This week, Bloomberg Businessweek named re:char founder, Jason Aramburu, one of America’s Top 25 Most Promising Social Entrepreneurs! At re:char, we believe by integrating social impact directly into a venture’s mission, we can do good while making money. We are thoroughly honored to be a part of this cohort of brilliant entrepreneurs and ventures.
You can read up on the story and vote for your favorite venture here.
Fox Business News reporter Christina Scotti interviewed re:char founder, Jason Aramburu, on the potential of biochar as a carbon sequestration mechanism. Jason and Christina discussed the benefits of biochar, and the potential of re:char’s mobile fast pyrolysis technologies for improving agriculture and energy production in the developing world. Excerpts are shown from Jason’s 90-second Elevator pitch at the Echoing Green Finalist Weekend, a grant program supporting emerging social entrepreneurs. Please view the video below via foxbusiness.com or watch Fox Business on cable tv May 26th.
Here at re:char, we are often bombarded with requests for proprietary information about our technology. “Can you please provide schematic diagrams for your pyrolyzer systems?” “Can you provide the details of your bio-oil upgrading processes?” Although we believe in the open-source model, it’s exceedingly difficult to have a completely transparent tech development process while remaining a competitive, for-profit enterprise. That said, we would like to provide the public with a better sense of how we generate ideas, and broadly what we see as the future of biochar and carbon-negative energy.
Last week I had the pleasure of chatting with our new science advisor, Dr. James Lovelock. Working with someone as brilliant and creative as Jim is a great honor. His ideas are often so forward-thinking that within a few minutes of discussion, my mind is blown. Dr. Lovelock has been recognized recently for his assertion that mankind continues to ignore and drastically underestimate the looming threat of global climate change. Like Jim, we believe that an aggressive rollout of biochar and carbon-negative energy systems is vital to preserving the Earth as we know it. However, according to our calculations, a carbon-negative energy scheme based on pyrolysis of agricultural waste could sequester a theoretical maximum of 2 billion tons of CO2 per anum. The execution of such a plan would likely constitute one of humanity’s greatest technological achievements, but without corresponding emissions reductions, 2 billion tons would only be a drop in the bucket. In the event that we fail to reduce emissions in a timely manner, a more abundant source of waste biomass may be necessary to ensure our survival. That source could be ocean algae.
According to Dr. Lovelock, ocean algae represents over 70% of Earth’s biomass. In addition, overgrowth of ocean algae is largely responsible for the phenomenon of aquatic dead zones. From our research, we know algal biomass is a viable and compelling feedstock for pyrolysis. While the task of cultivating and extracting biodiesel from algae is complicated and expensive, the process of converting algal biomass to biochar and bio-oil is relatively straightforward. What remains elusive, is an efficient and cost-effective way to collect ocean algae. Fortunately, Dr. Lovelock has a suggestion:
Take a place like the Gulf of Mexico… theres a good steady ocean current that flows through there called the Gulf Stream… there are also lots of platforms there, disused oil platforms. These platforms could be good locations for starting some biochar experiments.
As it turns out, the Gulf Stream plays a significant role in the formation and growth of harmful algal blooms. There is strong evidence that blooms in the Gulf, such as Florida’s Red Tide, ride the current into the Atlantic, where they can devastate ocean life. A strategically-placed ocean platform, outfitted with appropriate collection systems and pyrolysis technologies, could capture the biomass generated during these algal blooms, efficiently converting a global hazard into valuable products. On a large enough scale, the potential carbon sequestration benefit would dwarf that of land-based systems.
Obviously, the notion of pyrolysis of ocean algae is still in its infancy. Many technological and logistical hurdles exist before preliminary trials are even feasible. However, given the threat of global climate change, and humanity’s reluctance to cut emissions, we believe such ideas are worth exploring. We invite you to discuss via the comments.
