Biochar=biofuel: NO. In our research, this is the #1 criticism of the biochar concept, and unfortunately it is very misguided. It stems from the criticisms of 1st-generation biofuels– namely that they use food based feedstocks, have a low or negative energy balance and are generally unsustainable. We agree that 1st-gen biofuels are highly problematic, but to equate them with biochar and pyrolysis is simply not correct.

First of all, the majority of biochar advocates promote the use of agricultural wastes as a feedstock. Ag wastes are NOT FOOD. Instead, they are products that are typically mulched, composted or simply left in-field to rot.

Second, there are many different types of pyrolysis processes and technologies that produce varying quantities of biochar, combustible gas and bio-oil. Slow pyrolysis technologies produce primarily biochar, while fast pyrolysis technologies are designed to produce bio-oil. Bio-oil is not biodiesel nor is it ethanol. It is a hydrocarbon emulsion that can act as a low grade heating oil or bunker fuel substitute. Many groups are working on technologies to refine bio-oil into high-value chemicals or transportation fuels. In general, most fast pyrolysis plants have a parasitic load between 10 and 25%. This means that only 10-25% of the energy produced is used to power the pyrolyzer, making the process highly efficient.

How can burning wood be carbon negative? This issue has come up frequently on the blogosphere as well, and again demonstrates many of the problems that come from misinformation. The skeptics are correct: combustion of wood (burning) is carbon positive. However, biochar is NOT made by burning wood. Biochar is produced via a process called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is a carbon negative process, meaning upwards of 90% of the CO2 that would be released through combustion is captured as biochar.

Okay but what if you burn the biofuel…. I mean bio-oil? Yes, combustion of bio-oil in an engine, boiler or turbine will release CO2. However, in general these emissions are more than offset by the carbon that is sequestered in the biochar. In addition, bio-oil combustion results in remarkably low emissions of NOx and SOx. Finally, remember that bio-oil is produced from waste which would otherwise decompose completely into CO2 and methane.

Industrial Scale Biochar Production will result in deforestation: UNLIKELY. This is the argument leveled by George Monbiot which has appeared to spark the Biochar Wars. To his credit, Monbiot is correct that industrial scale biochar production could provide an incentive for land-clearing in the developing world. If biochar were accepted under the Clean Development Mechanism as a bankable carbon offset, and if the price of carbon were high enough to justify it, farmers could be incentivized to generate as much biochar as humanly possible.

However, there is a glaring problem with Monbiot’s argument. Currently, there are a handful of companies developing pyrolysis technologies, and a slightly larger handful of scientists who support biochar. Of these two handfuls, we cannot find anyone that is advocating industrial scale biochar. Why? Because everyone in the biochar community already knows it won’t work.

The scientists know that industrial scale biochar production is simply unsustainable. The entrepreneurs know that unless the price of a carbon offset were astronomically huge, there is no way large-scale biochar production would make any economic sense. The cost of transporting a low-value, low-density product like biomass over a distance greater than a couple of kilometers is herculean. This reality is part of what has damned 1st-gen biofuels. The biochar concept works with agricultural waste on the small scale, because these are products that farmers already collect and move to a centralized location for mulching and composting. On the industrial scale, the economics simply don’t work. They never have and they never will.

If, for some reason, the price of carbon did increase 100 fold, it would also allow a host of other dubious offsets to become economically viable. Given that the price of 1 tonne of CO2 currently hovers around $20-30 in Europe, we just don’t see that happening.

Biochar is not a longterm carbon storage mechanism: VISIT THE AMAZON BASIN. There, you will find an intact layer of charcoal in the soil roughly the size of France. Biochar has been shown to be stable in soils for up to 2000 years. That is an order of magnitude longer than any other carbon storage technology.

We hope this article will clear up some of the misinformation surrounding biochar. Obviously, people are weary of any new solution to climate change after the promises of biofuels, wind and solar. Still, let’s not jump to conclusions and make biochar the next betamax. As of yet, it is the only technology that has shown any promise at reducing our concentration of atmospheric CO2. If we ever want to get back below 350 ppm, let’s give biochar a chance.

