Had a short note out at http://talk.newagtalk.com about soil carbon sequestration and received this response from an aquaintance back in Iowa.  As a guy that believes soil is a living attibute that natually absorbs atmospheric carbon via slow digestion of organic matter, Biochar is a worrisom innovation.  But there may be important societal issues this helps solve?  As a rule of thumb assume that the total above ground biomass is in a 40:60 ratio grain to stover for corn.  An Iowa corn field makes 150 bushels/acre of corn grain or about 9 metric tons per hectare. So according to Dr Lars, the Biochar process will yield "per hectare 9 metric tons of grain, 8.1 metric tons of Biooil, 2.7 metirc tons of Biochar, and the balance of the mass as biogas.  Whow!   FYI

MidNight Mapper

aka neil

From: Lon_Crosby [mailto:lon_crosby@netins.net]

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:11 AM

Subject: RE: Ag Biochar & Carbon Credits

 

First you need to visit this site. According to the DOE, the upgrading of biooil from the fast pyrolysis of biomass can meet 60% of the US transportation fuel needs (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/pyrolysis_upgrading.pdf). So we are talking about real second generation alternative fuel technology.

 

Fast pyrolysis is a thermochemical process as opposed to fermentation. If you want to dig deeper, here is a reference. Bridgewater AV, Meier D, Radlein D. An overview of fast pyrolysis of biomass. Org Geochem 30:1479-1493, 1999. For cornstalks, the primary fast pyrolysis process we propose using will produce 60% biooil, 20% biochar and 20% producer gas on a dry weight basis. The producer gas is used to provide the heat to drive the process and to dry the incoming biomass to 10% moisture (a fast pyrolysis requirement). So it is inherently efficient.

 

Then you need to visit this site www.dynamotive.com. The take-away point here is that there are plants running on wood chips that we can use as the foundation for a plant running on cornstalks.

 

Then you have to read this paper. Laird DA. The Charcoal Vision: A Win–Win–Win Scenario for Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, While Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100:178-181, 2008.; http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/100/1/178?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Laird&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=100&issue=1&resourcetype=HWCIT (be patient and it will load automatically). He should have added “while increasing crop yields” to the title as well. 

A biological half-life of 1000 years, the potential to eliminate non-point pollution associated with intensive row crop production, carbon sequestration, etc. along with a significant yield increase makes this an interesting process. And the fast pyrolysis part anyway is on the right track because ADM and ConocoPhillips announced a joint venture last Fall to pursue the same concept. I’ll let you decide on the impact biochar will have on the GOM problem and on nitrogen utilization efficiency. 

In fast pyrolysis, size matters so the base operation proposed will be able to process >5000 dry tons/day of cornstalks. We tried to find a way that farm or local scale operation would work but have not been successful. A 5000 dTPD fast pyrolysis plant is functionally equivalent to a 220 MGPD ethanol plant. It would also produce 1000 TPD of ag biochar. We plan on starting at 500 dTPD and growing to 5000 dTPD over 2 or 3 years.

 

If you are a glutton for punishment, you want to go here - http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=about Not the best organized site but has most of the links.

 

If you look at new carbon accretion during no-till, you’ll find that the increment gets progressively smaller and is essentially zero after 5 or 6 years. Otherwise, no-till fields that have been in no-till for 20 years should be awash in carbon. But they are not. Trees have the same problem. Carbon accretion level falls off over time. No big deal if you are running a willow plantation but in important for pulpwood and hardwood production. This is the dirty little secret of the carbon zealots. From the scientist perspective, this is the way biology works. Objectively measure performance and move on.  

 

I would characterize the EU stance on soil carbon credits as quite rational as soil OM created by “no-till” is extremely volatile and susceptible to abuse. Biochar solves that problem. No ax to grind. Am just a scientist who believes in objective documentation.

 

Lon