It is with great pleasure that re:char officially announces the appointment of Dr. James Lovelock to our advisory board. Dr. Lovelock will take the position of ’scientific advisor,’ helping to ensure a gaia-centric and sustainable rollout of re:char’s technology. Dr. Lovelock has long been our hero, and it is truly an honor to work with him.
Dr. Lovelock is an independent scientist, environmentalist and researcher from Devon, UK. He is best known for proposing the Gaia Theory, which purports that Earth and its interconnected natural systems function as a superorganism. He was also the first to discover the presence of CFCs in our atmosphere.
In recent years, Dr. Lovelock has emerged as an advocate for aggressive schemes to reduce and sequester atmospheric carbon emissions. He supports the large-scale production of charcoal via pyrolysis as a means to sequester carbon and improve soil quality.
We welcome Dr. Lovelock on board our team, and will keep the re:char community posted with new details as they emerge.
Washington, D.C.– re:char was recently named “Top Innovation” at the Carbon Economy conference, organized by The Economist Magazine.
Founder Jason Aramburu presented the re:char concept, along with a short video explaining the promise of biochar, to 200 government and business leaders, and an additional 400 online participants. The Economist has previously covered biochar, describing the technology as a “new growth industry.” To view Jason’s presentation, click here.
Since we posted on the growing debate over biochar, the Internet and the twitterverse have ignited into a firestorm of controversy over biochar. In general, it seems that a lack of information is pervading both sides of the debate. As a seasoned group of biochar enthusiasts, entrepreneurs and researchers, re:char presents the following items which we believe will clear up the most common misconceptions about biochar. We urge our readers to link to this article, as anti-biochar crusaders have resorted to unacceptable tactics such as spamming notable scientists like Dr. James Hansen and Prof. Johannes Lehmann.
Biochar=biofuel:NO. In our research, this is the #1 criticism of the biochar concept, and unfortunately it is very misguided. It stems from the criticisms of 1st-generation biofuels– namely that they use food based feedstocks, have a low or negative energy balance and are generally unsustainable. We agree that 1st-gen biofuels are highly problematic, but to equate them with biochar and pyrolysis is simply not correct.
First of all, the majority of biochar advocates promote the use of agricultural wastes as a feedstock. Ag wastes are NOT FOOD. Instead, they are products that are typically mulched, composted or simply left in-field to rot.
Second, there are many different types of pyrolysis processes and technologies that produce varying quantities of biochar, combustible gas and bio-oil. Slow pyrolysis technologies produce primarily biochar, while fast pyrolysis technologies are designed to produce bio-oil. Bio-oil is not biodiesel nor is it ethanol. It is a hydrocarbon emulsion that can act as a low grade heating oil or bunker fuel substitute. Many groups are working on technologies to refine bio-oil into high-value chemicals or transportation fuels. In general, most fast pyrolysis plants have a parasitic load between 10 and 25%. This means that only 10-25% of the energy produced is used to power the pyrolyzer, making the process highly efficient.
How can burning wood be carbon negative? This issue has come up frequently on the blogosphere as well, and again demonstrates many of the problems that come from misinformation. The skeptics are correct: combustion of wood (burning) is carbon positive. However, biochar is NOT made by burning wood. Biochar is produced via a process called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is a carbon negative process, meaning upwards of 90% of the CO2 that would be released through combustion is captured as biochar.
Okay but what if you burn the biofuel…. I mean bio-oil? Yes, combustion of bio-oil in an engine, boiler or turbine will release CO2. However, in general these emissions are more than offset by the carbon that is sequestered in the biochar. In addition, bio-oil combustion results in remarkably low emissions of NOx and SOx. Finally, remember that bio-oil is produced from waste which would otherwise decompose completely into CO2 and methane.
Industrial Scale Biochar Production will result in deforestation: UNLIKELY.This is the argument leveled by George Monbiot which has appeared to spark the Biochar Wars. To his credit, Monbiot is correct that industrial scale biochar production could provide an incentive for land-clearing in the developing world. If biochar were accepted under the Clean Development Mechanism as a bankable carbon offset, and if the price of carbon were high enough to justify it, farmers could be incentivized to generate as much biochar as humanly possible.
