One solution to “carbon pollution” is biochar, but according to the Australian government’s policy on emissions trading, the science of biochar is not fully developed – so it can’t be included in any emissions trading scheme.
According to Environmental Scientist, Professor Syd Shea:
Biochar is a fine-grained, highly porous charcoal that helps soils retain nutrients and water. The carbon in biochar resists degradation and sequesters carbon in soils for hundreds to thousands of years, providing a potentially powerful tool for mitigating anthropogenic climate change. When the biochar is made from agricultural and plantation wastes that would otherwise decompose within a few years, emissions of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere are avoided and that carbon is permanently stored in the biochar.
The Rainbow Bee Eater team, named after a beautiful bird that lives in the regions where they work, has been working on biochar for several years. They are planning to implement a pilot scale operational biochar trial on a 23 thousand hectare wheat belt farm in Western Australia in 2009.
Project Rainbow Bee Eater, a consortium of farmers, scientists and engineers claims the Australian Government’s White Paper, which provides the policy framework for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, has not recognized the potential for rapid, very large scale and permanent bio-sequestration of inorganic carbon because the policy document excludes biochar.
Professor Syd Shea, a member of the Rainbow Bee Eater team, said ““the science behind the use of biochar to increase soil productivity and to create a long term, safe carbon sink is well established.”
“Inorganic carbon, which is the major component of biochars made using modern charcoal making technologies, would remain in soils for hundreds to thousands of years.”
“The carbon accounting for biochar is simple and does not require complex soil sampling. The biochar is weighed before we add it to the soil and the content of the inorganic carbon is measured using a simple analysis the coal industry does every day called ‘proximate analysis’. Each tonne of inorganic carbon in the biochar locks up 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide”.
Professor Shea said, “The incorporation of charcoal (biochar) to increase soil productivity was carried out in the Amazon 2000 years ago. Research by many scientists around the world over the past two decades in a variety of climates and soils, with biochars made from a variety of feed stocks, has shown that biochar increases productivity in a large number of plant and tree crops.”
“Trials on the use of bio char to increase wheat productivity in the Western Australian wheat belt carried out in cooperation with the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) have shown wheat crop yields in pot and field trials increasing by between 10 and 20 percent. Larger field trials in 2008, undertaken under the supervision of Dr. Stephen Davies from DAFWA, which have just been harvested, also demonstrated that bio char made from mallee eucalypts incorporated into wheat belt soils at high rates significantly increases wheat biomass compared to cultivated soil with no biochar.”
The Rainbow Bee Eater team agreed that further operational trials were essential to further develop the technology required for large-scale conversion of crop and plantation wastes into biochar and to confirm the economic viability of the process – but the science is not in doubt.
Ian Stanley, a Western Australian wheat farmer whose wheat crop this year will exceed 30,000 tonnes, said “I am confident it will be possible to integrate biochar production and incorporation into the existing farming systems, in part, because we will use existing harvesting and seeding systems with minor modifications”.
Peter Burgess, the leader of the Rainbow Bee Eater team, said “we have undertaken extensive reviews globally of a variety of technologies and processes that have the capacity to reduce large quantities of GHG emissions. Our modelling indicates that broad scale incorporation into soils of biochar produced from crop and plantation residues is very cost effective and is possible at a very large scale. Project Rainbow Bee Eater is designed to be integrated into existing farming systems, is regionally based, complements food production and, unlike many other large schemes that are proposed, could be implemented rapidly.”
Mr. Burgess said “we understand the complexities of the international carbon accounting system our Government faces but we believe the Rainbow Bee Eater system is no different in concept or outcome from Carbon Capture & Storage that was accepted by the White Paper. Biochar will store the carbon in the top few centimeters of soil, safely, at much lower cost and with other benefits to Australia.”
