Most households only use one or at most two different rubbish bins, one for recyclables (paper & packaging) and one for general waste. It makes a lot of sense to add a third type of rubbish bin, for biowaste, i.e. kitchen waste, soil and garden waste.
Many people already compost such biowaste in the garden, but all too often such biowaste disappears along with the general waste in the rubbish bin. As displayed on the picture below, analysis in Waikato, New Zealand, shows that about half of household waste can consist of kitchen waste, soil and garden waste. Such waste ends up on rubbish tips, where the decomposing process leads to greenhouse gases, such as methane. And all too often, farmers burn crop residues on the land, resulting in huge emissions of greenhouse gases.
All such biowaste could deliver affordable energy by using the slow burning process of pyrolysis to produce agrichar or bio-char, a form of charcoal that is totally black. Organic material, when burnt with air, will normally turn into white ash, while the carbon contained in the biowaste goes up into the air as carbon dioxide (CO2). In case of pyrolysis, by contrast, biowaste is heated up while starved of oxygen, resulting in this black form of charcoal.
This agrichar was at first glance regarded as a useless byproduct when producing hydrogen from biowaste, but it is increasingly recognized for its qualities as a soil supplement. Agrichar makes the soil better retain water and nutrients for plants, thus reducing losses of nutrients and reducing the CO2 that goes out of the soil, while enhancing soil productivity and making it store more carbon.
When biowaste is normally added to soil, the carbon contained in crop residue, mulch and compost is likely to stay there for only two or three years. By contrast, the more stable carbon in agrichar can stay in the soil for hundreds of years. Adding agrichar just once could be equivalent to composting the same weight every year for decades.
Agrichar appears to be the best way to bury carbon in topsoil, resulting in soil restoration and improved agriculture. Agrichar has the potential to remove substantial amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, as it both buries carbon in the soil and gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere through better growth of vegetation. Agrichar restores soils and increases fertility. It results in plants taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere, which ends up in the soil and in the vegetation. Agrichar feeds new life in the soil and increases respiration, leading to improvements in soil structure, specifically its capacity to retain water and nutrients. Agrichar makes the soil structure more porous, with lots of surface area for water and nutrients to hold onto, so that both water and nutrients are better retained in the soil.
In conclusion, recycling biowaste in the above way is an excellent method to produce hydrogen (e.g. for cars) and to bury carbon in the soil and improve production of food. Agrichar is now produced for soil enrichment at a growing number of places. The top photo shows agrichar in pellet form from Eprida. Australian-based BEST Energies has built a demonstration pyrolysis plant with a capacity to process 300 kilograms of biowaste per hour. It accepts biowaste such as dry green waste, wood waste, rice hulls, cow and poultry manure or paper mill waste. The plant cooks the biomass without oxygen, producing syngas, a flammable mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The agrichar thus produced retains about half the carbon of the original biowaste (the other half was burned in the process of producing the syngas).
Also important is to compare different farming practices. Carbon is important for holding the soil together. Farmers now typically plough the soil to plant the seeds and add fertilizers. This ploughing causes oxygen to mix with the carbon in the soil, resulting in oxidation, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Ploughing leads to a looser soil structure, prone to erosion under the destructive impact of heavy rains, flooding, thunderstorms, wind and animal traffic. Given the more extreme weather that can be expected due to global warming, we should reconsider practices such as ploughing.
Furthermore, the huge monocultures of modern farming have become dependent on fertilizers and pesticides. The separation of farming and urban areas has in part become necessary due to the practice of spraying chemicals and pesticides. Instead, we should consider growing more food on smaller-scale farms, in gardens and greenhouses within areas currently designated for urban usage. Vegan-organic farming can increase bio-diversity; by carefully selecting complementary vegetation to grow close together, diseases and pests can be minimized while the nutritial value, taste and other qualities of the food can be increased.
An issue of growing concern is nitrous oxide (N2O), which is 310 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas when released in the atmosphere. Much release of N2O is related to the practices of ploughing and adding fertilizers to the soil. Microbes subsequently convert the nitrogen in these fertilisers into N2O. A recent study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen indicates that the current ways of growing and burning biofuel actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions. The study concludes that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops (rapeseed biodiesel and corn bioethanol) releases twice the amount of nitrous oxide, compared to what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates for farming. The findings follow a recent OECD report that concluded that growing biofuel crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage biodiversity, with only limted benefits in terms of global warming.
