Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar
|
Biochar enthusiasts,
This message is for your personal awareness and also to request your efforts to please tell others (leaders, friends, media, funders, etc.) that a clear Roadmap for biochar to remove millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide is available for review, discussion, and action. Thank you. Paul
https://woodgas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Roadmap-Parts-1-2-2023-02-05.pdf Available at https://woodgas.com/resources
Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar A sequel to the 2020 White Paper “Climate Intervention with Biochar”
Parts One and Two of four parts Release Date: 2023-02-05 Part One: Goals for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR): Seven Candidate Technologies, with Focus on Biochar Part Two: A proposal to Achieve 1000+ t CO2 Removal (CDR)/yr in 2023
Paul S. Anderson, PhD Woodgas International
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434 Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 1) 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Thanks to Paul for this thoughtful contribution. Respectfully I
found the CDR goals too weak. 1000t biochar CDR in 2023?
BiocharNow already has million-ton orders. Globally biochar
production is likely a multiple of that already. I think 10 GtCO2 by 2040 is realistic. We will have the demand
well in place before then but it will take longer for feedstock
production to ramp. Consensus is that returning CO2 to 350ppmv would start rebuilding ice at the poles. I am less certain of that because of the warm ocean effect but I think 350ppmv is a good target for this century. Currently it would take 60% of the world's electricity to remove 1 ppm CO2 by DAC and half of that would be erased by ocean outgassing, so DAC won't do it, IMHO. Natural Climate Solutions stand the best chance.
On 2/6/23 12:48 PM, Paul S Anderson
wrote:
--
Global Village Institute / GVIx.org HQ at The Farm 184 Schoolhouse Rd / POB 90 Summertown TN 38483 USA +01-931-201-7932 office +01-615-586-0234 mobile Cool Lab Project Offices Gonzalo Guerrero 5, Holbox, Q Roo, México Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia, Toledo, Belize El Valle Lodge, Samana, Dominican Republic 52-998-116-5532 albert@... albertbates.cool The Great Change, weekly at cooldesign.substack.com Please consider helping migrants along The Green Road: Refugees from the conflict in Ukraine are being assisted, resettled and fed by more than 300 ecovillages and permaculture projects. You can grow a garden, buy a mattress or help a schoolteacher purchase more workbooks by donating to The Green Road, sponsored by Global Village Institute. Your donations are tax-deductible in the USA. Crypto accepted. Please read from Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper: BURN: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change at your favorite local bookstore and now in German as Cool Down Mit Pflanzenkohle die Klimakrise Loesen |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Albert, might you share the source or calc’s that show 60% of global electricity is needed to remove 1PPM? Powerful! Mike
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Albert Bates via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:52 AM To: main@Biochar.groups.io Subject: Re: [Biochar] Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar
Thanks to Paul for this thoughtful contribution. Respectfully I found the CDR goals too weak. 1000t biochar CDR in 2023? BiocharNow already has million-ton orders. Globally biochar production is likely a multiple of that already. I think 10 GtCO2 by 2040 is realistic. We will have the demand well in place before then but it will take longer for feedstock production to ramp. Consensus is that returning CO2 to 350ppmv would start rebuilding ice at the poles. I am less certain of that because of the warm ocean effect but I think 350ppmv is a good target for this century. Currently it would take 60% of the world's electricity to remove 1 ppm CO2 by DAC and half of that would be erased by ocean outgassing, so DAC won't do it, IMHO. Natural Climate Solutions stand the best chance.
On 2/6/23 12:48 PM, Paul S Anderson wrote:
-- |
|||
|
|
|||
|
I'll be posting more on this for my patreon subscribers Thursday
and to various open sources on Sunday. https://www.patreon.com/peaksurfer That calculation comes from WRI's comprehensive DAC study. https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal
Climeworks estimates their process energy requirement is 7.2 GJ
(or 2,000 kWh/tCO2. Carbon
Engineering estimates energy requirements of around 8.8 GJ/tCO2
(or 2,400 kWh/tCO2). Credit goes to
Australian climate scientist Darren Ray for the conversion to 60%
of world electricity production to reduce CO2 levels by 1 ppm.
