Terra Preta in the news

[Michaelangelica]

Biochar soil sequestration and pyrolysis most climate-friendly way to use biomass for energy
The ancient technique of burying charcoal into agricultural soils has gained attention over the years as a way to sequester carbon dioxide and fight climate change. Earlier we referred to scientists who are studying this tradition as it existed in the Amazon rainforest, where human-made and very fertile soils were discovered filled with char ("terra preta", "dark earth" - earlier post).

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

Technology Review has an article on "The Case for Burying Charcoal", noting that research shows that "pyrolysis is the most climate-friendly way to consume biomass". They don't once mention Terra Preta / Eprida / Black Earth, but this sounds like the same technique to me (they do mention the conference in Terrigal starting in a couple of days time though). Tech Review also has an update on OLED displays.

Several states in this country and a number of Scandinavian countries are trying to supplant some coal-burning by burning biomass such as wood pellets and agricultural residue. Unlike coal, biomass is carbon-neutral, releasing only the carbon dioxide that the plants had absorbed in the first place.

But a new research paper published online in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy argues that the battle against global warming may be better served by instead heating the biomass in an oxygen-starved process called pyrolysis, extracting methane, hydrogen, and other byproducts for combustion, and burying the resulting carbon-rich char.

Even if this approach would mean burning more coal--which emits more carbon dioxide than other fossil-fuel sources--it would yield a net reduction in carbon emissions, according to the analysis by Malcolm Fowles, a professor of technology management at the Open University, in the United Kingdom. Burning one ton of wood pellets emits 357 kilograms less carbon than burning coal with the same energy content. But turning those wood pellets into char would save 372 kilograms of carbon emissions. That is because 300 kilograms of carbon could be buried as char, and the burning of byproducts would produce 72 kilograms less carbon emissions than burning an equivalent amount of coal.

Such an approach could carry an extra benefit. Burying char--known as black-carbon sequestration--enhances soils, helping future crops and trees grow even faster, thus absorbing more carbon dioxide in the future. Researchers believe that the char, an inert and highly porous material, plays a key role in helping soil retain water and nutrients, and in sustaining microorganisms that maintain soil fertility.

Johannes Lehmann, an associate professor of crops and soil sciences at Cornell University and an expert on char sequestration, agrees in principle with Fowles's analysis but believes that much more research in this relatively new area of study is needed. "It heads in the right direction," he says.

Interest in the approach is gathering momentum. On April 29, more than 100 corporate and academic researchers will gather in New South Wales, Australia, to attend the first international conference on black-carbon sequestration and the role pyrolysis can play to offset greenhouse-gas emissions.

Lehmann estimates that as much as 9.5 billion tons of carbon--more than currently emitted globally through the burning of fossil fuels--could be sequestered annually by the end of this century through the sequestration of char. "Bioenergy through pyrolysis in combination with biochar sequestration is a technology to obtain energy and improve the environment in multiple ways at the same time," writes Lehmann in a research paper to be published soon in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

[erich]

Hi All,
They did not mention TP but it would fit the criteria for these grants to a T;


April 26, 2007
Johanns Announces $19 M in Grants for Value-Added Ag Ventures
Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced the availability of $19.5 million to help independent agricultural producers enter into value-added activities, which includes renewable energy.

The maximum grant amount for a planning grant is $100,000. The maximum grant amount for a working capital grant is $300,000. Applicants must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant requested.


Potential uses include a wide range of products that allow the producer to enhance the revenue stream generated from their crops and other production. Examples include conversion to organic production, processing of raw commodities to a finished product, and the conversion of farm crops to create renewable energy sources.

"These grants are a vital tool to help support rural businesses, create new markets for agricultural products and help the United States become more energy independent," Johanns said. "They represent the exciting new direction we're proposing for the energy and rural development titles of a new farm bill this year."

Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development grants, aka Value-Added Producer Grants, are available to help agriculture producers develop business plans to produce bio-based products from agricultural commodities. Awards may be made for planning activities or for working capital expenses, but not for both. The maximum grant amount for a planning grant is $100,000. The maximum grant amount for a working capital grant is $300,000. Applicants must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant requested.