All this is no trivial matter. Soils contain more carbon than all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Therefore, soil is the obvious place to look at when trying to solve problems associated with global warming. By changing agricultural practices, we can add carbon to the soil and can minimize release of greenhouse gases.
References:
- Soils offer new hope as carbon sink
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope/
- Surprise: less oxygen could be just the trick
http://tinyurl.com/ywalt4
- What we throw away
http://www.waikato.govt.nz/enviroinfo/waste/whatwethrowaway.htm
- The Carbon Farmers
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/soilcarbon/
- Living Soil
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/
- BEST Pyrolysis, Inc.
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html
- Eprida, Inc.
http://eprida.com/hydro/
- Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp
- Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?
http://tinyurl.com/yq9t8o
- Communities without Roads
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Wheat Farmers disc the stubble into the soil so the material will rot and put nutrients back into the soil. They let the field lay fallow for a year for this process to take place. They rotate their crops so that they are only using half of their field each year thus keeping the soil rich. Ploughing is only done in breaking up a new field. The disc does not go as deep and simply turns the soil. The oxygen put into the soil in this way along with the decomposition of the stubble creates nutrients and carbon dioxide. Plants take in the carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the air for us to breathe. When we exhale we put carbon dioxide into the air. Thus the cycle of life is complete.
I have seen articles about how harmful carbon dioxide is. Without it there would be no plants just as without oxygen we could not survive. The product of combustion in burning fossel fuels such as gasoline, natural gas, etc is Carbon Monoxide. That stuff can kill you.
Also note that rotting results in methane. Yes, plants do need CO2, but there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as too much methane and too much nitrous oxide due to fertilizers. We need to examine the entire spectrum of farming practices with the aim of reducing all such emissions. Note also that much farmland is currently used to produce feed for livestock. See my proposal to tax the sale of meat, at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123673
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/04/02/epa/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html
AFter reading about all the 'earmarks' the government puts on bills getting passed thru congress, I have little belief in what the 'supreme court' rules on, any more.
Nitrous Oxide is being sold for increased performance in vehicles. Perhaps if the processes described above were to capture ths N2O and actually build it into newer vehicles as part of the combustion fuels, we just might kill 2 birds with one stone.
Still, the oil companies and the auto makers have no desire for us to use any less gasoline...otherwise we would be gatting better and better gas mileage each year as the "new tachnology" was applied to vehicle performance, rather than whether it has a DVD, GPS, wide-screen TV, wet bars and the like.
It is hard to believe that in over 100 years, we have not built more than a handful of vehicles that give excellent gas mileage.
"They" will not allow it to happen until "they" find revenues to replace their 'losses' when they sell less fossil fuel.
THe reason much of this "new" stuff is taking so long to come about is that the ones who hold the big money are first trying to be sure that they control and profit from these eventual turnabouts.
In a sense, that is what the above scenario can deliver, Eric. This kind of soil enrichement means there's less need for artificial fertilizers, so effectively there will be less N2O emissions, while the production process also delivers hydrogen that can be used as a clean fuel for cars. As I said, it's a three times win, because it's also a clean way to get rid of perhaps half of our household waste.
Also, I sent you an email re: Rep. Dingell's carbon tax proposal.
Has anyone read Alcohol Can Be a Gas? I did not know there are so many starch plants that can be regrown on the same roots for years. I did not know that sugar cane and possibly sorghum can be harvested from the same roots for 5 years. You can ferment starch plants to make them more digestible for animals. Have you ever had bread made from the leftovers from beer production? There is a huge brew-pub operation here in Portland who makes this bread. I cannot tell you how good it is.
Also, the mash left over after fermentation can be fed to animals, who will then be so healthy and have so much better lean muscle mass than those fed raw grains, that they win the county and state fair contests. That is how the bureau of alcohol used to bust stills. They would visit the farmers whose animals won.