That number is actually low because it does not account for ocean
offgassing that will replace half a ppm every time you take out 1
ppm from the atmosphere (which his article acknowledges).
https://medium.com/@darren.ray/the-most-important-climate-change-paper-of-2022-you-never-heard-of-c8970538ad05 Doing DAC in Iceland where you have free energy, high
concentration of CO2 and basaltic geological repositories all in
one place makes sense. Not so much in Texas or New Jersey. If
throwing money would change that there could be some rational
justification for the bipartisan Infrastructure law providing an unprecedented amount of funding over the
next five years specifically for DAC: $3.5 billion for four DAC
hubs, $100 million for a commercial DAC prize, and $15 million for
a pre-commercial DAC prize. There is also $4.6 billion funding to
support enabling infrastructure like CO2 pipelines and
geologic sequestration. There are also various prizes like X-Prize
that favor flashy tech solutions over more ancient ones. Just think of how much biochar you could make with that kind of
money. Albert On 2/8/23 11:59 AM, Michael Woelk
wrote:
--
BURN: Using Fire to Cool the Earth Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology Summertown TN 38483-0090 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
List, cc Albert
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
A great, quick response! I had a little trouble getting to the Ray material, but did eventually. I am amazed at the size of the energy requirement! The dollar amount will be a lot bigger than the DAC people are advertising as well. This is also to put in a plug for Albert’s Patreon writing. This list needs him to keep doing what he is doing so well Ron
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Great. Thank you!
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Albert Bates
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 11:27 AM To: main@Biochar.groups.io Subject: Re: [Biochar] Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar
I'll be posting more on this for my patreon subscribers Thursday and to various open sources on Sunday. https://www.patreon.com/peaksurfer That calculation comes from WRI's comprehensive DAC study. https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal Climeworks estimates their process energy requirement is 7.2 GJ (or 2,000 kWh/tCO2. Carbon Engineering estimates energy requirements of around 8.8 GJ/tCO2 (or 2,400 kWh/tCO2). Credit goes to Australian climate scientist Darren Ray for the conversion to 60% of world electricity production to reduce CO2 levels by 1 ppm. That number is actually low because it does not account for ocean offgassing that will replace half a ppm every time you take out 1 ppm from the atmosphere (which his article acknowledges). https://medium.com/@darren.ray/the-most-important-climate-change-paper-of-2022-you-never-heard-of-c8970538ad05 Doing DAC in Iceland where you have free energy, high concentration of CO2 and basaltic geological repositories all in one place makes sense. Not so much in Texas or New Jersey. If throwing money would change that there could be some rational justification for the bipartisan Infrastructure law providing an unprecedented amount of funding over the next five years specifically for DAC: $3.5 billion for four DAC hubs, $100 million for a commercial DAC prize, and $15 million for a pre-commercial DAC prize. There is also $4.6 billion funding to support enabling infrastructure like CO2 pipelines and geologic sequestration. There are also various prizes like X-Prize that favor flashy tech solutions over more ancient ones. Just think of how much biochar you could make with that kind of money. Albert On 2/8/23 11:59 AM, Michael Woelk wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul, I am a combined heat and biochar fanatic from the get-go, precisely because I think we must rely on both the biochar to get the carbon out of the air and back into the soil, and the heat to avoid the emissions from carbon emitting fuels, in order to address climate change. By definition and all the science I am aware of, there is absolutely no difference between a tonne of removed emissions and a tonne of reduced emissions when it comes to climate change. But 10 gigatonnes by 2040? That's far too little, far to late. What we must do to really get those numbers up fast is to target the use of the heat to precisely the uses that reduce emissions the most. This is something that has really been on my mind lately with all the new numbers coming out about how much worse the methane emissions are than we ever thought. This is actually very good news because we have many ways we can reduce methane emissions significantly which shows up in as a reduction of methane in the atmosphere in the atmosphere because in it is a short lived GHG that has a half-life of only 8.6 years. One attractive use for the heat from a TLUD is to convert gas water heaters to use the heat. There are many such gas water heaters that have been converted to be fired with wood just across the New Mexico border in Mexico that seem to work reasonably well. Recently, inspired by the new numbers being reported on natural gas emissions I have been using TLUDS for the conversions on both sides of the border. These water heaters seem to be working very well and only require about 3 lbs of biomass to raise the temperature of a 30 gallon water heater 50 deg F. The following analysis is an attempt to recalculate the carbon foot print of gas water heaters to show just how many carbon credits can be generated by the conversion. There are no doubt a number of mistakes in my calculations so please let me know about any mistakes you find or suspect. Recalculating The Carbon Footprint Of Natural Gas Water Heaters Natural Gas (NG) or methane (CH4), when