umm, why should charcoal/woodgas be not carbon neutral? Even a complete burn (no char remaining) would be neutral, if biomass is allowed to regrow.

Charcoal/woodgas promises to be carbon *negative*, not just neutral.
Said study perhaps suggests to not bury charcoal in good humus. That's all.

The only known simple and tested tech (simpler than biogas) to save us is wood gas. Perhaps it is too simple (thus the industrial military complex doesn't like it). Wood gas cars were widely used during WWII, and still are used in North Korea.

Dump the char at the c21st (wood-)gas station and earn some carbon credits...

BTW I heard of a Bavarian biogas farmer who only uses plant matter he grows exclusively for his biogas. He re-feeds the remains to his soil, but (of course!) adds no fertilizer. His soil is slowly getting depleted. So his operation at least is not carbon neutral.

Greetings,
314159265, aka Florifulgurator

Hi pi! Welcome.

This is a widespread mass delusion, that burning biomass is carbon neutral. it is the lie behind ethanol fuel farming.

When plants grow they trap carbon out of the atmosphere, turning CO2 into cellulose. that cellulose gradually breaks down over time. For instance, prairie soil stores 1.8 tons of cO2 per acre per year. Prairie soil was over 20 feet thick when settlers plowed it. It is an inert, poisonous chemical dust bowl ready to happen in the next drought now. Chemical farming with no return of biomass to the soil has burned that stored carbon back into the atmosphere during the ag revolution of the last hundred years.

The carbon cycle that is neutral leaves most of the carbon sequestered, burning it as fuel interupts the natural carbon cycle.

Biofuel carbon neutrality is a myth.

Except for biogas, because it prevents the release of 20 times the effective GHG that it emits when it is used as fuel. Biogas that is generated from huge methane (21 times worse a GHG than CO2) emitting sources like manure and fertilizer run off, garbage, sewage, and green biomass waste.

After the methane is collected as biogas, then the remainder is returned to the soil as fertilizer and soil amendement. Replacing huge GHG from chemical fertiler production, application, and transportation. Ammonia comes from russia on tankers now, oil powered tankers.

local organic fertilizer and clean biogas energy to backup the grid, paying farmers for your power. That's the right energy/ag policy. Someone tell Barack.

Yeah, if you kill and burn a 100y old living tree, that won't be carbon neutral for 100y. Better wait till it dies. And don't forget to let grow new ones.

The delusion with biofuels is mainly, methinks, that they don't count the fossil fuel used for fertilizer etc. plus the soil depletion. Here in Bavaria many greenies were proud of driving with rape seed diesel. No longer. (Germany is few years ahead of U.S. ...)


On your side of the big pond there's a gigantic source of biomass opening up: Forests killed by bark beetle. On a smaller scale we got the same problem here (Bayerwald/Sumava Forest), but we have more intelligent forestry/logging.

Bad already now, it will get much worse with more warming. We can't afford to let them rot and turn into a huge source of GHG (yet another amplifying feedback).

Are trees usable for biogas? Could a new green c21st Standard Oil Company feed from them?

My vision for the carbon depleted prairie soils is: Char those dead trees, use the wood gas for distributed energy (replacing perhaps several nuke plants), bury the char coal in the prairie, plus: earn some carbon credits.

Problem with wood gas (CO+H2) is, methinks, it is not that easily stored as CH4. Wood gas needs to be burned when produced. But then, it is very easy to tinker a wood gas oven yourself (2 tin cans, 3 screws and able tools). They burn cleaner and more effective (plus the carbon negativity) than a simple wood fire. I guess one can even do it 100% stone age with some clay and 2 holes in the ground (project for my next winter sweat hut).

The char coal being quite recalcitrant substance, you can be quite sure that here's sequestrable carbon. Sort of gold standard currency for a planet saving economy, perhaps.


My picture is of course not: either wood gas or methane, but an intelligent mixture of both.


Greetings from Regensburg,
314159265 & Florifulgurator

Yep pi, no prtoblem using wood in biodigestion, as long as one part of nitrogen (manure) is added for 30 parts of carbon (wood chips). And all the wood that hasn't rotted can be turned into chipboard, paqper, and other building materials. Saving healthy lives trees from logging. And sequestering carbon in buildings.