If you don't want to feed it to animals, apparently the mash is a really effective pre-emergent herbicide because the creatures that digested the grains to make alcohol digest seeds that land on them (duh).
I guess what I'm trying to say here, is why use fuel to heat it up if we could use yeast to 12% alcohol, (yeast itself dies at 12%), then use the biomass from the starchy stuff we used to get to 12% to distill up to fuel percent, in small batches?
We could also diversify out of annual corn monoculture, which is silly, and use kudzu, cattails, mesquite, and other alleged weed plants which generate enough starch that we can't use it all for trying.
I suppose someone is going to say that stills are too dangerous to be decentralized.
To them I say, have you ever visited a mint still in Eastern Oregon? The process is so un-hill-billy and slick, it can't seem true until you see it for yourself.
They drive the dump truck up to the still. The dump container cooks until it changes color. By then, all the oil is out, they drive the truck out and dump the great-smelling compost someplace.
Stills used to go up because the heated stuff went through a coiled, metal cooling tube small enough to clog up with corn bits. You don't have to make that kind of still any more.
To those who say we've tried alcohol, I say this. We have tried methyl. We haven't yet tried ethyl. I understand the human addiction risk, but Prohibition fueled so much human violence that it had to be rolled back.
Somehow that gray stuff looks too inorganic to me. It just can't smell as good as bread and mint.
Cheers,
I have used my own organic wastes in gardens and flower beds, never throwing anything out. It is an obviously cyclic process, but I can see the advantages of agrichar. I just wish it were available - and that contributing organic wastes were already an available service.
Do you have any further information about the projected growth of this nascent industry?
Paul - you ARE the Dumpster!
http://biochar-international.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpozW9039_o
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
Reforming of Biomass and Wastes
Hydrogen can be produced via pyrolysis or gasification of biomass resources such as agricultural residues like peanut shells; consumer wastes including plastics and waste grease; or biomass specifically grown for energy uses. Biomass pyrolysis produces a liquid product (bio-oil) that contains a wide spectrum of components that can be separated into valuable chemicals and fuels, including hydrogen. NREL researchers are currently focusing on hydrogen production by catalytic reforming of biomass pyrolysis products. Specific research areas include reforming of pyrolysis streams and development and testing of fluidizable catalysts.
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html#reform
Regarding terminology, I did mention the name bio-char under the main image and that's also the name used by Eprida and many others. Archeologists have long used terms such as black earth or Terra Preta in regard to the way people in prehistoric times have enriched soils in the Amazon, soil that has remained rich for thousands of years. Similar human-made dark soils appear to have been found in other places in South America, as well as in Japan, Holland, South Africa and Indonesia.
Normally, charcoal is associated with greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, pyrolysis is a clean technology, so it's important to distinguish the resulting char from charcoal and from coal. The name biochar makes sense, since it's produced from biowaste, but I prefer the term agrichar since we need to convince farmers to start using it and we need to convince politicians to reform agriculture. There's plenty of info available and many scientists and companies are working on it. What we also need is publicity, we need to spread the story, e.g. by putting emphasis on it as a way to produce hydrogen and of course to help the environment.
The carbon in the agrichar is what's left over, after the hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO) have come out of the biowaste through pyrolysis. This CO can be turned into fuel, e.g. methanol can be produced by combining hydrogen and CO. Eprida actually produces diesel. Part of this fuel can be used achieve the heat needed for pyrolysis (at relatively low temperatures). Demo plants show that the process is carbon negative, i.e. the obtained and sequestered carbon (agrichar) far outweighs the carbon that is emitted when burning the fuel. Furthermore, as said, it produces hydrogen (clean energy) and makes plants grow better (i.e. sucking carbon out of the air) with less need for fertilizers (nitrous oxide).
Pyrolysis can vastly improve waste treatment - waste currently produces far too much CO2 and methane. As you mention, plastics can also be used as input for pyrolysis, so it may be possible to treat most household waste this way (so perhaps we only need to put out one joint rubbish bin after all). As said before, markets can best sort out what works when and where, but we need some political action to kick-start the kind of rapid and large-scale change that is needed in the light of global warming.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm
A company in Canada, Global Green Solutions, Inc., called it Vertigro, and said that that process doubles the efficiency of coal, while halfing the CO2 emissions.