completely combusted, has the lowest carbon footprint of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, it is a scientifically established fact that when NG escapes into the atmosphere it has a global warming potential (GWP) of around 120 for the first year and a half-life of 8.6 years. Propane is not a GHG but it has the same carbon footprint as NG because it is a component of all NG in concentrations of a few percent and must be removed from the NG to increase its value. The propane is then marketed to increase profits. Therefore, to calculate the carbon footprint of NG used to heat water we do a (LCA) that also considers how much NG escapes into the atmosphere in the course of extraction, processing transportation, etc., and then multiply that by the GWP for the timeline horizon the calculations are being made. We then add the amount of carbon emitted during combustion to complete the LCA calculations. NG is just the marketing name for methane or CH4 that is sold as a heating fuel. Based on the latest data Bloomberg News recently reported the astonishing news that: “The potent GHG CH4 is responsible for nearly half of net global warming to date, yet just 2% of global climate finance is directed toward releases of the gas, according to a report from the Climate Policy Initiative. Money spent cutting methane leaks has one of the highest ratios of global warming benefit per dollar of capital invested. Nearly all of the methane mitigation potential in the oil and gas sector can be implemented at no net cost” because of the high cost of natural gas, the report found.” It is understandable that the data used to calculate the carbon footprint of CH4 changes as the technology for gathering that data evolves. But what is not understandable is why it has been l 89an almost universal practice to base the life cycle analysis of CH4 emissions on a 100 year horizon, which gives us a GWP of around 25, when the IPCC and climate scientists everywhere are adamant that we must drastically reduce emissions by 2030 to have even a chance of avoiding unstoppable runaway global warming. So what I am attempting to do here is to recalculate the GWP of NG based on the 7-year horizon between now and 2030, and the most recent data measuring the previously unmeasured and the increasing rate of CH4 emissions. With the new numbers, we can then predict how much carbon emissions we can avoid emitting and remove from the atmosphere by replacing the heat from NG to heat water with the heat generated by combined heat and biochar TLUDs. In a press release by the IEA we see that: Methane emissions from the energy sector are about 70% greater than the amount national governments have officially reported. Methane is responsible for around 30% of the rise of global temperature rise since the Industrial revolution. At today’s elevated natural gas prices, nearly all of the methane emissions from oil and gas operations worldwide could be avoided at no net cost,” said IEA Executive Director Faith Birol. If all methane leaks from fossil fuel operations in 2021 had been captured and sold, then natural gas markets would have been supplied with an additional 180 billion cubic meters of natural gas. That is equivalent to all the gas used in Europe’s power and sector and more than enough to ease today’s market tightness. The intensity of methane emissions from fossil fuel operations ranges widely from country to country: the best performing countries and companies are over 100 times better than the worst. Global methane emissions from oil and gas operations would fall by more than 90% if all producing countries matched Norway’s emissions intensity, the lowest in the world. “Cutting global methane emissions from human activities by 30% by the end of this decade would have the same effect on global warming by 2050 shifting the entire transport sector to net zero CO2 emissions” US special envoy for climate John Kerry said: “Cutting methane pollution is the fastest way to mitigate climate change, and cutting wasteful venting, leaking, and flaring from oil and gas systems is the easiest way to cut methane. In S&P Global Market Intelligence we see the following: Natural Gas use may affect the climate as much as coal does if methane leaks persist Yasika Meijer, a scientist with the European Space Agency’s Copernicus program, estimated that if 3% to 4% of natural gas produced at oil and gas wells leaks into the atmosphere, power produced by natural gas plants is on par with coal plants in terms of the overall climate impact. One 2020 study modeling satellite observations of methane releases across North America found that operators in the prolific Permian Basin released 3.7% of the gas they extracted in 2018 and 2019. Based on Meijer’s calculations, the life cycle of that natural gas – from the well to the power plant stack – would have roughly the same climate impact as coal would from the mine to the plant. Another six-year study found that older production wells in the Uintah Basin in northeastern Utah emitted 6% to 8% of the gas they extracted, twice the break-even threshold in Meijer's estimate. A 2021 Harvard University study looking at satellite data found methane emissions from oil production to be 90% higher and natural gas production 50% higher than the national data that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. According to the IPCC we must meet very stringent goals for the reduction and removal of GHGs by 2030 in order to have even a 50/50 chance of limiting global warming to 1.5⁰ C by 2100. The only way we can properly focus on reducing CH4 emissions so drastically is to assign the true GWP for the period of the 7 years between now and 2030. The number I calculated for a 7-year GWP for CH4 is 94. Using a 100-year GWP of 25 instead of the currently most relevant 7 GWP of 94 has