Science Forums 2

[Michaelangelica]

Ron Larson from the biochar policy listserv (Yahoo), has kindly given me permission to reproduce his reply to the RS Report. I have been unable to find afull web text of the report myself

Biochar-policy list:

There has been a lot of discussion on the Royal Society (RS) “analysis” of Biochar. I like most everything everyone has said about this report – and apologize for going over some old ground. Here I want to concentrate on the back-up citations (and lack thereof) that they use to justify their conclusions – the RS citations are as poor as those BFW uses. I intend this to be a partial answer to Nando's question on what we can do about the report. I have started this to help in the rebuttal of BFW's points – but frankly found little help from the Royal Society.

For the convenience of others, I include everything on Biochar that I could find – with notes following each. I would welcome others chiming in (especially to disagree).

p xii: “Techniques that sequester carbon but have land-use implications (such
as biochar and soil based enhanced weathering) may be
useful contributors on a small-scale although the
circumstances under which they are economically viable
and socially and ecologically sustainable remain to be
determined.”
[RWL: This (single) summary sentence is certainly not a strong endorsement, but it is not a complete slam either. It is an adequate summary of what the report says about Biochar – but not at all a valid statement of present knowledge on Biochar production.]

p 11: “In contrast to bioenergy with CO2 sequestration,
there is relatively little peer-reviewed literature about
biomass for sequestration, though there appears to be
growing interest in the biochar process (discussed later
in this section).”
[RWL: I will try to look further, but am guessing the RS authors just didn't think they needed to look very hard for Biochar citations. There is indeed a fair number of references on BECs – but those are older and not as much happening now I think. (But I haven't yet tried to prove this.)
…....

[RWL: This next section 2.22. starts with the word “Biochar”, but contains a lot more – that has made for big errors in many places. Section 2.2.1 was on Land use management, afforestation, reforestation and avoidance of deforestation (which arguably all forest-related biochar should be including as well) – and Section 2.2.3 was on weathering. The point in this section title is that they have mixed up Biochar with a lot of totally unrelated topics! (Below I have inserted paragraph numbers like (1) – so that we on this list can communicate about them more easily.

p11 2.2.2 Biochar and biomass-related methods

(1) “As terrestrial vegetation grows it removes large quantities
of carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis.
When the organisms die and decompose, most of the carbon
they stored is returned to the atmosphere. There are four
ways in which the growth of biomass may be harnessed
to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2 (Keith 2001).
1. Land Carbon Sinks. Carbon may be sequestered in situ
in soil or as standing biomass, as discussed above in
Section 2.2.1.
2. Bioenergy & Biofuels. Biomass may be harvested and
used as fuel so that CO2 emissions from the fuel’s use
are (roughly) balanced by CO2 captured in growing
the energy crops. The use of bioenergy and biofuels
(Royal Society 2008a) is considered to be a means of
reducing emissions, rather than geoengineering and
is not considered further here.
3. Bioenergy with CO2 capture and sequestration (BECS).
Biomass may be harvested and used as fuel, with
capture and sequestration of the resulting CO2; for
example, one may use biomass to make hydrogen or
electricity and sequester the resulting CO2 in geological
formations.
4. Biomass for sequestration. Biomass may be harvested
and sequestered as organic material, for example, by
burying trees or crop wastes, or as charcoal (biochar).
Bioenergy with CO2 sequestration (BECS) builds directly
on existing technology for bioenergy/biofuels and for CCS,
and inherits the advantages and dis advantages of both of
these technologies. There is no doubt that it is technically
feasible, and there are already some small real-world
examples (Keith 2001; Obersteiner et al. 2001; IPCC 2005).
It is again not necessarily or normally regarded as
geoengineering, and has been reviewed in some detail
by the IPCC (2005). However, BECS has much in common
with some other methods considered here, and has
therefore been included for comparison purposes,
but is not reviewed in detail (see Table 2.3).”

