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.

Technorati Tags: biochar, biochar wars, criticism, debate, truth

Brooklyn, NY

re:char’s technology development arm publicly demonstrated one of its prototype small-scale, mobile pyrolyzers. The unit was built and tested at re:char’s fabrication lab in Bushwick, Brooklyn. This unit is capable of processing wood and ag waste with a bulk particle size of up to 1/2 inch in diameter. In its first public demonstration, the unit processed 1 kg of wood chips and sawdust into finely divided biochar and liquid fuel oil. Please see below for the demonstration video, and a link to the full story on treehugger.

Technorati Tags: bio-oil, biochar, pyrolysis, pyrolyzer, technology

Technorati Tags: 350, 350 conference, biochar, climate

A recent article in the Guardian UK published by author George Monbiot has ignited a firestorm (pun completely intended) across the biochar community. In his article, Monbiot criticises the growing fervor over biochar, challenging a proposal by the energy lecturer Peter Read to create 1.4bn hectares of global biochar plantations:

Were we to follow Read’s plan, we would either have to replace all the world’s crops with biomass plantations, causing instant global famine, or double the cropped area, trashing most of the remaining natural habitats.

Monbiot’s assertion has been quickly challenged by biochar proponents such as James Hansen and James Lovelock. Lovelock points out that the majority of biochar researchers, support the production of biochar from waste feedstocks such agricultural residues, not large-scale deforestation:

What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don’t need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic.

Monbiot has since printed a response acknowledging the merits of waste pyrolysis, but is this indicative of a greater problem that must be addressed before the biochar well is permanently poisoned? The ethanol industry has been damned by public opinion. While corn-based ethanol may not be an economically viable technology, claims that it alone was responsible for recent global fluctuations in grain prices are largely hyperbole. In an era where competition for grant and stimulus monies is at an all-time high, biochar could be unfairly categorized as the next black sheep (no pun intended this time).

Naturally, The Biochar Wars raise an important question for the community: How do we effectively promote biochar without sounding like ‘charleaders?’ In a grass roots industry championed by amateur inventors, presenting a clear and unified voice is absolutely crucial. We welcome any ideas or suggestions in the comments.

Technorati Tags: biochar wars, challenges, criticism, hansen, lovelock, monbiot