led us to miscalculate what must be done by a factor of 3.76 The latest measurements indicate that a total of around 5% of the NG destined for home consumption escapes or is intentionally discharged as CH4 emissions before its end use in a home appliance. For every therm of heat produced by NG used to heat water we emit 5.29 Kg of CO2 + 24.85 Kg of CO2e emissions from fugitive CH4 to give us a carbon footprint of 30.14 Kg per therm. If we produce a therm of heat from a combined heat and biochar TLUD we produce around 2.5 Kg of Biochar which sequesters up to 7.5 Kg of CO2 per therm. So finally, if we use the heat from a combined heat and biochar TLUD instead of NG or Propane we wind up having lowered CO2 emissions by a grand total of 37.64 Kg of CO2 per therm. If we consider that the clearly labeled Energy Star rating of the average gas water heater is around 274 therms on average, and multiply that by 37.64 we come up with 10.3 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions either removed or avoided during the course of a year, and will also produce about 685 Kg of biochar. There are 60 million gas water heaters in the U.S. Wow! That means that we avoid the emissions of 4 tonnes of CO2e for every tonne of CO2 we capture from the air and fix in the biochar. Biochar technology is already being recognized as the only existing technology that has the potential to remove and sequester carbon at a meaningful scale. So for anyone really interested in climate change, we need to talk more about combining our removal technology with the only scalable emission reduction we know of with existing technology, (the reduction of CH4 emissions), for any hope of avoiding catastrophic global warming before it is too late. Bill Knauss On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 3:03 PM Michael Woelk <mike@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
On 2/9/23 12:20 AM, Bill Knauss wrote: I believe most climate scientists would disagree. The last few IPCC reports made clear that reduction is no longer adequate to prevent catastrophe. Removal is required. I would agree that the low hanging fruit is reduction and we should focus most effort there to begin with. Then we will still need removal.
My use of that number was not a cumulative figure by 2040 but
annual removals by that date. If biochar were to reach 10 GtCO2e/y
drawdown and anthropogenic emissions were cut to zero, it would
take two centuries to return atmospheric concentration to
pre-industrial. I agree that is too slow. We need to aim higher. Methane is oxidized in the atmosphere a decade or two later. Once oxidized, the carbon in each methane molecule is converted to CO2, which then stays in the atmosphere as CO2 for another century or more. When calculating half-lives, it is usual to say 20 half-lives will take the substance back to negligible (there are exceptions for extremely toxic substances like radioactivity). Twenty half-lives of CH4 would be 172 years. Averaging the greenhouse effect over that residence time, the convention has to assign methane an average equivalence of 25x (the emission of 1 kg of CH4 is equal to 25 kg CO2 equivalents). Similarly, the emission of 1 kg of nitrous oxide (N2O) equals 298 kg of CO2 equivalents. Because there is so much more remaining methane during the first 20 years than during the last 20 years, the convention is to assign it a higher CO2e value, such as 86, during that early period after emission. Hope this helps. Albert --
Global Village Institute / GVIx.org HQ at The Farm 184 Schoolhouse Rd / POB 90 Summertown TN 38483 USA +01-931-201-7932 office +01-615-586-0234 mobile Cool Lab Project Offices Gonzalo Guerrero 5, Holbox, Q Roo, México Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia, Toledo, Belize El Valle Lodge, Samana, Dominican Republic 52-998-116-5532 albert@... albertbates.cool The Great Change, weekly at cooldesign.substack.com Please consider helping migrants along The Green Road: Refugees from the conflict in Ukraine are being assisted, resettled and fed by more than 300 ecovillages and permaculture projects. You can grow a garden, buy a mattress or help a schoolteacher purchase more workbooks by donating to The Green Road, sponsored by Global Village Institute. Your donations are tax-deductible in the USA. Crypto accepted. Please read from Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper: BURN: Igniting a New Carbon Economy to Reverse Climate Change at your favorite local bookstore and now in German as Cool Down Mit Pflanzenkohle die Klimakrise Loesen |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Albert, Thank you for the comments. They are indeed very helpful. I can see from your comments and by rereading your post where you refer to 10 GtCO2 by 2040, that I had misconstrued that as a reference to both removed and avoided emissions. My apologies to you, and myself, for making that stupid mistake. By using the waste heat generated by making the biochar to avoid using natural gas the total amount of avoided emissions could be as high as 40 GtCO2 per year over the 7-year period I based my calculations on, added to your 10 GtCO2 per year of removal. This is beginning to look like a very encouraging roadmap for climate intervention with biochar and we haven't even begun to calculate how the well targeted uses of the biochar can reduce CH4 and NOx emissions or prime the carbon pump by using it in the soil for regenerative agriculture.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Albert and Bill,
I thank both of you for making comments about the new “Roadmap for … Biochar” document. It is confirmation that at least 2 biochar enthusiasts have looked at the document. Comments lead to discussions and reminders to others about items to read and consider. Always hoping for more discussion, either pro or on.
