Josh, Ken, List
I also am perplexed. By "out year", I meant several things: increased soil
productivity, reduced fertilizer requirements, reduced irrigation needs and
likely less N2O release. Possibly for millennia, certainly centuries.
Energy provision follows from the desirable use of the valuable pyrolysis
gases and liquids. Even the no gas/liquid approach called HTC (hydrothermal
carbonization) has a 200 C hot water/steam "waste" stream.
The other CDR approaches I am comparing to are artificial trees, whole-tree
burial, and those ocean fertilization systems that are not supplying material
for Biochar.
I believe that albedo decrease is an important topic for more research - but
likely not a showstopper with Biochar - but might be for tree- planting alone.
Ron
Sent from my iPad
On May 9, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Joshua Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please note that I did not make this statement, I leave it to Ron to address
> ...
>
> Josh
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Ken Caldeira
> <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
> The inclusion of the word "only" renders Josh's statement false:
>
> In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than
> requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year
> climate benefits.
>
> Biomass energy combined with carbon capture and geologic storage (BECC) is a
> CDR approach that could also provide energy and "out-year" climate benefits.
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM, <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Josh:
>
> I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal
> (CDR) myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the report.
> Thanks for pointing that paragraph out.
>
> Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad nauseum -
> with apologies) that the word Geoengineering should be replaced by Solar
> Radiation Management (SRM) when the latter is all that is being discussed.
>
> CDR and SRM have a few things in common - but they are very different. In
> particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than requires
> energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year climate
> benefits. When Jim Hansen proposes 100 GtC of a new forestry carbon sink - I
> believe he is thinking much more of mitigation than of Geoengineering. To
> repeat, Biochar can couple exceedingly well with this new sink (and how to
> pay for either has not been established). I think this list would benefit
> from a discussion of whether planting a new 100GtC of forest is
> Geoenegineering.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com>
> To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:35:03 AM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Vatican Report
>
> Ron,
>
> Note the following on p. 4: "Nations should also avoid removal of
> carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon
> sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop
> and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the
> atmosphere."
>
> I would also be interested in learning more about the working group
> dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance.
>
> Josh Horton
> joshuahorton...@gmail.com
>
>
> On May 7, 7:03 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Prof. Robock (with ccs)
> >
> > 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a
> > report (" Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene"), where you are
> > listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable
> > athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/...
> >
> > 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be
> > influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow
> > co-authors (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering.
> > More specifically can you say anything on the differences discussed between
> > CDR and SRM? The first Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest
> > that Biochar (clearly a CDR technique) should not be considered a
> > "Mitigation" measure (which I consider it to be)
> >
> > 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent
> > just before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct
> > parts (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can
> > you explain why this discrepancy?
> >
> > 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has
> > (for the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100
> > gigatons carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I
> > believe qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for
> > Biochar. Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing
> > this substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60
> > GtC/yr..
> > Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop...
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short that
> > I include it all here)
> >
> > Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are Required
> >
> > Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are
> > many questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities,
> > and of the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before
> > geoengineering could be responsibly considered. There has not been a
> > dedicated international assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs
> > a broadly representative, multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the
> > highest standards, based for example on the IPCC model. The foundation for
> > such an assessment has to be much broader with deeper scientific study than
> > there has been a chance to carry out thus far.
> >
> > It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and
> > catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and
> > adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of
> > geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus
> > decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be
> > developed before any action can be taken.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
