case thank you for your time and for taking part in the CoLab. I welcome any judges or other experts willing to discuss further here or directly with me (click on blindspotter on the left then send a message). Best wishes, James

Erich J. Knight

Jan 17, 2012
04:50

Member


20 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Team, The two major developments below from BlueSky Biochar and CoolPlanet Biofuels will show that industrial scaling up is happening more than the Judges can shake their "sticks" at. The Dupont & ORNL work on Biochar Hg remediation is expanding along with Forest service work on mine scarred lands. Big Wig consortiums like Catchlight Energy LLC, a joint venture of Chevron Corp and Weyerhaeuser , with Kior , and Honeywell joining SynGest & AlipaJet for fossil free NH3 fertilizer and tank ready jet fuel from biomass, go to show that main stream corporations are showing much more than just interest in Biochar systems. Cool Planet Carbon Negative Gasoline California dreaming?....No, it's a lucid Reality!....Gasoline so clean,... Is it fossil fuel ?...or is it biofuel? ... only your radiocarbon isotope tester knows for sure. The farm scale reactors are producing (after treatment, no details) a high surface area char, 600 sq meters / gram, field trials in poor desert sandy soils have produced 4X increases in lettuce growth. Given the due diligence rigors that companies like GE, ConocoPhillips, NRG Energy & venture funds like BP, Google, Energy Technology Ventures, must have put Cool Planet through, I will assume that their "Magic Catalysis" for bio-oil to tank ready fuels must really have some proprietary magic in it. Blending with California standard E-10 gasoline to meet California's 2020 goal of a 10% reduction in carbon is a great plan to stretch early limited production carbon benefits across the whole market. I wish I knew the percentage of blending so I could calculate from the claim their total pure bio-gasoline future production; "Cool Planet has the capability to produce over one million gallons of 2020 low carbon gasoline this year, and projects ramping to a billion gallons by 2015 and significantly higher volumes by 2018. Cool Planet plans to create the capacity to supply sufficient negative carbon blendstock to meet California's 2020 goals as early as 2016. " Cool Planet BioFuels Announces Road Testing of Negative Carbon Gasoline Begins in California http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cool-planet-biofuels-announces-road-testing-of-negative-carbon-gasoline-begins-in-california-2012-01-11 Blue Sky Biochar, www.blueskybiochar.com a division of International Tech Corporation, are running their TRU reactor to replace coal fired power with baseload Carbon negative power & Char at FaceBook's new server Farm. Producing a pelletalized char inoculated with mycorhizal fungi from Dr."Mike" Amaranthus, http://www.mycorrhizae.com/ Backed by ITC with decades of experience in pyrolysis for waste feedstock & steel drum reconditioning, now has a purpose built reactor for char production International Tech Corp. (ITC) http://internationaltechcorp.net/about/profile/ If you want to put your jaw on the floor look at the "Super Stone Clean Biochar" results of char as a feed ration. the indeterminate growth species of shrimp, clams & eels are just amazing. For animal health, char as a 3% feed ration for livestock & aquaculture has shown phenomenal results. Ruminant livestock CH4 belching reduced and in indeterminate growth species has doubled their size and reduced mortality buy 20% . The Iwamoto Mineral Biochar company is conducting tests regarding the effectiveness of their reactor technology to treat cesium contaminated debris from the tsunami & Fukushima release, So far it looks promising. I am very impressed with SuperStoneClean because of the scale and variety of feedstock solutions they offer from restaurants' food waste to electronic waste to now the daughters of uranium waste! http://superstoneclean.com/video-presentations/ These ecological services not only trump the energy value of complete litter combustion but put way more money in the Farmer's pocket.