The paper recycling and resue path can eventually end in the biodigestor too. With unrecyclable paper used to produce biogas.

Well the problem the study outlines is that charcoal tends to increase GHG emission. nullifying it's carbon sequestration benefit.

Organic fertilizer from biodigestion has the GHG cancelling effect of replacing chemical fertilizer AND restoring carbon sink activity of the soil.

Then there is that huge methane cancellation effect from recycling manure, sewage, garbage, and biomass waste. 21 times as effective as stopping CO2.

Biochar still Bites the dust (SOIL) in a good way;

From Christoph Steiner to the terrapreta List:

" The study of Wardle et al was simple and provides valuable data. 10 year
studies are a rare opportunity but other conventional means of C
sequestration (conservation tillage etc) were studied much longer. That
charcoal increases the decomposition of labile soil organic matter (SOM)
is a logical consequence of increased microbial biomass and activity.
This is the example of humus rich Swedish forest soils. The Terra Preta
example is different (low respiration rates in absence of an easily
degradable organic substance). Chernozems are a other example. Charcoal
can led to the formation of very persistent SOM and this in environments
and soils with low carbon sequestration capacity. Nobody proposed to
apply charcoal as a C sink in humus rich soils. It can be a mean of
carbon sequestration in depleted soils (e.g. southeastern US). Due to
agriculture most soils have lost 50% of there original carbon content.
The recalcitrance of charcoal allows SOM build up beyond the carrying
capacity of a soil.
In some cases increased decomposition might be even desired. Composting
of manures and other green biomass would be increased and emissions of
CH4 and N2O reduced. Organically applied nutrients might be faster
available for plants if applied with charcoal and leaching of nitrogen
reduced.
This study proves once again the recalcitrant nature of charcoal and
shows that we have to do much more research in the field to determine
appropriate applications for charcoal as a C sink. I am confident that
there are many management options."
#

Here is another TP researcher's view of the article.


Edward Someus to Terrapreta List

show details 11:47 PM (6 hours ago) [Charcoal LOSS.pdf]

Reply

Dear Folke,

Pls find encl the publication text PDF. Need to be studied more in-depthly and discussed later on. The department of forest ecology and management, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) Umea Professor David Wardle, Professor Marie-Charlotte Nilsson and Professor Olle Zackrisson are high science Colleagues, and such rarely 10 long years executed study is of value and should be taken very seriously.

The 10 year study - in relation to the evaluation of forest wild fires - is executed in the Boreal forest sites in northern Sweden humus rich forest soils with high "dosis" 50/50 mixtures and 100% blank. The conditions and the scenario for wild fire boreal forest is very much different than for AGRO TP, which agricultural adaptation may also widely variate at different places and cultivation practices world wide.

The industrialized production soil-char composite products I develop is a microbiologically pre-mobilized organic/inorganic complex fertilizers with combined effects, with successful dosis 400 kg/ha up to 1000 kg/ha in granulated form with consideration 20 cm top soil. At this moment we have wide soil and climatic tests ongoing in Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, Israel, UK and Hungary.

I have distributed the publication to my Colleagues at different soil science groups at UK, NL, DE, IT Universities and for experience / knowledge exchange I will make follow up and direct discussion with the SLU Professors as well.

However, KEVIN may have right: "Reading between the lines of the article, one could guess at the general content of the Paper, but the article was presented in a shallow, sensationalist manner that would likely leave with the uninitiated reader with the impression that charcoal in soil was "a bad thing." "

KEEP IN TOUCH.

  
Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
HOMEPAGE: http://www.terrenum.net
EMAIL 1: edward at terrenum.net
EMAIL 2: edward.someus at gmail.com

Cheers,
Erich J. Knight

Even if charcoal in soil were not a "bad thing", from the GHG perspective of releasing extra CO2 from soil, biogas is better.

The wood waste and cellulose devoted to biochar would be better off digested into biogas and organic fertilizer. Biogas digestion prevents 20 time the effective GHG release from methane capture that it produces when generating energy.

Nothing beats that carbon cancellation ratio.