Topics: 1. About why discuss the small amount of 1000 tonnes when already accomplished. A. The Mission Innovation (funding source) leaders seem to be unaware of what biochar can accomplish already.
B. EACH new variation of biomass type and/or equipment needs to be “proven” at the 1000 tonne CDR/yr First Goal before it is going to get support to scale up to the next order of magnitude. I have presented the case for sugarcane field trash that is not part of any known efforts that have already reached 1000 t. And to do it with very inexpensive RoCC kilns IN THE FIELDS needs some financial assistance to the scale up efforts. (I again ask for your help to get this project to the attention of those with access to funding.)
C. I do present how the cane trash can attain at least a million tonnes/yr JUST IN KENYA ALONE. And 100 Mt CDR/yr worldwide.
I was hoping that this example of such a potentially wide-spread biochar action would have sparked some comments from biochar participants.
2. Also, my projection (Fifth Goal) of 10 Gt CDR/yr via biochar is much more than the 6.6 Gt CDR/yr estimate that I had seen in some previous item. To my surprise, the comments are that the number is not high enough, meaning that biochar can do better than 10 Gt/yr. That is a WOW statement regarding Climate-saving efforts. I hope that there can be more discussion about this number and especially about this issue of what biochar can do.
3. And Albert moved the timeframe even sooner to 2040. I was saying 2050, but I would support 2040 if we can get the ball rolling. Repeat, get the ball rolling. Too few people and organizations are making major progress.
4. I also sent the Roadmap Exec Summary to the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) discussion group. Not one comment back yet from that side of the discussion. Is Biochar overlooked among CDR technologies? Yes. A strong YES. Biochar frequently does not even get a mention but BECCS that relies on capture of concentrated chimney emissions (from biomass for energy BE and not from the CCS from burning fossil fuels) is put into the models as if it could scale up.
5. I agree with Bill’s comment on using pyrolytic heat, as he described for water heating. The uses of heat are in Part Four that is still in draft form. Use of heat will greatly assist in the struggle for climate stability.
Looking forward to further discussion.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434 Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Albert Bates via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 8:52 AM To: main@Biochar.groups.io Subject: Re: [Biochar] Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar
Thanks to Paul for this thoughtful contribution. Respectfully I found the CDR goals too weak. 1000t biochar CDR in 2023? BiocharNow already has million-ton orders. Globally biochar production is likely a multiple of that already. I think 10 GtCO2 by 2040 is realistic. We will have the demand well in place before then but it will take longer for feedstock production to ramp. Consensus is that returning CO2 to 350ppmv would start rebuilding ice at the poles. I am less certain of that because of the warm ocean effect but I think 350ppmv is a good target for this century. Currently it would take 60% of the world's electricity to remove 1 ppm CO2 by DAC and half of that would be erased by ocean outgassing, so DAC won't do it, IMHO. Natural Climate Solutions stand the best chance.
On 2/6/23 12:48 PM, Paul S Anderson wrote:
-- |
|||
|
|
Albert Bates
Albert Bates
