[Terrapreta] Response to Andrew Heggie re "biochar/terrapreta"

[Ron Larson]

To members of both the "stoves" and "terrapreta" lists

On the 27th, Andrew Heggie responded to something I wrote to "stoves"  (only) on the 26th (and I intersperse my new responses in bold)

> Hi Ron, and there was I thinking I was keeping *this* seat warm for
> you!:    

    [RWL1:  You've been doing such a good job that I had to go off and find another job  (and wouldn't be talking "terrapreta" today if Tom Miles hadn't been involved in both "stoves" or "terrapreta").  I try to read all the "stoves" material these days but I find not enough time in the day to even keep up with the "terrapreta" list - which is really active now.  As important as "stoves" is,  I get more worried about climate issues every day.  The two topics are nicely coupled - as you obviously are expressing below.   I believe the reason "terrapreta" is so good this soon on pyrolysis is because Tom has been able to gather so much from "stoves"  I recommend both sites to those now only on one.  Andrew is a moderator of "stoves".  Although the stoves and "terrapreta" addresses look quite different, Tom Miles operates them identically (I think).]

> 
> I think there's a way to go to fulfill your prediction all the time we
> burn coal but it does make an interesting idea in that the micro
> economics  could mean it could be a cash crop where there is no hope
> of competing with a large coal producer. If the carbon credits can be
> managed, and that's a big IF to my mind because gross distortions of
> the market by fancy mechanisms like this will attract corruption, it
> gives a near subsistence farmer the means to maintain fertility and
> cash in the credits.   
    
    [RWL2:  a.  Please clarify:  when you use the word "coal" in second and fourth lines above - is that what I mean by "charcoal" or does the second use imply the stuff dug from the ground?  Others (I think mostly from the UK and Australia) have suggested the word "biochar" - I think trying to avoid any use of "coal".  I am myself now going to stay further away from "coal" in all cases, but "charcoal" is hard for me to avoid using.
            b.  I agree with you that there is a big potential for wood-stove users all over the world to have "biochar" as a cash crop.  But any such trend will have a big impact on the stoves world.
            c.  I am still very ignorant on the carbon credit market - which I believe may still not allow credits for charcoal.  A big problem that needs fixing.
            d.  I hope you can expand on your above "IF" statement - the issue of corruption.   Do you mean the problem of producers showing proof of charcoal manufacture but the charcoal instead being consumed?
            e.  Re you last sentence above,  I can find no distinction between the goals of the climate community and the farming community.   The remarkable thing is that this form of sequestration continues "giving" increased carbon sequestration way beyond the first deposition of the biochar in the soil.  My problem is to figure how large that "multiplication factor" is.  I think that subsistence farmers might be entitled to 4-10 times as much credit as for the carbon in CO2 dumped in the ocean or placed underground.  But I haven't yet seen a way to prove it.  Fortunately, the answer will come from soil scientists - and they are beginning to get the answers (which takes more than a few years - and may be very much site-specific.)
> 
> How do you envisage it working, to my mind the carbon needs to be
> denatured from fuel use before it can be certified as sequestered. 
> 
    [RWL3:   a.  Not quite sure of your "denatured" word.  Obviously there should be a bigger "offset" credit if the pyrolysis gases themselves are used to displace fossil fuels.  This part would have no connection to soils.  That can be one-for-one, as there is no continuing benefit. 
            b.  I would not give any credits for charcoal clearly placed in the ground, but which was produced without flaring (with only venting).  The "barrels-in-a-barrel" approach used by ARTI is fine by me - but charcoal-making with only venting of the pyrolysis gases (as practiced now world-wide) should be precluded from carbon credits (if not actually fined).  Perhaps you mean that "denaturing" is somehow ensuring that credit certification should include both the charcoal producer and the sequesterer?
            c.   The mechanism for providing assurances is not clear - but I guess will have to fall upon groups like local governments or NGOs - with periodic checks by progressively higher levels of government.   I think small rewards to "whistle-blowers" will help police mal-practice quite well.


> Everyone can have a do it yourself terra preta kit by buying or making
> a Reed-Larson type stove.
>>    [RWL:   a.  I am excited to hear that AD is selling such a low-cost natural-draft charcoal-making stove.  That qualifies for the "offset" credits of course as well as those for the produced charcoal.  I am sure that getting a few more involved with charcoal-mkaing stove optimization will pay big dividends.  But the work of Elsen Karstad with bagasse in a large-scale centralized down-draft geometry is also exciting.  His pyrolysis system will probably be easily extended to gain "offset" credits when used for brick-making, pottery production, etc..  The work of Alex English with straw bales for greenhouse heating is also a great opportunity for expansion - maybe especially in Africa where there is the unfortunate ritualistic burning of grasses that leaves now only ashes and could have been charcoal with both income and a better soil resulting.  
                b.  I am responding separately to Dr.  Yuri's message a bit after yours.
                c.  But your own pyrolysis work is particularly exciting to me  (explaining to others that I visited Andrew's backyard several years ago where he showed a  particularly efficient quite large pyrolysis system able to work well with large pieces of green wood for use in removing excess material in the UK's many abundant forests.)   I think that the credits and soil values should be particularly helpful in your goals.  Can your review the present status of your work?  Wasn't it a continuous (non-batch) approach, suitable for transportation between forests?
                d.  As I search around on the web, I am impressed by how much good pyrolysis work seems to be going on in the UK.  Am I correct in that assessment?    Any official British government support now for pyrolysis?  (Essentially zero in the US, as near as I can tell).
                e.  Andrew.  Thanks for your message and for your dedicated pyrolysis work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070329/e61b8046/attachment.html