I don't like coal because the procurement process is an environmental disaster. Since agrichar is produced from biowaste, it seems to be a far superior solution.
For those who haven't read it yet, have a look at my article 'Communities without Roads' at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488
Apart from working on new urban landscape developments, we should also look at garbage disposal and waste treatment. In short, we should try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on all fronts. Have a look at the greenhouse gas emissions by sector, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png
And then read my article 'Tax the sale of meat!", at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123673
The proceeds from such a tax on meat could be used to kick-start such infrastructure reform.
I'm glad you mentioned in some of your comments that the process would remove organic matter from landfills which itself produces methane gas when it decomposes. It is also interesting and promising that plastics can be used as well, further reducing the overall mass and size of landfills... So, further positives there...
Steve, regarding pickup servicing to collect the organics and plastics for the Pyrolysis-->Agrichar processing... It would seem that there is an opportunity for a profit service to arise there to fill that need and fulfill that step in the process...
Sam, regarding the Carbon Balance of the entire process, I'm not sure the burning of the methanol/bio-diesel would be considered "carbon negative" as you said, though the formation of its own methanol/bio-diesel to assist in the pyrolysis and agrichar formation is attractive and 'sexy' for its efficiency.
I think you have to consider the form of the carbon you are talking about. The carbon coming in from the organic waste and plastics is in solid form at the time of collection and processing. The production of the methanol/bio-diesel via the CO + H step and the subsequent combustion of that methanol/bio-diesel fuel for heat releases CO2. Taken as a snapshot within the agrichar creation process, that would be considered a net positive release of CO2.
If you are weighing it against the expected release of CO2 from that same organic matter sitting in a landfill, then it might come to that "carbon negative" equation you mentioned. But in the bigger picture, the benefits of the agrichar come through in the creation of the Hydrogen fuel that would be replacing CO2 emissions generated by fossil fuel use as well as the benefits you mention regarding agriculture (which certainly can use some reforming).
I think that rather than measuring it against how much Carbon is sequestered in the agrichar, a "carbon negative" equation should be measured against the expected release of CO2, methane, etc. from that same unprocessed mass in a landfill.
The overall benefits point to alternative fuel production, less greenhouse gases, smaller landfills, business potential, and reformed agricultural practices...
It is also interesting that the Nobel Peace Prize for chemistry went to the fellow who worked out the mechanism of catalysts ...
Worthy of note in regards to atmospheric CO2 removal via plants/organics, though not related to agrichar or bio-waste, James Lovelock and Chris Rapley have proposed a method for oceanic algae to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The process involves vertically hanging pipes in the oceans that would raise cold, nutrient-rich waters from the depths using wave action and one-way flaps. This nutrient rich water would prompt increased algal growth at the surface, which would remove CO2 from the atmosphere as it grew and then would sink to the deep ocean as it died.
Lovelock & Rapley: "Ocean pipes could help the Earth to cure itself" - Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7161/full/449403a.html
McCarthy "Pipes hung in the sea could help planet to 'heal itself'" - OceanConserve
http://www.oceanconserve.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=85158
Thanks again Sam for the info and this piece...
In a sense, production of hydrogen and agrichar from biowaste by means of pyrolysis could be seen as a form of geo-engineering, if implemented globally at a large scale; however, many geo-engineering proposals come with huge risks that things can go wrong, so I'm hesitant to associate this with geo-engineering. Geo-engineering also has a bad reputation of being schemes devised to give people false hope that science could solve things, which is then exploited by commercial interests who argue that there was no need to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Their inventors typically see geo-engineering proposals more as a method of last resort, just in case, as something that needs to be studied, but in the hope that it never needs to be applied. In that latter spirit, I started a blog with an inventory of some of these large-scale proposals at:
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com
I am aware of the concern and proper hesitation regarding 'geo-engineering' ...
James Lovelock is not one who I'd think might be after commercial shenanigans or shim-shamming ... He is the fellow who first proposed the Gaia Hypothesis as a way to look at the earth system/mechanism... He also invented an instrument that measured the ozone levels in the upper atmosphere, helping to detect the until then theorized problem with the ozone hole...