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public are hosting Tech 4 Society, a conference exploring technology, invention and social change, in Hyderabad, India, in February 2009. Find out more about the conference here. This blog post is an entry in their competition to find the official blogger to travel to and cover the event.

Technorati Tags: biochar, biochar wars, criticism, debate, truth

New York, NY- re:char founder Jason Aramburu was recently named a Social Innovation Fellow for the upcoming Pop!Tech Conference in Camden, ME. Pop!Tech is the East Coast’s premier technology and innovation conference, bringing together 600 influential business leaders, entrepreneurs and scientists for 3 days of ground-breaking speakers, events and networking. This year’s conference, entitled “America Reimagined,” includes speakers such as Michael Pollan, Neri Oxman and Dan Nocera. As a Social Innovation Fellow, Jason will participate in several days of intense workshops, and will address the conference on the promise of biochar as a means to roll back carbon emissions. To register for Pop!Tech, visit here.

What’s more, Subcommittee on Regulations and Healthcare Chairwoman Hon. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) released a statement the same day as Das’ testimony speaking to small business biofuel producers’ interests in a proposed EPA rule:

“On May 5, the EPA released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard.  The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is a law that requires fuels in the U.S. to contain a certain percentage of biofuels.   The EPA’s rule could disqualify many biofuel producers from the RFS program, preventing them from selling their product and staying in business.”

“The biofuels industry holds great promise not only to create new, good paying jobs, but to wean our nation off foreign energy sources.  However, we can only benefit if we adopt policies that promote the growth of this industry, rather than hampering it before it gets off the ground.”

“EPA’s publication of its proposed rule starts the clock ticking on the formal comment period, which will last for 60 days.  Upon completion of that comment period, EPA is expected to move forward in crafting a final rule.”

(The press release is available in full on the Committee’s website, or simply click here.)

The 60 day period concluded earlier this month and we now await the final publication of the rule.  It is of critical importance to re:char among other biochar/biomass small business.  In Dahlkemper’s remarks, she did highlight the EPA’s leeway to rework the rule to protect the developing biomass industry.  Here at re:char, we are optimistic that her sentiment and biochar’s support from Das, Lehmann, Hansen, Gore, Lovelock, and many others is being taken into consideration.

ABC Lateline, an Australian news program, did a report on May 24 discussing the status of biochar’s prospects on the island (click to view the video and/or read the transcript).  Prominent Australian scientist Tim Flannery contributes, as does the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries biochar team leader Lukas Van Zwieten, several Australian farmers, Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke, and Opposition Leader Malcom Turnbull.

Wanted: Biochar

Though the research thus far has been enormously promising, reporter Bronwyn Herbert notes an imbalance between supply of biochar and demand. “Researchers have been forced to import a third of their biochar from the Philippines, just to keep trials running,” she says.  A number of farmers and scientists alike agree that localized, small-scale biochar production might make the most sense.  This is a pillar of re:char’s mission, and concept we support globally.  Installing a pyrolyzer on-site and integrating it into the farm’s recycling and energy infrastructure would eliminate shipping costs for biochar while simultaneously reducing the farm’s energy expenditures.

Next Steps

It is now illegal in Australia to dump bio-waste, or as they call it “green waste,” into landfill. Despite this progressive stance on bio-waste, the nation has been slow to move forward with soil-based sequestration technologies. Herbert notes, “The charcoal technology has been lumped with agriculture in Australia’s carbon trading landscape and isn’t eligible for carbon credits until 2015.”  Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke explains, “It’s important that we, when designing our rules, use the international rules. If you have rules that are separate from the international rules for how you count your credits, then you can effectively cut yourself out of the international trading system.”

Lateline also reports that the Agriculture Minister has “found nearly $1.5 million for research into biochar [and is coordinating a] the three-year project, looking at both biochar’s potential to reduce carbon emissions and boost farm productivity.”  Bronwyn Herbert remarks, “In some ways the Government is playing catch-up because biochar has been the centrepiece of the Coalition’s climate change commitments since Malcolm Turnbull became leader.”