[RWL1: Note that all of the previous long paragraph (with 6 references) has nothing to do with Biochar – and they continue to get all mixed up in the following.}

(2) Sequestration of biomass and biochar have been
proposed as a method for intervening in the natural
cycle so that some or all of the carbon fixed by organic
matter can be stored in soils or elsewhere for hundreds
or thousands of years. For example, it has been proposed
to bury wood and agricultural waste both on land and
in the deep ocean to store the carbon rather than
allow decomposition to return it to the atmosphere
(Submission: Mark Capron; Submission: Newcastle
University; Submission: Ning Zeng; Strand & Benford
2009). In contrast to bioenergy with CO2 sequestration,
there is relatively little peer-reviewed literature about
biomass for sequestration, though there appears to be
growing interest in the biochar process (discussed later
in this section).
[RWL2: This whole paragraph is also non-Biochar. The last sentence re “growing interest” says to me they had already decided to ignore Biochar – too little past interest to put much time on the topic. None of these three additional references are on Biochar I believe (can't check – since they are not in the lsit of references. I think they are all related to burial of “pure” biomass (not char).]

(3) “ Methods involving burying biomass in the land or deep
ocean will require additional energy consumption for
transport, burying and processing. Most seriously, the
processes involved may disrupt growth, nutrient cycling
and viability of the ecosystems involved. In the deep
ocean, for example, organic material would be
decomposed and the carbon and nutrients returned to
shallow waters, since oxygen is generally present (unless
sufficient material were deposited to create anoxic
conditions, which would constitute a major ecosystem
perturbation). Full assessments are not yet available to
assess the costs and benefits involved but it seems unlikely
that this will be a viable technique at any scale that could
usefully reduce atmospheric carbon”.
[RWL3: Still haven't started Biochar (still on burial)– but they seem to be using this last negative sentence elsewhere as it relates to Biochar.

(4) Biochar (charcoal) is created when organic matter
decomposes, usually through heating, in a low- or zero
oxygen environment (Lehmann et al. 2006; Submission:
Peter Read; Submission: UK Biochar Research Centre).
Known as pyrolysis, the decomposition process produces
both biochar and biofuels (syngas and bio-oil). As the
carbon atoms in charcoal are bound together much more
strongly than in plant matter, biochar is resistant to
decomposition by micro-organisms and locks in the carbon
for much longer time periods. The range of potential raw
materials (‘feedstocks’) for creating biochar is wide,
including, for example, wood, leaves, food wastes, straw,
and manure, and it is also claimed that addition of biochar
to soils can improve agricultural productivity. Biochar is
therefore sometimes proposed as an answer to a number
of different problems, since it draws down and locks up
atmospheric carbon, it can improve crop yields, and
it creates biofuels, a renewable energy source. How
effectively it achieves each of these goals, at what costs,
and with what wider impacts, will determine the influence
biochar can have as a geoengineering technology.
[RWL4: The three references here are probably OK – but we can't easily get at two of them. Nothing wrong with this paragraph – but the last sentence sounds like they will decide negatively. The remainder of this section does not try to answer each of these questions.]


(5) One of the key questions regarding biochar is whether it is
better to ‘bury or burn?’. It remains questionable whether
pyrolysing the biomass and burying the char has a greater
impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels than simply
burning the biomass in a power plant and displacing
carbon-intensive coal plants (Keith & Rhodes 2002;
Metzger et al. 2002; Strand & Benford 2009). Submissions
to this study (UK Biochar Research Centre) suggest that
biochar production may in some circumstances be
competitive with use of the biomass as fuel.
[RWL5: The first three references are totally on non-Biochar topics – from persons who hae never written on Biochar. This is therefore totally bogus arguing. These three references are on BECs. The last “submission” is likely to be positive – but no way to tell here. (One can ask for copies – and I will.)

(6) The residence time of carbon converted to biochar in soils,
and the effect on soil productivity of adding large loadings
of char is uncertain (Submission: Biofuelwatch). It is
known, for example from archaeological sites that charcoal
can have a residence time of hundreds or thousands of
years in soils. However, the conditions of pyrolysis may
affect both the yield of char and its long-term stability in
the soil (Submission: UK Biochar Research Centre) and
further research is required.
[RWL6: Here is the bogus citation from BFW. (Note that BFW also cites Lehmann and Read repeatedly – but never to prove their point. ) The RS could have cited IBI, the CSIRO report, or maybe the last “submission” - and learned that ONLY BFW is talking questionable lifetimes. Note there is no mention here anywhere of Terra Preta soils. Similarly there are plenty of papers out there talking of huge “loadings”, and ONLY BFW arguing a problem. (RS has ignored the previous two citations [ Lehmann and Read.] This shows a poor research job by some unknown and un-named author who doesn't know the Biochar subject matter. So far we have two respected (but ignored on every topic) Biochar experts (Lehmann and Read), a “submission” of unknown [to me] author and character (cited three times) and 4 bogus references.]