My personal concern regarding the "hanging pipes" idea is that open ocean surface waters are 'naturally' nutrient poor and ecosystems have developed around that fact from the surface to the bottom of the sea... Changing it would effect the ecology and communities in that area... though it's hard to say exactly how...
Regarding the "taking the heat off of fossil fuels" idea by creating a "fix" elsewhere, I understand that concern as well... But creating an effort to remove CO2 by these means is not an Alternative to doing the other right things that need to be done... I understand how "Black and White" thinkers and opportunists would jump on that...
But the idea is that it is an effort to correct a quickly growing dangerous problem with methods available for the sake of slowing down the coming/ongoing changes and reduce the societal/ecological jolts that it will bring/is bringing... It is taking action with 'emergency' in mind... Like not just letting off the gas peddle as an impending collision is perceived, but adding some braking action as well...
In a sense, human society and civilization has acted and acts as 'geo-engineering' on a global scale... Taking action to replace fossil fuels/find alternative energy and find processes such as those you describe in your agrichar piece as well as making changes in urban planning and habits and increasing overall awareness and efficiency is in a sense applying a fix to that 'geo-engineering' that humans have been at for several millennia to avoid its deleterious effects to the globe and its inhabitants.
Earlier, I did propose a tax on fossil fuel and meat. The proceeds should then subsidize clean alternatives such as solar and wind power, respectively vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads.
Similarly, I now propose such a tax on fertilizers, with the proceeds used to subsidize sales of agrichar. What do you think?
I'm not so sure that the 'geo-engineering' of Lovelock and Rapely's flavor should be looked at as only a last minute 'if all else fails' type of action. I would say that there are positive social feedback benefits from such efforts.
For one, it drives the message home that it is a very real need to take action (at all levels).
It puts an awareness of a real world effort into the conscience of the wide global public
It indicates that CO2 is actively being sought out and removed from the atmosphere as an agent of Climate Change...
It takes some of the "accusatory" steam out of the 'self' oriented segments that say "well, why should I have to suffer for this effort? What are others doing first"
[to the general population's mind: "If CO2 is such a big problem then why are efforts to take CO2 out of the air directly not taken more seriously" or the converse: "Serious efforts are being taken to take CO2 out of the air, this really must be an issue to address..."]
It takes the illusion out of the idea that this can be leisurely taken care of at "market-centered" rates of social & financial change
The sticky part is the notion that: "well if CO2 can be taken out of the atmosphere this way, why do we need to change anything else...?" Which is indeed faulty thinking, but the obvious trap in advocating such 'geo-engineering' efforts ...
However, there is no illusion that that sort of effort would be some sort of Alternative way of dealing with human induced climate change. The reasons for leaving fossil fuels behind and switching to alternatives, many of which you have mentioned and for many of the reasons you have described, are too great at all levels.
It is yet another way to take the ball out of the Oil Companies/coal industry's court... They maintain a sort of power by "holding the cards," as it were, regarding CO2 emissions and human induced climate change.
I do not at all mean to raise the 'geo-engineering' ideas to compete some how or detract from the other efforts and innovations that you discuss. I think they are complimentary, and in fact provide a synergy of action to each other. A large concern of mine regarding the 'geo-engineering' is the potential effects on the ecology of the environment of the open ocean and surounding/connecting habitats... but then, we are all connected to the ocean one way or another...
Regarding your question, I think that an awareness of fertilizers need to be taken seriously, farming subsidies need to be reviewed and reformed seriously, and taxes as you propose on fertilizer can be positive and need to be done wisely.
Thank you again Sam...
Best, DJE
There are few solutions that can be carbon negative, so they need our special attention. Another great idea is to burry carbon in concrete. There are big problem with many types of concrete, the most commonly used types of concrete create huge amounts of CO2. Estimates are that manufacturing of concrete is still responsible for up to 10% of all CO2 emissions worldwide. However, there are alternative manufacturing processes that are much better, some of them even claiming to be carbon-negative. For more details, explore a site like Tec Eco:
http://www.tececo.com
I urge everyone to explore this site and give some feedback here as to what you think of those ideas!