The grants may be used for planning activities, such as feasibility studies, marketing and business plans needed to establish a viable value-added marketing opportunity for an agricultural product. They also may be used to provide working capital for operating a value-added business venture, marketing value-added agricultural products and for farm-based renewable energy projects.

Applicants must be an independent producer, agriculture producer group, farmer or rancher cooperative, or majority-controlled producer-based business. The deadline for applications is May 16.

For Further Information
» Application guide and other materials
» USDA Rural Development State Office
» USDA

Johanns Announces $19 M in Grants for Value-Added Ag Ventures


Erich J. Knight

[Michaelangelica]

A long interview in Acres.
nothing new except this 'throw away' comment

CRES U.S.A. Was all charcoal-making done by burning logs where they lay, or was there other technology involved?

MANN. Yes, there are dome-like structure that operate much like the new wood-burning stoves — you can control them so that they burn very, very clean and have relatively low oxygen inside. The ones I’ve seen are buried under earth rather carefully, with just enough oxygen holes to let the wood smolder.

He does not say what the domes were made of grass? wood? pottery?
Acres U.S.A. -- A Voice for Eco-Agriculture

[Michaelangelica]

Well written blog.
In the photo, note the depth of the soil and the pottery sticking out of the soil.

Amazonian societies did something no other culture has ever done in world history: they created good soil. These groups cleared plots in the forest, yes, but instead of burning them they charred them slowly.
The charcoal was then mixed with the soil where it not only added carbon, but hosted microbes, and increased the soil’s capacity to hold nutrients even during a downpour. Instead of planting rows of maize in their new soil, they planted hundreds of varieties of domesticated trees. Among these trees they planted their staple crop, manioc root.

Not content merely with plentiful fertile soils, they used pottery to build these soils up out of the floodplain (similar to the Beni people mentioned discussed in the link at the beginning). This process required continued investment of resources over hundreds of years. Millions of pots were smashed in order to raise their fields and dwellings and reclaim the land.

Anthonares » Blog Archive » Terra Preta de Indio: An Amazonian Lesson in Sustainability

[Michaelangelica]

Carbon loss in soils is something we really need to know about

One of Australia's top organic farming experts, Dr Maarten Stapper, has been dumped by the CSIRO, amid allegations he was bullied by executive management for criticising genetically modified crops.
. . .
Dr Stapper is researching carbon loss in soils, restoring soil fertility by improving soil microbiology and use of biological farming methods to improve wheat yields in south-western NSW. He has been retrenched from CSIRO Plant Industry in Canberra and will leave at the end of the month.
. . .
He argued that the use of "fertilisers, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals to address problems in agricultural production has been leading to poor soil health and resistance in insects, diseases and weeds".

Dr Burdon said CSIRO had a large national team working on sustainable agriculture issues such as integrated farm management systems but Dr Stapper's research had been " more at the organic end". He confirmed that Dr Stapper was the only CSIRO scientist working on organic and biological farming systems and the research program would end when he left.
. . .
Asked about further research on increasing carbon uptake of soils, Dr Burdon replied, "We won't be doing any more of that."

He said CSIRO did not consider biological and organic farming to be "a long-term viable strategy" and Dr Stapper's research was "not an area the division feels it can support any more".
. . .
Australian Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison described Dr Stapper's retrenchment as "an extraordinary loss of expertise on a critical greenhouse issue".

milton.yourguide.com.au

[Michaelangelica]

Simpler Way To Counter Global Warming Explained: Lock Up Carbon In Soil And Use Bioenergy Exhaust Gases For Energy

Science Daily — Writing in the journal Nature, a Cornell biogeochemist describes an economical and efficient way to help offset global warming: Pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by charring, or partially burning, trees, grasses or crop residues without the use of oxygen.

When bioenergy is produced by pyrolysis (low-temperature burning without oxygen), it produces biochar, which has twice as much carbon in its residue than that from other sources. This makes bioenergy carbon-negative and improves soil health. (Credit: Image courtesy of Cornell University)

When bioenergy is produced by pyrolysis (low-temperature burning without oxygen), it produces biochar, which has twice as much carbon in its residue than that from other sources. This makes bioenergy carbon-negative and improves soil health.

This process, he writes, would double the carbon concentration in the residue, which could be returned to the soil as a carbon sink. The exhaust gases from this process and other biofuel production could then be converted into energy.