“If Rainbow Bee Eater receives credits for the carbon locked up in the biochar, we believe we will reduce Australia’s annual CO2e emissions by at least 20 million tonnes within a decade using existing waste biomass streams and purpose grown tree crops. That is nearly 4% of Australia’s current emissions. The longer term potential is much greater. Other by-products of this regionally based project include regional jobs, renewable energy and amelioration of soil and biodiversity degradation.
“Biochar made from crop and plantation waste could store carbon permanently in cleared areas of Australia like the WA wheat belt. It thus has the potential to achieve a large part of the Carbon Pollution Reduction our Government is targeting for 2020.
“Carbon credits for biochar are needed to unlock this potential.”
***************
Professor Syd Shea is an Environmental Scientist at the Notre Dame University in Freemantle, Western Australia.
I received the photograph of the Rainbow Bee Eater from Professor Syd Shea with the note:
This beautiful bird survives in some of the harshest environments in Australia. Its habitat overlaps most of the area that could provide large carbon capture and storage opportunities in Australia. The photograph of this bird exploding from its nest is also a metaphor of the rapidity with which carbon capture and storage using biochar could make a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions while at the same time causing the reversal of environmental, social and economic decline of regional Australia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Darn good idea. It’s worth noting that non-biodegradable plastic bags also make for easy carbon sequestration (and could form useful deposits of long chain hydrocarbons to make things out of when the oil runs out): many of my friends HATE that comment.
Of course, Australian governments want to treat scrubbing of emissions from coal burning as a top priority, boosting its credibility, and pouring money into it. The need to keep up coal exports as a prop to an economy that is only “China’s quarry and Japan’s beach”, together with a powerful industry group with deep pockets for lobbying (which gives great short-term returns on investment) while averse to long-term capital investment, will tend to corrupt any policy decisions.
But with estimates of carbon scrubbing of coal-fired power stations chewing up 40% of their energy production (I haven’t got totally reliable figures), the politicians will naturally downplay other approaches to containing atmospheric CO2 (and CH4, etc) – because they don’t keep the coal industry.
Rudd’s comments in the Economist’s 2009 outlook is striking: he writes with pride that by the end of 2009, Australia will be the first country with a comprehensive legal framework for carbon sequestration. To me, these regulations are likely to be mere PR, and about as relevant as rules for licencing tooth fairies as part of a comprehensive legal framework for caries prevention.
But at least, Jennifer, you are talking positively about ways (if not the need) to get control of atmospheric CO2 equivalents!
The only questions I have about biochar (and I know nothing) are (1) how long does it take to absorb the CO2 (and does burying it deep prevent the absorption) and (2) whether this might affect soil pH.
This is a very interesting piece, thanks for getting it posted Jennifer. I don’t know very much about it but there does seem to be quite a bit written about bio char at the moment from all over giving it its own momentum. It would be interesting to know more about it from a system perspective e.g. whether it is best suited for on farm work or on an industrial scale and under what conditions it works best for fertility and soil conditioning (I write as some completely ignorant of the mechanics of agriculture). It would also be interesting to determine how far it can be used for carbon sequestration and what are the costs and energy inputs compared with similar scale proposals.
This is an interesting story but the bio char aspect is only part of it.
I saw a doco on this amazonian soil a few years ago on SBS. The soil was alive. i.e. the soil was around 2 ft deep and would grow anything. If you removed all but 6″ of the soil it would grow and 10 years later be 2ft deep again even though it was sitting on clay soil. The charcoal was only one ingredient that gave the soil it’s amazing qualities yet it’s the only aspect that has been publicised. I’d really like to know what the other ingredients were that created a living soil, I assume it’s a bacterial process.
This seems like a good idea for all concerned. The extraction of biochar plus oil and gas by the pyrolysis system could be achieved at a large centrally located plant or local farmers operating small plants or a mobile plant on the back of a truck.
After the oil and gas are extracted the leftover biochar can be spread with a normal fertilizer spreader used by most farmers at the present time.
I think biochar is just another form of black carbon that is safely stored in soil for thousands of years.
It certainly helps small farmers in poor countries produce better crops and avoids the slash and burn system so wasteful of new land that was taken from a pristine jungle envirnoment.