(7) Proponents of biomass for sequestration argue that very
large rates of sequestration are in principle achievable.
For example, Lehmann et al. (2006), quote a potential
carbon sink of 5.5 to 9.5 GtC/yr by 2100, larger than the
present day fossil fuel source (and approaching 10% of
global primary production by plants). Such fluxes suppose
that there will be enormous growth in the resources
devoted to the production of biofuels, and that some
large fraction of this carbon would be converted to
biochar. The use of crops for renewable fuels on such a
scale would very likely conflict with the use of agricultural
land for the production of food and/or biofuels.
[RWL7: The use of terms like “will very likely” is exactly the approach of BFW. No citations. They totally ignore Lehmann when they later decide how much Biochar can contribute.]


(8) As summarised in Table 2.4 biomass for sequestration
could be a significant small-scale contributor to a
geoengineering approach to enhancing the global
terrestrial carbon sink, and it could, under the right
circumstances, also be a benign agricultural practice.
However, unless the sustainable sequestration rate
exceeds around 1 GtC/yr, it is unlikely that it could make
a large contribution. As is the case with biofuels, there
is also the significant risk that inappropriately applied
incentives to encourage biochar might increase the
cost and reduce the availability of food crops, if growing
biomass feedstocks becomes more profitable than
growing food.
[RWL8: Table2.4 is given below. (Other tables follow that also refer to Biochar - about the same flavor.) There is no description I could find of who did the “voting” on these numbers – which I take exception to below. The term “small-scale” totally ignores (without explanation) the previous paragraph large numbers given by Lehmann. The term “benign” denies the existence of strong productivity increases - that again ONLY BFW denies – and are proved by the (incontrovertible) terra preta soil evidence (factor of 300% difference there). Last sentence- no citations or proof on the food vs fuel argument – which Biochar advocates (like me) feel are sure to tilt the other way, given the already-proven productivity increases.]

(9) Biochar and other forms of sequestered biomass have not
yet been adequately researched and characterised, and so
should not be eligible for carbon credits under the
UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until there is a reliable
system in place for verifying how much carbon is stored,
and the wider social and environmental effects have been
determined. Substantial research will be required to
achieve these conditions for methods other than BECS
[RWL9: This is straight out of the BFW play book (BFW being Biochar's only detractor with a written document). CSIRO came to the opposite conclusion with about 50 times as many references as used here.
The UNCCD and numerous countries did (including Australia – a world leader in the research the author of this section knows nothing about). The idea that there is no reliable system for verification would be laughable if not so sad.
The whole concept of a world-wide soil crisis that can be alleviated with Biochar is totally missing in this paragraph and the whole study. (Also missing is any sense of a climate urgency.)
The last sentence, implying that BECS alone needs no research, is truly amazing – and clearly identifies the prejudices of the author of these nine short paragraphs.


Table 2.4. Biochar summary evaluation table (slightly revised formatting)
Biochar
“Effectiveness = Low Limited by plant productivity and conflicts over land use with agriculture and biofuels
Burning biochar (in place of fossil fuels) may be preferable to burying it
[RWL: Their justifications show they aren't thinking wastes (the term “waste” is never mentioned – as with BFW, who can only conceive of cutting down virgin forests.). They are not considering the increased productivity of the soil that will help both agriculture and biofuels. They have made no case for the second statement – which is based on three references that had nothing to do with Biochar. There is no mention anywhere of N2O control, lower fertilizer consumption, etc, etc.
I would personally rank Biochar “High” on effectiveness.]

Affordability= Low Similar to biofuels (NB costs of fertilisers and transportation).
[RWL: No evidence given anywhere on Biochar costs – they have pulled this conclusion out of the blue. There is not even a comparison to BECS – which certainly seems much higher cost and much higher risk. The inclusion of both fertilisers and transportation costs should be viewed as positives for Biochar.
I rank Biochar “Medium” on Affordability – except in developing countries where even a small wage can be significant – where I rank Biochar “High”.]

Timeliness = Low Slow to reduce global temperatures (CDR method)
Substantial prior research required to investigate efficacy and impacts
[RWL: “CDR=Carbon Dioxide Removal”. The RS gives all CDR methods a low ranking in regard to temperatures – and Biochar is certainly slower than some things one could do to reduce temperature (all of which would lead to continuing ocean acidification, etc.) Biochar appears to me to be the fastest of the CDR approaches. IBI shows one wedge in less than 25 years – which is hugely fast.
The word “substantial” is meaningless if we took the climate problem seriously. We have huge numbers of trained soil scientists and farmers (half the world's population?) ready to go – unlike the trained staff for most technologies.
I would rank Biochar “High” in the CDR-timeliness category (the only one that should be under discussion) and “Medium” when compared to the other (faster) approaches.]