Erich J. Knight

May 13, 2012
11:09

Member


21 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dear Biochar Team, Below is a nomination for our proposal for the 2012 www.katerva.org award, I hope the judges notice. Dear Erich, As Chief Research Officer at Katerva, it is my pleasure to inform you that the MIT Climate CoLab proposal Carbon Negative Biochar Economies has been nominated for a 2012 Katerva Award: www.katerva.org “If the Nobel Society had an award for sustainability, it would resemble the Katerva Awards, a new international prize for the most promising ideas and efforts to advance the planet toward sustainability.” Reuters I would like to discuss this nomination with you and/or another appropriate person on your team. I have attached an overview of our awards that you may like to share with friends and colleagues. I have also attached a brief nominee evaluation report. Please fill this out at your earliest convenience and before the end of May at the latest. After you finish this form, the data will be submitted to the Katerva evaluation panel. In a few weeks, you will be informed about the decision of the jury. Please let me know if you have any questions about the report or need any assistance with it. Please feel free to send me a contact number so that I may inform you further about the nomination. We would like to establish contact with the correct person on your team and with your media department for our Global Research Team, which may assist you with the nominee evaluation report. I look forward to speaking with you and congratulations on your nomination! All the Best, Victoria -- Victoria Kamsler, D.Phil Chief Research Officer Katerva http://katerva.org/

James Greyson

May 15, 2012
05:54

Member


22 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Great news Erich, many thanks for fielding this! Have spoken with Victoria Kamsler and crossed my fingers that the Katerva judges will pick up proposals like this that match the scale of the challenges. James

Dennis Peterson

Jul 31, 2014
08:19

Member


23 |
Share via:
Hi blindspotter, I referenced this in a combined proposal: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/planId/1309401

Michael Hayes

Sep 12, 2014
05:00

Member


24 |
Share via:
Blindspotter, I do wish you and your supporters the best on this competition. I'm far from a biochar expert yet I've spent a little over a year closely looking at the complex of issues surrounding biochar. I would like to ask a few short questions to help clarify things in my own mind. 1) The Global Carbon Project seems to give the impression that it may be difficult to use land for either mitigation or adaptation without causing more CO2 emissions. Please see Charts 32 and 33. The GCP: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/13/files/GCP_budget_2013.pdf Perfection should not be the enemy of practical solutions and we do need all robust CDR approaches supported. My question is; (a) Do you believe that biochar is a stand along 100% solution to the need for a global scale BECCS conversion along with global scale organic fertilizer conversion? (b)And, can a be achieved without triggering the conversion of food crops to fuel crops/forest to fuel crops? Much of the above is the focus of Novamont which is building the largest biorefinery in the world - a €540 million investment in Porto Torres. The 'up-stream' supply of the raw biomass is the primary limiting factor in Novamont (or Cool Planet Inc.) scenario. 2) Although Biochar is a no-brainer as a soil amendment as it offers off-year (i.e. extended/multi-year soil benefits from one application) it does not seem to be a true fertilizer. With that said, a well formulated organic fertilizer should/must have a biochar ingredient. However, the issue of replacing chemical fertilizer, on a global scale and with terrestrial organics, would seem to exacerbate the global carbon budget problem relative to land use issues (per GCP). The 'nutrient wall', or lack of enough traditional organic fertilizer in Germany (at that time), gave incentive to the development of the Haber/Bosch process. Currently, the need to remove vast amounts of oceanic/atmospheric CO2 is also a strong incentive to rethink the carbon budget matrix.... while.... weighing the overall synergies which organic fertilizers can provide. Yet, terrestrial 'up-steam' sourcing of the biomass needed for global scale carbon negative bio-energy (BECCS) production is strongly questioned by the IPCC WG3 (and that does not include the biomass needed for organic fertilizer). My question is; how does your terrestrial biomass based proposal answer the question of standardized 'up-stream' biomass sourcing which can achieve the vast scale needed for true global scale carbon management? 3) China has a significant history with low cost/simplistic biochar/gasifier stoves and they are even opening up a few retail stores here in the US. https://www.google.com/search?q=JXQ-10+Chinese+Gasifier&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qVwTVJzxKYj-igLS6ICYBQ&ved=0CEUQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667 However, it has become clear that many of these consumer level stoves do eventually end up burning virtually anything the customer can fit in it. One polystyrene coffee cup burned in a pyrolysis stove would negate months/years worth of 'positive' environmental work by that stove (loosing the Ozone Layer would make global warming something of a moot issue.). My Question is; How does your proposal prevent such 'Fuel' abuse at the consumer level? Again, I do wish you the best on this competition. Michael
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.
Click on the box