We hope that the situation in Australia will work itself out favorably, and that the importance of soil-based sequestration will outweigh political infighting. Finally, a few choice quotes on biochar from the people at the center of the debate in Oz:

“I see it as being one of the most significant things Australia can do. The best benefit is that we actually draw down some of the pollutant out of the atmosphere and put it into the soil where it stays for hundreds if not thousands of years.”

Tim Flannery

“We’re getting very significant improvements in yield in our cropping situation. We’ve increased yield of sweet corn from 16 tonnes up to 35 tonnes of fresh cob per hectare and we’ve more than doubled our yield of fibre bean crops as our winter crop. So we’re getting quite significant and also economic returns on the investment of applying biochar to soil… Certainly in these situations your application of 10 tonnes to 20 tonnes per hectare of the biochar is having very significant benefits to the soil chemistry and also the crop production. And economically, we’re showing that farms are still gonna make money over the application of the biochar at between $100 and $300 a tonne. So economically, it still makes a lot of sense applying 10 tonnes per hectare in these farming systems… It might translate to less nitrogen fertiliser and improved yield.”

Lukas Van Zwieten

Technorati Tags: australia, biochar, flannery, politics, trumbull

The biochar concept, as promoted by re:char friend and Biochar Fund founder, Laurens Rademakers, will be included in the Guardian UK’s influential Manchester Report. “Twenty Ideas That Could Save the World” have been wittled down to ten radical ideas to combat climate change. These ten ideas will be included in the influential “Manchester Report,” which will be circulated to policy makers and change agents worldwide. In addition, the Guardian has opened up internet voting to determine the top idea. We encourage you to view Laurens’ 60-second elevator pitch for biochar, and don’t forget to vote!

Technorati Tags: biochar, biochar fund, Guardian, manchester, manchester report

Dr. Hansen was arrested for trespassing on Massey Coal property in West Virginia at a mountaintop removal coal mining protest in June, and has since published a plea in the Huffington Post to President Obama to outlaw mountain top removal. His support of biochar is paramount.  Next to Al Gore, he is the most vocal advocate of government action to alleviate and prevent further stress on our planet.  As demonstrated in his paper, however, he does not simply support any policy measures taken; he warns that half-hearted attempts to create legislation can be more damaging to our efforts than no legislation at all.

“…I spoke with a German Minister.  We found that we were in good agreement with the startling conclusion that we are already moving into dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2.  Yet Germany plans to build more coal-fired power plants.  His rationalization was that they could “tighten the carbon cap” on cap and trade.  I pointed out that, if coal emissions continued, that cap would somehow have to force “Russia to leave its oil in the ground.  I asked how he would convince Russia to do that.  He had no answer.

“The Waxman-Markey bill fails the test in the same way as the German plans: it builds in approval of new coal-fired power plants!  There is no need for these plants except to enrich utility and coal special interests – they are included only because the monstrous 1400-page absurdity was hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.

Dr. Hansen has been a notable opponent of the Waxman-Markey bill, expressing doubt that the legislation will provide significant impact towards reducing atmospheric carbon concentrations.

“The truth is, the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course.  It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions.  It is less than worthless, because it would delay by at least a decade or two the possibility of getting on a path that is fundamentally sound from economic and climate preservation standpoints.

“A rising carbon fee is the best enforcement mechanism for building standards, and it provides an incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources.  A tipping point soon would be reached, with rapid phase-over to future post-fossil energy sources.  Tar shale would be dead and there would be no need to go to the extremes of Earth to find the last drop of oil.

Dr. Hansen’s remarks are particularly relevant vis a vis a recent study from West Virginia University which purports that coal mining in Appalachia is economically unprofitable (not to mention environmentally destructive).

“The geophysical boundary conditions dictate a course that causes coal emissions to be phased out expeditiously, although not necessarily coal use.  There should be an immediate halt to construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture all emissions, including carbon dioxide.  Mountaintop removal, with its blasphemous environmental damage, should be banned – it provides only seven percent of United States coal, less than our exports.