This so-called biochar sequestration could offset about 10 percent of the annual U.S. fossil-fuel emissions in any of several scenarios, says Johannes Lehmann, associate professor of soil biogeochemistry in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Cornell.

"Biochar sequestration, combined with bioenergy production, does not require a fundamental scientific advance, and the underlying production technology is robust, clean and simple, making it appropriate for many regions of the world," said Lehmann. "It not only reduces emissions but also sequesters carbon, making it an attractive target for energy subsidies and for inclusion in the global carbon market."

Most plants pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and lock it up in their biomass or in soil organic matter. But taking this a step further, Lehmann recommends heating the plant biomass without oxygen in a process known as low-temperature pyrolysis. When returned to the soil, biochar creates a stable, long-term carbon sink.

"Biochar also has been shown to improve the structure and fertility of soils, to enhance the retention and efficiency of fertilizers as well as to improve the productivity of soil," said Lehmann.

Capturing the exhaust gases from the pyrolysis process produces energy in such forms as heat, electricity, bio-oil or hydrogen. By adding the biochar to soil rather than burning it as an energy source (which most companies do), bioenergy can be turned into a carbon-negative industry. Biochar returned to soil not only secures soil health on bioenergy plantations but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 12 to 84 percent.

Compared with ethanol production, pyrolysis that produces biochar and bioenergy from its exhaust gases is much less expensive, Lehmann said, when the feedstock is animal waste, clean municipal waste or forest residues collected for fire prevention.

Lehmann said that as the value of carbon dioxide increases on carbon markets, "we calculate that biochar sequestration in conjunction with bioenergy from pyrolysis becomes economically attractive when the value of avoided carbon dioxide emissions reaches $37 per ton." Currently, the Chicago Climate Exchange is trading carbon dioxide at $4 a ton; it is projected that that the price will rise to $25-$85 a ton in the coming years.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Cornell University.
From the SCIENCE DAILY
ScienceDaily: Simpler Way To Counter Global Warming Explained: Lock Up Carbon In Soil And Use Bioenergy Exhaust Gases For Energy
--

[Michaelangelica]

TP in NZ
Public Address | Southerly

Alfred Harris:

In Waimea, for example -- where there's hundreds of acres of what they call 'Maori soils' -- the experimental work was done on that site, and it was very clear that charcoal was mixed far further into the soil than would be expected simply from just the burning of the site.

Interviewer:

It's fascinating that two cultures so far apart should both discover the effects of charcoal in terms of agriculture. At a scientific level, how the does charcoal actually improve soil fertility?
. . .
Alfred Harris:

Beyond a shadow of doubt -- that's absolutely right. And what's been demonstrated (by the Japanese, primarily) is that the addition of charcoal can reduce the amount of fertilizer that you need to put in for the same fertility effect. And they're quite substantial differences... you're talking 20, 30, 40 per cent.

Interviewer:

Right, which begs the question -- why isn't this already standard practice for agriculturalists?

Alfred Harris:

Again, that's a really good question. See what they say all the way through, is that: "Hey, really great that it works -- but the cost of producing the charcoal, and actually incorporating it in the soil means that it's not going to work economically". And they're absolutely right, in [terms] of conventional agriculture, where you've got cheap petrochemical products, and you can fix your nitrogen from the atmosphere using [cheap] energy. But, of course, what's happening now is that the economics of all of that is suddenly changing very fast.

[Michaelangelica]

Scientific American article on TP

Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure: Scientific American

In Focus
May 15, 2007
Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure
New bill in U.S. Senate will advocate adoption of "agrichar" method that could lessen our dependence on fossil fuel and help avert global warming
By Anne Casselman

[Pangolin]

Australia persists in their rush to national suicide. In the midst of the first climate-related national scale disaster to hit a industrial nation they persist in their plans to export more coal.

Now they fire the only government researcher working on organic methods that would sequester carbon. It's a good thing no Australian farmers and ranchers have access to rifles. Those politicians would start feeling like targets otherwise.

[erich]

Maybe Scientific American's TP article will generate more traction than last years Nature article.

Special Report: Inspired by Ancient Amazonians, a Plan to Convert Trash into Environmental Treasure: Scientific American


Erich

Edit: OOPS..........I just saw that Michael beat me to it, and I missed it!