Let’s hope the WA experiment works well, new technology will be the answer I’m sure.
But there is no reason to do this in the first place? So unless this is a groovy and cheap way of enriching the soil it cannot be considered. And the most we can allow for it is a tax exemption at best.
We have to concentrate and getting these latter-day Ur Gellers’ sacked.
There is however one good thing to say about this and geo-engineering both. And thats simply to say that if the liars turned out to be right, which they won’t, but if they did, which isn’t going to happen but should it happen just the same, which is impossible but for arguments sakes lets suppose it were possible……..
WELL IT WOULD BE BLOODY EASY TO DEAL WITH EVEN SO!!!!!
Thats the other thing which is just so unacceptable about the fact that these clowns are taken seriously. And thats because there is very little that can be done about a cooling planet. Very little that is cost-effective. But there is very cheap and easy ways to deal with a planet on its way to getting too warm.
Don’t be supporting this clever idea beyond tax exemptions. We have to stay focused at getting the frauds fired.
Why bother though…. Carbon Dioxide is neither a pollutant nor a problem. It would be a waste of money and resources.
We should be using our advantage of having vast quantities of Coal to cheaply power more industry…. Value add our raw resources with a bigger manufacturing base.
I wanted to brief you on Biochar (charcoal) for Carbon soil sequestration.
I thought these updates and endorsements may interest you,
Sen. 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
At USDA Dr.Jeffrey Novak is coordinating Biochar research.
I’ve had productive contacts with Douglas Lawrence, director NSCS & Farm bill coordinator, and through him, David Douds with ARS for MYC & VAM Fungi research, and Chris Nichols ARS glomalin research.
My other most successful efforts to date are continuing briefings to Michael Pollan (Food Column NYTs & author) over the last year.
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 & Chief” article is 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 and excited 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.
Changing World Technologies
Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio research . Thankfully we can do Terra Preta (TP) soil with off the shelf technology now.
Oil companies must come to see the overwhelming value of their fossil carbon as the best feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.
This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age.
TP starts as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro technology with our wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.
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!
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.
The NGM cover reads “WHERE FOOD BEGINS”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
It’s what Mann hasn’t covered that I thought should interest you and Sen. Salazar;
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, Germany and Australia.
Biochar data base;
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
Glomalin’s role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil food web in Terra Preta soils.
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).
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.
If pre-Colombian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using “Slash & CHAR” verses “Slash & Burn”, it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.
Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.
We need this super community of wee-beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.
Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com
PS
I forgot
This is an interesting article on the whole deal from last weeks AFR
http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?EDP://20081230000030687165§ion=industry-energy_utilities&title=A+perfect+green+solution+-+in+theory
an interesting alternative view I just received, let us know your comments on the issues it raises:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf
This is an interesting story. Thanks for sharing this one. Now this time Carbon Pollution becomes a big factor. There is however one good thing to say about this and geo-engineering both. And that’s simply to say that if the liars turned out to be right, which they won’t, but if they did, which isn’t going to happen but should it happen just the same, which is impossible but for arguments sakes lets suppose it were possible.
Not all charcoal is biochar. True biochar is the result of heating biomass in an emission free pyrolysis reactor devoid of oxygen. Biochar has been shown to be a very effective soil amendment in numerous studies in South America and Japan. It is becoming popularized enough in the US that Biochar Xtra is now even being sold on Ebay. Others are using the bio-oils derived from biochar
production to replace fossil fuels. Some folks are alarmed at the possibility of vast tracts of land being denuded to produce biochar. This is not a valid concern because, due to its very low density of from 20 to 35 pounds per cubic foot, the transport of biochar over long distances is not economically feasible.
“The Biochar Revolution” with “The Biochar Solution”
http://biochar-books.com/
The Biochar Revolution collects the results and best practical advice that these entrepreneurs have to offer to the biochar community. When practice and theory advance to the point where they meet in the middle, then we will truly see a biochar revolution.