Comments on: The Promise of Biochar http://www.earthbeatradio.org/the-promise-of-biochar/ Your climate change broadcast. Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:10:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: new_biochar_landhttp://www.earthbeatradio.org/the-promise-of-biochar/#comment-7553 new_biochar_land Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:04:00 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/?p=1262#comment-7553 You must read this “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. You must read this
“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.

]]> By: sherryl-annette snyderhttp://www.earthbeatradio.org/the-promise-of-biochar/#comment-335 sherryl-annette snyder Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:21:32 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/?p=1262#comment-335 Thank You for bringing hope. I turn 70 in about 10 days and had felt worthless and useless until this last May. This May I started building a mud hut with weeds binding it together. Not done in a difficult way or by mud bricks. Instead I am building layer by layer as I go around. The walls will be little more than waist high in the front. The inside is being dug down as I go. The stove will be a cob stove built under the wall placing the smoke outside. Thanks for the information on what to burn and how. Thank You for bringing hope. I turn 70 in about 10 days and had felt worthless and useless until this last May.
This May I started building a mud hut with weeds binding it together. Not done in a difficult way or by mud bricks.
Instead I am building layer by layer as I go around.
The walls will be little more than waist high in the front. The inside is being dug down as I go. The stove will be a cob stove built under the wall placing the smoke outside.
Thanks for the information on what to burn and how.

]]> By: David Lewishttp://www.earthbeatradio.org/the-promise-of-biochar/#comment-326 David Lewis Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:05:13 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/?p=1262#comment-326 The Royal Society of the U.K. published "Geoengineering the climate - Science, governance, and uncertainty" September 2009. A link to the .pdf file:http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151They have assessed all known methods of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and made recommendations.The discussion about biochar starts on page 11. Exerpts:"The residence time of carbon converted to biochar in soils, and the effect on soil productivity of adding large loadings of char is uncertain" - page 12"Burning biochar (in place of fossil fuels) may be preferable to burying it" - Table 2-4 page 13"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.... 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...."The general discussion of all carbon dioxide removal techniques contained this:"The spatial scale over which direct removal methods using chemical or physical engineering technologies operate will be an important consideration. If these methods are to manage a significant fraction of global emissions, they will require the creation of an industry that moves material on a scale as large as (if not larger than ) that of current fossil fuel extraction, with the risk of substantial local environmental degradation and significant energy requirements. Enhanced weathering might require mining on a scale larger than the largest current mineral extraction industry, and biologically based methods might require land at a scale similar to that used by current agriculture worldwide."They ended the biochar discussion with this:"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...." The Royal Society of the U.K. published “Geoengineering the climate – Science, governance, and uncertainty” September 2009. A link to the .pdf file:

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151

They have assessed all known methods of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and made recommendations.

The discussion about biochar starts on page 11. Exerpts:

“The residence time of carbon converted to biochar in soils, and the effect on soil productivity of adding large loadings of char is uncertain” – page 12

“Burning biochar (in place of fossil fuels) may be preferable to burying it” – Table 2-4 page 13

“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…. 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….”

The general discussion of all carbon dioxide removal techniques contained this:

“The spatial scale over which direct removal methods using chemical or physical engineering technologies operate will be an important consideration. If these methods are to manage a significant fraction of global emissions, they will require the creation of an industry that moves material on a scale as large as (if not larger than ) that of current fossil fuel extraction, with the risk of substantial local environmental degradation and significant energy requirements. Enhanced weathering might require mining on a scale larger than the largest current mineral extraction industry, and biologically based methods might require land at a scale similar to that used by current agriculture worldwide.”

They ended the biochar discussion with this:

“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….”

]]>