However, there is a glaring problem with Monbiot’s argument. Currently, there are a handful of companies developing pyrolysis technologies, and a slightly larger handful of scientists who support biochar. Of these two handfuls, we cannot find anyone that is advocating industrial scale biochar. Why? Because everyone in the biochar community already knows it won’t work.
The scientists know that industrial scale biochar production is simply unsustainable. The entrepreneurs know that unless the price of a carbon offset were astronomically huge, there is no way large-scale biochar production would make any economic sense. The cost of transporting a low-value, low-density product like biomass over a distance greater than a couple of kilometers is herculean. This reality is part of what has damned 1st-gen biofuels. The biochar concept works with agricultural waste on the small scale, because these are products that farmers already collect and move to a centralized location for mulching and composting. On the industrial scale, the economics simply don’t work. They never have and they never will.
If, for some reason, the price of carbon did increase 100 fold, it would also allow a host of other dubious offsets to become economically viable. Given that the price of 1 tonne of CO2 currently hovers around $20-30 in Europe, we just don’t see that happening.
Biochar is not a longterm carbon storage mechanism: VISIT THE AMAZON BASIN. There, you will find an intact layer of charcoal in the soil roughly the size of France. Biochar has been shown to be stable in soils for up to 2000 years. That is an order of magnitude longer than any other carbon storage technology.
We hope this article will clear up some of the misinformation surrounding biochar. Obviously, people are weary of any new solution to climate change after the promises of biofuels, wind and solar. Still, let’s not jump to conclusions and make biochar the next betamax. As of yet, it is the only technology that has shown any promise at reducing our concentration of atmospheric CO2. If we ever want to get back below 350 ppm, let’s give biochar a chance.
Ashoka: Innovators for the Public are hosting Tech 4 Society, a conference exploring technology, invention and social change, in Hyderabad, India, in February 2009. Find out more about the conference here. This blog post is an entry in their competition to find the official blogger to travel to and cover the event.
New York, NY- re:char founder Jason Aramburu was recently named a Social Innovation Fellow for the upcoming Pop!Tech Conference in Camden, ME. Pop!Tech is the East Coast’s premier technology and innovation conference, bringing together 600 influential business leaders, entrepreneurs and scientists for 3 days of ground-breaking speakers, events and networking. This year’s conference, entitled “America Reimagined,” includes speakers such as Michael Pollan, Neri Oxman and Dan Nocera. As a Social Innovation Fellow, Jason will participate in several days of intense workshops, and will address the conference on the promise of biochar as a means to roll back carbon emissions. To register for Pop!Tech, visit here.
On Thursday, May 21 University of Georgia Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering K.C. Das testified before the house Committee on Small Business. The hearing’s purpose was to discuss “the impacts of outstanding regulatory policy on small biofuels producers and family farmers including biochar carbon sequestration.” In his opening statement alone, Das called upon members of the committee to really take note: “From what I see there is very little discussion at the national level, at the federal agencies, or within the existing legislature or outstanding legislature legislations that discuss [biochar as a means of addressing the excessive carbon levels already in the atmosphere], and I’d like to bring that to your attention.” (To read his testimony in full, download the .pdf file here).
What’s more, Subcommittee on Regulations and Healthcare Chairwoman Hon. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) released a statement the same day as Das’ testimony speaking to small business biofuel producers’ interests in a proposed EPA rule:
“On May 5, the EPA released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard. The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is a law that requires fuels in the U.S. to contain a certain percentage of biofuels. The EPA’s rule could disqualify many biofuel producers from the RFS program, preventing them from selling their product and staying in business.”
“The biofuels industry holds great promise not only to create new, good paying jobs, but to wean our nation off foreign energy sources. However, we can only benefit if we adopt policies that promote the growth of this industry, rather than hampering it before it gets off the ground.”
“EPA’s publication of its proposed rule starts the clock ticking on the formal comment period, which will last for 60 days. Upon completion of that comment period, EPA is expected to move forward in crafting a final rule.”
