[Terrapreta] Selling Biochar in Climate Change Markets

[Folke Günther]

1.	In my blog, you can find some calculations on the necessary and
physically feasible amounts of char
2.	The amounts needed are s large that I don’t think they are feasible
without a good payment of putting char into soils

a.	This is possible if a tax cold be set on carbon dioxide emissions
(Already done in several countries, among other my own: Sweden)
b.	And this tax is paid to people who sequester on a “carbon for
carbon” basis. That would imply that a carbon sequesterer would get 3.67
times the carbon dioxide tax  
c.	To manage this potentially enormous bureaucracy, you need a national
or international fund (Global Sequestration Fund, GSF :-))   that no only
manage the money, but also supervises the conduct of the sequesterers. (No
ravaging and the like). 

This is mentioned in my article, earlier made downloadable to this forum

 

FG

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---  

Folke Günther

Kollegievägen 19

224 73 Lund, Sweden

home/office: +46 46 14 14 29

cell:               0709 710306  skype:  folkegun

Homepage:     http://www.holon.se/folke  
blog: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/

 

  _____  

Från: Duane Pendergast [mailto:still.thinking at computare.org] 
Skickat: den 3 mars 2008 23:25
Till: 'Sean K. Barry'; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Ämne: Re: [Terrapreta] Selling Biochar in Climate Change Markets

 

          You might be able to go nuclear-electric pyrolysis to increase the
hydrogen and char yields Sean.

 

Duane

 

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: March 3, 2008 8:41 AM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; Laurens Rademakers
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Selling Biochar in Climate Change Markets

 

Hi Lorenzo,

 

It is great to hear from someone who is optimistic about what can be
achieved economically when the formation of Terra Preta soils
(charcoal-in-soil) + fertilizers is viewed over the long run (25-30 years).
Did you know that nitrogen fertilizers can be made from off gases of the
pytrolysis process, too?

 

One needs to be careful about estimates that get charcoal energy, and or
fertilizer all from the biomass feedstock, though.  The more energy actually
harvested or the more H2 gas used for fertilizer manufacture, then there
will be a lower charcoal yield.  When cheap fossil fuel runs out (later this
year?!), than making nitrogen fertilizers with hydrogen got from pyrolysis
of biomass may be the only and/or cheapest way to make fertilizers, though.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Laurens Rademakers <mailto:lrademakers at biopact.com>  

To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:28 AM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Selling Biochar in Climate Change Markets

 

Tom, you are absolutely right. But you can in fact go MUCH further. We have
done the same calculation, and biochar can be even more profitable when the
system is implemented in the tropics at the forest frontier. Because there
it would actually slow or even halt deforestation.

 

We look at it as follows: 1 hectare of "slash and burn" converted into
"slash and char" would, over a period of 30 years, save the carbon contained
in at least 6 hectares of forest. Because shifting cultivation forces
farmers to move on to new land after 2 to maximum 5 years (so after 30
years, they would have slashed and burned 6 ha if they use each hectare 5
years, which is a long time; in reality, most soils are depleted much
faster, after 2 or 3 years). 

 

-An average rainforest in SEAsia/Central Africa contains around 700 tons
CO2eq/ha. 

-So by converting 1 hectare into biochar soils, you would get 700 tons times
6 = 4200 tons (over 30 years); 4200 tons of CO2 at Euro 21/ton = Euro
88,200. 

-Euro 88,200 divided by 30 (years) is 2940 per hectare of land converted to
biochar; not bad

 

Of course, currently these slash-and-burn farmers don't use fertilizers.
Biochar only works if supplemented with fertilizers. So you would have to
take emissions from fertilizers into the equation, and substract them from
the gains.

 

-Another stream of carbon revenue would be: reduced emissions from primitive
biomass use for energy. When biochar is made in efficient pyrolysis plants
that deliver electricity at the same time (from the syngas), then you would
provide clean energy to these communities. They would no longer rely on wood
burned inefficiently in open fires (current practise), which releases large
amounts of emissions.

 

Mmm, I think we should put much more effort in studying the potential carbon
market opportunities for biochar, as they relate to different biochar
concepts.

 

Best,

Lorenzo

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org


  _____  

Jag använder en gratisversion av SPAMfighter för privata användare.
15902 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
Hämta gratis SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/lsv>  idag! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080304/4300ab6a/attachment.html