Safety = Medium Potential land-use conflicts (food versus growth of biomass for fuel).
Long-term effects on soils not yet known.
[RWL: The first rationale is identical to the first given above (land-use conflicts) – and just as bogus.
The long-term effects of Biochar in soils are adequately known – based on millennia of experience with terra preta in the Amazon and centuries of experience in Japan. There have been a very few reports of reduced productivity – but these are sure to disappear as soil scientists work with this new (to them) product, with soils and plants common to each part of the world.
I rank Biochar “High” in the Safety category.


Section 2.4 Discussion (p 19)

[RWL: The following paragraph is preceded by several not dealing with Biochar.]

(2.4) “Methods such as BECS, biomass burial and biochar, which
use biomass to sequester carbon, appear to have relatively
low cost, with moderate and predictable environmental
impacts and low-to-medium risk of unanticipated effects.
However, unless deployed on a very large scale, the carbon
sequestration potential is moderate, and there would be
competition with biofuels and agriculture for use of
available land. However the carbon sequestered by
biomass burial and biochar has value as fuel, and it could
be preferable to use this and displace fossil fuels such as
coal, at least until abundant low-carbon energy becomes
available. Land use management (afforestation and
reforestation) for carbon sequestration purposes is a low
risk approach that in addition to having climate benefits
could also provide economic, social and other environmental
benefits. The carbon sequestration potential is however
small to moderate.

[RWL2.4: The first sentence is more positive than the earlier descriptions – perhaps because Biochar is again (unfortunately) linked with two other quite dissimilar approaches (neither BECS nor burial have any productivity benefits and both are much riskier). The other sentences are repetitive of earlier statements. No credit is given to Biochar for being a valuable way to manage the afforestation and reforestation approaches to achieve greater sequestration (that is – as a forest or plantation gets older, its sequestration potential can be maintained by coupling with Biochar).]

Table 2-9
[RWL2-9: The third row of Table 2-9 compares Biochar with 8 other options, for a one-wedge (1 GT C/yr) application saying about it first that the categories of a) cost, b) impact of anticipated environmental effects, and c) risk of unanticipated environmental effects all ranked as “Medium”. I would rank the last two as “Low”.
The “ultimate constraint” is given as “Supply of agricultural / forestry waste
The Maximum sequestration potential was given as 10 to 50 ppm of CO2. This may have come from a quite pro-Biochar cross-cutting geo-engineering reference by Tim Lenton (not cited in connection with Biochar, so Lenton's pro-Biochar position is never made known). I think 10 ppm is much too low; 50 ppm was only exceeded by 50-150 ppm for BECS – which seems absurdly high.
The final column gave a valuable reference: Gaunt & Lehmann (2008) – but no statement is made about the pro-Biochar conclusions of this paper.]

Section 5 - Discussion
[RWL – 5 Section 5 is termed “Discussion”, with a key feature being a comparison table (Table 5-1) and graph. Biochar is listed as warranting a “2” (in a range of 1 to 5, with 5 being best and 2 being “poor”) for four categories: Effectiveness, Affordability, Timeliness, Safety. This was third worst total out of twelve technologies. My rankings would have been three 4's and a 5, for a total of 17 (moved to highest). The RS' largest total was 15 – for “CCS at Source”, followed by two 14's for “afforestation” and “aerosols”.

They also plotted the first (Effectiveness) and second (Affordability” against each other. Biochar came in next to last (second closest to the origin). My scoring would have Biochar tied with :”stratospheric aerosols” (which I would have placed near the bottom.

I give these details to show that I think Biochar never had a chance in these rankings. The rankings were made by some unknown group – that seems not to have had familiarity with the Biochar benefits (I think Biochar was the only one on the list with two (much less three) big economic streams (besides the presumed cost reimbursement for the geoengineering aspect) and neither feature of Biochar was even mentioned.

Other:
[RWL: In section 5.3.1 on technical feasibility and risks, they said:

“CDR techniques that sequester carbon but have land-use
implications (such as biochar and soil-based enhanced
weathering) may make a useful contribution, but this may
only be on a small scale, and research is required to find out
the circumstances under which they would be economically
viable and socially and ecologically sustainable.”
[RWL: Research will be useful, but I think the potential is already well established – especially from the terra preta evidence. The words “may make” and “research is required” show a lack of experience in the Biochar area.]