(The press release is available in full on the Committee’s website, or simply click here.)
The 60 day period concluded earlier this month and we now await the final publication of the rule. It is of critical importance to re:char among other biochar/biomass small business. In Dahlkemper’s remarks, she did highlight the EPA’s leeway to rework the rule to protect the developing biomass industry. Here at re:char, we are optimistic that her sentiment and biochar’s support from Das, Lehmann, Hansen, Gore, Lovelock, and many others is being taken into consideration.
ABC Lateline, an Australian news program, did a report on May 24 discussing the status of biochar’s prospects on the island (click to view the video and/or read the transcript). Prominent Australian scientist Tim Flannery contributes, as does the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries biochar team leader Lukas Van Zwieten, several Australian farmers, Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke, and Opposition Leader Malcom Turnbull.
Wanted: Biochar
Though the research thus far has been enormously promising, reporter Bronwyn Herbert notes an imbalance between supply of biochar and demand. “Researchers have been forced to import a third of their biochar from the Philippines, just to keep trials running,” she says. A number of farmers and scientists alike agree that localized, small-scale biochar production might make the most sense. This is a pillar of re:char’s mission, and concept we support globally. Installing a pyrolyzer on-site and integrating it into the farm’s recycling and energy infrastructure would eliminate shipping costs for biochar while simultaneously reducing the farm’s energy expenditures.
Next Steps
It is now illegal in Australia to dump bio-waste, or as they call it “green waste,” into landfill. Despite this progressive stance on bio-waste, the nation has been slow to move forward with soil-based sequestration technologies. Herbert notes, “The charcoal technology has been lumped with agriculture in Australia’s carbon trading landscape and isn’t eligible for carbon credits until 2015.” Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke explains, “It’s important that we, when designing our rules, use the international rules. If you have rules that are separate from the international rules for how you count your credits, then you can effectively cut yourself out of the international trading system.”
Lateline also reports that the Agriculture Minister has “found nearly $1.5 million for research into biochar [and is coordinating a] the three-year project, looking at both biochar’s potential to reduce carbon emissions and boost farm productivity.” Bronwyn Herbert remarks, “In some ways the Government is playing catch-up because biochar has been the centrepiece of the Coalition’s climate change commitments since Malcolm Turnbull became leader.”
We hope that the situation in Australia will work itself out favorably, and that the importance of soil-based sequestration will outweigh political infighting. Finally, a few choice quotes on biochar from the people at the center of the debate in Oz:
“I see it as being one of the most significant things Australia can do. The best benefit is that we actually draw down some of the pollutant out of the atmosphere and put it into the soil where it stays for hundreds if not thousands of years.”
Tim Flannery
“We’re getting very significant improvements in yield in our cropping situation. We’ve increased yield of sweet corn from 16 tonnes up to 35 tonnes of fresh cob per hectare and we’ve more than doubled our yield of fibre bean crops as our winter crop. So we’re getting quite significant and also economic returns on the investment of applying biochar to soil… Certainly in these situations your application of 10 tonnes to 20 tonnes per hectare of the biochar is having very significant benefits to the soil chemistry and also the crop production. And economically, we’re showing that farms are still gonna make money over the application of the biochar at between $100 and $300 a tonne. So economically, it still makes a lot of sense applying 10 tonnes per hectare in these farming systems… It might translate to less nitrogen fertiliser and improved yield.”
The biochar concept, as promoted by re:char friend and Biochar Fund founder, Laurens Rademakers, will be included in the Guardian UK’s influential Manchester Report. “Twenty Ideas That Could Save the World” have been wittled down to ten radical ideas to combat climate change. These ten ideas will be included in the influential “Manchester Report,” which will be circulated to policy makers and change agents worldwide. In addition, the Guardian has opened up internet voting to determine the top idea. We encourage you to view Laurens’ 60-second elevator pitch for biochar, and don’t forget to vote!