In regard to geo-engineering, the media all too often focus on schemes that are spectacular, grandiose, huge and high-tech, but more attention should be given to rather down-to-earth issues like making concrete, building design, waste disposal, gardening and food. Rather simple changes, when implemented globally, can sometimes make a huge change regarding emissions.
Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html
Below are my current news & Links to major developments;
Cheers,
Erich J. Knight
540 289 9750
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!
The IBI Announces Success in Having Biochar Considered as a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Tool;
POZNAN, Poland, December 10, 2008 - The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) announces that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has submitted a proposal to include biochar as a mitigation and adaptation technology to be considered in the post-2012-Copenhagen agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A copy of the proposal is posted on the IBI website at
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI).
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.
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 also have been corresponding with Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story.
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.
It's what Mann hasn't covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article;
Biochar data base;
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
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, JMU, New Zealand and Australia.
Glomalin's role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil food web in Terra Preta soils.
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.
In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Pollan talks about how he was approached by a Democratic party staffer about his New York Times article, The"Farmer & an open letter to the next president concerning U.S. agriculture/energy policy. The staffer wanted Pollan to summarize the article into a page or two to get it into the hands of Barack Obama. Pollan declined, saying that if he could have said everything that needed to be said in two pages, he wouldn't have written 8000 words.
Michael Pollan is well briefed about Biochar technology, but did not include it in his "Farmer & Chief" article to President Obama, (Which he did read & cited in a speech) but I'm sure Biochar will be his 8001th word to him.
Erich
540 289 9750
Total CO2 Equivalence:
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
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 proves to be effective at reducing nutrient run-off from agricultural soils, then there will accordingly be a reduction in downstream N2O emissions.
This ACS study implicates soil structure as main connection to N2O soil emissions;
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Paper41955.html
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
Most all this work corroborates char soil 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.
Company News & EU Certification
Below is an important hurtle that 3R AGROCARBON has overcome in certification in the EU. Given that their standards are set much higher than even organic certification in the US, this work should smooth any bureaucratic hurtles we may face.
EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests
Subject: Fwd: [biochar] Re: GOOD NEWS: EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests successfully completed
Doses: 400 kg / ha – 1000 kg / ha at different horticultural cultivars
Plant height Increase 141 % versus control
Picking yield Increase 630 % versus control
Picking fruit Increase 650 % versus control
Total yield Increase 202 % versus control
Total piece of fruit Increase 171 % versus control
Fruit weight Increase 118 % versus control
There is list of the additional beneficial effects of the 3R FORMULATED BIOCHAREU DOSSIER for permit administration and summary of the results from 4 different Authorities who executed different test programme is under construction
I suggest these independent and accredited EU relevant Authority permit field tests results will support the further development of the biochar application systems on international level, and providing case evidence, that properly made and formulated (plant and/or animal biomass based) biochars can meet the modern environmental - agricultural - human health inspection standards and norm, while supporting the knowledge based economical development.
We work further on to expand not only in the EU but in the USA as well. My Cincinnati large scale carbonization project is progressing, hopefully the first industrial scale 3R clean coal - carbon plant will be ready in 2009.
Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
HOMEPAGE 3R AGROCARBON: http://www.3ragrocarbon.com
http://www.terrenum.net
EMAIL 1: edward@terrenum.net
EMAIL 2: edward.someus@gmail.com
Also:
October 28, 2008
U.S. Department of Agriculture to Evaluate CQuest™ Biochar
Non-Funded Cooperative Agreement Signed
The objective of the biochar research is to quantify the effects of amending soils with CQuest™ Biochar on crop productivity, soil quality, carbon sequestration and water quality. Field trials will involve incorporation of biochar in replicated field plots and on-farm strip trials with monitoring of crop yields, soil quality, water quality, emissions of greenhouse gasses, and soil carbon sequestration. Laboratory studies will involve amending soils with biochar and quantifying changes in soil quality and microbial activity during incubations.
Biochar will be shipped from Dynamotive's West Lorne facility to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) locations in Iowa, South Carolina, Idaho, Washington, and other ARS locations. Initial results are expected during the 2009 growing season.
http://www.dynamotive.com/en/biooil/biochar_tests.html
Have a great 2009. Cheers! Sam Carana