In Section 5.4.1, on Governance, they say:

“The commercial sector has already demonstrated an
interest in geoengineering and active investment in the
development of some methods is now occurring (eg,
biochar, ocean fertilisation, cloud enhancement and air
capture). Such activities create the risk that geoengineering
activity may be driven by profit motives rather than climate
risk reduction. Provision will be needed in governance
frameworks for international authorisation, monitoring,
verification and certification so as to reduce risks and
deficiencies that may result.”
[RWL: It appears here that existing start-up commercial activity is a negative (an influence by BFW?). I'll bet that Biochar is already in front of the three other technologies in terms of commercial interest – even though the newest entry to the field, with possibly only two Biochar companies even 3 years ago?]


In Box 5.1 Research priorities (p 63), they write:

“Biochar: Effectiveness and residence time of carbon in soils,
effects on soil productivity, influence of conditions of pyrolysis
on yield and stability. Resource requirements (eg, land, feedstock)
and implications for other land-uses. Potential co-benefits of biochar
for water, biodiversity, soil fertility, agricultural production;

[RWL: I have no complaints about these research priorities, but think that emphasis is missing on large scale field trials. I believe enough is known in all these areas to justify inclusion in Copenhagen. The RS places a surprisingly small emphasis on the question of climate urgency.


In Section 6.1 labeled “The Future of Geoengineering”, there is a box also labeled “The Future of Geengineering”, with Biochar specifically mentioned in entry 1.2 under Recommendation 1:

“1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering
methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation
should not be formally accepted as methods for
addressing climate change under the UNFCCC
flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon
residence time and impacts have been determined
and found to be acceptable.”
[RWL: I feel that Biochar is far from “untested” (given especially the terra preta evidence – on ALL of the criteria given (effectiveness, residence time, and impacts). I cannot recall hearing of a single negative impact that should/could be a show-stopper.]

Similarly for Section 6.2 on “Method”:

“Techniques that sequester carbon but have land-use
implications (such as biochar and soil based enhanced
weathering) may make a useful contribution at a small
scale but require further assessment of their life cycle
effectiveness, economic viability, and social and
ecological sustainability.”
[RWL: This is almost the same (unsupported) litany as in Section 6.1 – and the same answers can be given. The RS staff have obviously done little research; they offer no citations or logic for their conclusions – which in fact are contradicted by the references they do cite.]

[RWL: For the next several subsections, there is no specific mention of Biochar – but there is some guidance on avoiding some technologies - guidance that was not utilized in the point scoring.]

From Section 6.7 on R&D: “The economic
viability and social and ecological sustainability of those
CDR techniques that sequester carbon but do have
land-use implications (such as biochar and soil based
enhanced weathering) should also be investigated.”
[RWL: This seems to imply that the land-use implications are negative, where the overwhelming evidence is that large soil productivity gains are available – whereas CCS and BECS – with obvious concerns on legal liability is given a free pass. ]


Other (Omissions):

1. [RWL: Biochar can play a huge role in control of N2O and CH4, but there is no mention of this big advantage (in fact there is likelihood the authors didn't even know of this advantage of Biochar. as can be seen in this quote from p1:

“Note that while it would theoretically also be possible for
geoengineering methods to remove greenhouse gases
other than CO2 from the atmosphere (eg, methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O)), most if not all of the methods
proposed so far focus on CO2 which is long-lived, and
present at a relatively high concentration, and so these are
the focus in this report.”
and from p 9:
“Reducing the emissions of other greenhouse gases such
as CH4, N2O or ground level O3 is also of great importance
for addressing climate change (eg, Richardson et al. 2009).
Geoengineering methods for removing these gases from
the atmosphere for this purpose are in principle possible
but have not yet been developed, and so are not
considered in this report.”
[RWL: If a Biochar-knowledgeable individual had been active in preparing this analysis, they would surely have found a way to acknowledge this major capability of Biochar (and water and nutrient retention, waste disposal, etc) in these two sentences (and similar on pgs 52 and 61).]

I have run out of time to look for other omissions, but believe there are plenty. The number of valid citations for the Biochar paragraphs is much lower than that for the other major Geoengineering technologies. Perhaps Biochar was just added as a late afterthought. That is the way it reads. Ron Larson, 4 September, 2009