“The truth is that the climate problem cannot be solved without taking on special interests, specifically the coal industry.  That is possible.  The coal industry is but a fraction of what it once was; alternative industries will be far more beneficial to the nation and provide better jobs.  President Franklin Roosevelt, for the general good, took on more powerful special interests.  Margaret Thatcher showed that the coal industry is not omnipotent.  This does not mean that coal workers should be abandoned – on the contrary, it would be straightforward to have programs in the affected states that provide support and opportunities for all of today’s coal workers.

“President Obama is our best hope, perhaps the only hope, of achieving real change in the near term.  But we have to level with him.  President Obama recently came out with a full- throated endorsement of Waxman-Markey.  Was he properly advised about its contents?  Perhaps so, but he chose to overrule the advice?  His Science Adviser, John Holdren, has said that he cannot discuss what he has said to the President.

“Al Gore probably has the strongest voice that the President would listen to.”

His paper, in addition to conceptualizing background on the climate situation and fossil fuel emissions, also provides insight into the discussion of civil disobedience in the green movement.  To read the paper in full, click on this .pdf link.

Technorati Tags: biochar, Climate Change, Coal, hansen

Will Australia beat the United States as the first nation to officially recognize biochar as a bankable carbon offset? Like here in the States, the carbon sequestered through pyrolysis is not yet recognized as tradable in Australia, but Australian mining conglomerate Alumina Ltd sees immense promise in biochar.  The Syndey Morning Herald reports that Chief executive, John Bevan, recently said “[I am] not aware of any other potential large scale mitigation option that could commence capturing and storing carbon in this way within several years,” Similarly, Australian opposition party leader Malcom Turnbull “[cites] research that finds a small increase in the amount of carbon stored in soil could absorb all of the nation’s annual emissions.”

The Australian and New Zealand Biochar Researchers Network held a conference in Gold Coast, Australia at the beginning of June.  It is the Network’s long-term goal “to develop and promote the use of a production guideline for the manufacture and application of sustainable biochar products.”  The conference was an enormous success toward furthering this goal.

This is re:char’s dream realized down under.  It is our hope that U.S. based venture capitalists, scientists, and politicians alike soon triumph the biochar cause – our planet depends on it.

It cannot go unmentioned that fueling the excitement over biochar in Australia is the very recent, very animated debate between leading climate scientist Tim Flannery, the UK Guardian journalist and blogger George Monbiot, NASA scientist James Hansen and Gaia Theorist James Lovelock.” For a fascinating synopsis of the current state of the biochar debate in Australia, read the exchanges between the aforementioned contributors on The Fifth Estate: Our Planet, Our Real Estate website.

Update on Biochar in Australian Politics

New South Wales’ Department of Primary Industries and Energy forecasts – based on extensive research “from a one-tenth scale trial” – “that a pyrolysis unit processing four dry tonnes an hour of waste from a chicken facility (mainly manure and sawdust) could yield 2.3 megawatts an hour of electricity, saleable to the grid for $750,000 a year (assuming a price of $40/MWh). Renewable energy certificates could be sold for another $1 million (assuming a price of $55 per MWh).”

Biochar seems like a home-run down under. With large agricultural and livestock industries, waste disposal is a huge issue for Australia. In addition, the nation has traditionally taken a progressive stance regarding climate change and renewables. We hope that Oz will soon join the biochar bandwagon!

On June 18, Cornell Associate Professor of Soil Fertility Management/Soil Biogeochemistry and author of Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology (referred to by some as the Bible of Biochar) Dr. Johannes Lehmann testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The hearing, Global Warming’s Growing Concerns: Impacts on Agriculture and Forestry, featured Dr. Lehmann as an expert on Biochar and its potential usages in staving off the effects of climate change through government legislation and sanctions.  He explained to members of the committee the basics of biochar but, what’s more, he also identified the most significant hurdles standing in the way of biochar reaching its highest potential.  Biochar has become an enormously popular.  The benefits of its usage are becoming more widely known everyday. Still, certain hurdles exist that congress can help to address.  The following is an excerpt from his testimony submitted to the committee:

“Current hurdles to implementation are: availability of pyrolysis units at sufficient maturity to allow all necessary research and development, and, as a direct consequence, a lack of demonstrated carbon trading activities; of sufficient development of best biochar practices at scale of implementation, including farm scale; and of demonstration of soil health benefits for the full spectrum of agroecosystems. The distributed nature of biochar systems and the potential for variability between systems create significant opportunities for sustainability, but also hurdles to widespread adoption, regulation, and financial viability.

“Establishment of policies at national and international levels is required to remove hurdles to implementation and support full evaluation of biochar systems. Mechanisms for carbon trading that recognize soil carbon sequestration, including biochar
sequestration, need to be put into place. Methodologies must include full life cycle accounting of emissions balances to deliver net climate benefits. The entire value chain of mitigation approaches must be recognized, to reward those activities that have multiple environmental and societal benefits. Biochar must not be an alternative to making dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions immediately, but it may be an important tool in our arsenal for combating dangerous climate change.”

Just three days prior to Lehmann’s testimony, committee member Henry Waxman (CA-30) and global warming committee chair Ed Markey (MA-7) successfully passed their clean energy bill H.R. 2454 in the House (more on H.R. 2454 later).  Although Lehmann was unable to provide testimony before the bill had been written and marked up, his words will hopefully be influential in the creation of further energy stipulations and policies released by the EPA in the coming months, as the bill does require that the Energy Secretary and the EPA take specific action to further our efforts in combating climate change.  Dr. Lehmann was clear in emphasizing that carbon sequestration through pyrolysis and biochar must be worked into the developing structure of our cap and trade system (which was just mandated in H.R. 2454 – now on its way to the senate).

Technorati Tags: biochar, Climate Change, lehmann, politics, Testimony, US Congress, Waxman

Update: There has been some confusion regarding how to vote, so we’ve added the following tutorial.

1. Click here.
2. Click ‘register’ in the “My Account” toolbar at the top of the page.
3. Enter your email address, name and a password in the following screen and click ‘register now.’ (NAU will not spam you, and you can enter any email you like. There is no email verification step.)
4. Ignore the screen called “Account Details” and press back on your browser until you return to the original screen with our grant page. You do not need to enter any additional personal information to vote.
5. Once you are back at the voting page, click the appropriate number of stars (we like 5!) and your vote will be recorded. Please feel free to vote for the other projects as well. Thanks for voting!

Portland, OR based clothing company Nau recently announced a $10,000 grant that will be awarded to an indvidual whose work is making a positive impact on the world.  Nau produces and sells sustainable men’s and women’s clothing.

Jason Aramburu, re:char founder, was nominated for his work with biochar and his commitment to environmental problems.  re:char, as readers may already know, is an effort to promote low-cost, sustainable production of biochar and pyrolysis technologies.  We are part technology company and part information source, providing up-to-date information and commentary on the nascent world of biochar.  It is our hope that integration of biochar production into existing farming and recycling infrastructures can contribute to cleaning up the world and to promoting a new outlook on the individual’s contribution in doing so.

Finalists for the grant will be chosen via online voting. If successful, re:char will use the grant funds to build four new pyrolyzers in Sub-Saharan Africa.  Friends (or acquaintances) of re:char or members of the re:char team are encouraged to vote for Jason and re:char here.  A new window should open, click on “register” at the top of the page (you only have to enter your name and email address; you won’t get spam!), and after registering click on the tab “The Collective” to vote.  We sincerely appreciate the support!

Technorati Tags: G4C, grant, NAU, re:char

The Times UK recently reported on our former Vice President’s remarks at an environmental conference in at the Smith School in Oxford.  He made several key points with regards to soil carbon:

(1) “There is three times as much carbon [sic] in the first two meters of soil than there is in all of the world’s vegetation.”
(2) “Soil is the third-largest natural store of carbon in the world after the oceans and fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.”
(3) The misuse of land through over-farming, desertification, and “the burning of peatland…is responsible for as much as 30 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, more than either deforestation, power generation or transport.”

Gore recognizes that our approach to soil carbon will be integral in curbing – and even reversing – damage to our atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas emissions.  Several members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change were present at the Oxford conference. Biochar is currently on the agenda for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We hope that the further support from change agents and politicians such as Mr. Gore will further raise the profile of biochar as a verifiable carbon offset mechanism.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore, biochar, politics, UN