An Inconvenient Truth – regulatory response ash to waste

An inconvenient distraction: A vexatious type can make it difficult for success and a friend points out ‘a difficulty’ and you find yourself in a position of lampoon. The issue is should what you report be directed or controlled. To illustrate we published, 13 December 2014, “Maybe the question is better put this way: Plants don’t need carbon, soils do. Biochar is but a hazardous waste from pyrolysis”. This was not a position statement; it was outlining a problem of perception promoted by deniers that you should think of it as an ash.

On 13 December 2014 we also wrote – “The quandary for most of us when we express our thoughts is we can be regarded as excessive or obsessive for seeking out an agenda”. In this story CO2Land org had an agenda – to make one aware. To be aware that moves were afoot overseas to have ash declared ‘waste’. The below the radar application if you want to make more of it.

What is difficult to accept is that the catalyst for this change was the coal fired power stations in the USA. The story unfolds as:

On 22 December 2014, http://www.wastedrive.com published that – Feds: Coal ash classified as solid waste – by Nicole Wrona. This followed a story published by Dina Cappiello The Associated Press on 20 December 2014 through the Casper Star Tribune. Outlining: “The Obama administration on Friday set the first national standards for waste generated from coal burned for electricity, treating it more like household garbage rather than a hazardous material.”

To directly quote wastedrive.com – on the affects of the new regulations:

Dive Brief:

  • New federal standards will categorize coal ash as a solid waste instead of considering it a hazardous material.
  • The classification was determined despite pushback from environmentalists. The regulations do not extend to shuttered power plants, but would apply to closed ash ponds where utilities are active.
  • States will continue to ensure standards surrounding the waste are followed. The federal government would have taken over enforcement had the decision turned out differently or if the waste had been dubbed “hazardous.”

Dive Insight:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would protect citizens from the risks associated with coal ash waste sites while pledging to hold corporations who operated ash waste sites accountable. The rules are expected to increase leak monitoring, control blowing dust, and to require companies to publicly release test results.
  • Waste Management had predicted a substantial amount of growth for the company if the rule were to be approved. The ash waste stream is larger than the waste stream currently handled by the company.

Recommended Reading:

Now back in Australia the Carbon Farming Initiative is sympathetic to bio char from pyrolysis. The difficulty is the regulations that are responded to by the EPA of each state. The question now is will this USA EPA ruling be followed in Australia? Will bio char too be cleared of any stigma of a perception either implied or express that it is an ash – should be leave this to experts?

It is not that simple. As we said previously what is needed to be truly progressive is the commitment to investigate the potential. Do we need a senate inquiry to get that moving? We see some wonderful benefits where multiple products could be extracted from just a simple classification change being the catalyst.

Advertisements

A Quandary – Nit-pick or constructive critique of CFI ERF

The quandary for most of us when we express our thoughts is we can be regarded as excessive or obsessive for seeking out an agenda – the agenda to change that might be procedurally correct, but fails to address the main issue. For instance the Emissions Reduction Fund – Irrigated Cotton draft determination and associated documents (the consultation process closed 12 December 2014). The main issue, as with other Carbon Farming Initiative methods, is that it is harder for leading growers to be rewarded, as there is no recognition of past improvements.

In the main we found the draft cotton determination, draft cotton explanatory statement and the draft cotton equations, as is, to be sound. It has its process thought through well enough and while we could say some of the flow could be improved any further submission could appear to be nit-picking as opposed to constructive criticism.

Was there room for constructive critique? Yes, but these are areas we might like to adjust the eligibility criteria. Also a little tweaking of what appears too broad in the descriptions. They are areas that could be argued as wrong, but they really are areas for the regulations or legislation to be adjusted. When you access the process of a determination your role amounts to comment on the process that is laid out in the draft determination. It is not the appropriate place to express frustration with the rules. Expressing your frustration is really the domain of the politics.

Being we mentioned the ERF – Irrigated Cotton draft determination, we should let you know what is it about. The first thing is it is the opportunity for growers to obtain certificates called the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) under the Act 2011 called the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). The reference to the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) is part of the CFI Amendment Bill 2014. The fund is designed to help reduce Australia’s emissions by providing and incentive for business, landowners, state and local governments, community organization and individuals to adopt new practices and technologies which reduce emissions. The ERF does include incentives for business activities and farming practices. To find more go to: http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au .

A bit more about our thoughts on the determination and consultation on the Draft Energy Reduction Fund: Irrigated cotton.

  • The ‘system’ is for irrigated cotton growing mainly in Queensland, NSW and Western Australia.
  • The incentive is to encourage Nitrogen fertiliser use efficiency and efficiency is a measure of the ratio of lint yield to nitrogen applied via synthetic fertiliser (kg lint yield per kg N).
  • An increase in nitrogen fertiliser use efficiency is equivalent to a decrease in emissions intensity from synthetic fertiliser use in irrigated cotton (t CO2-e per kg lint yield).
  • Because nitrogen fertiliser use efficiency is calculated using both nitrogen fertiliser use and yield, credits for emissions reductions can be generated by reducing fertiliser use while maintaining or increasing yield, or by increasing yield without a corresponding increase in fertiliser use. This approach also ensures that credits for emissions reductions cannot be generated through a contraction of yield without a reduction in fertiliser use.
  • The draft Determination therefore enables irrigated cotton growers to adjust nitrogen fertiliser rate according to paddock yield potential in the project area, provided that nitrogen fertiliser use efficiency increases.
  • There is support for a broad range of activities to improve the efficiency (reduce the emissions intensity) of fertiliser use in irrigated cotton, including activities to improve lint yield without a corresponding increase in nitrogen fertiliser application rate, and activities to modify the rate, timing, method and efficiency of nitrogen fertiliser application.
  • Proponents have the flexibility to select management actions that suit their individual circumstances.
  • In this draft, cotton is the only crop in the production system eligible for generating credits for a reduction in emissions from synthetic fertiliser use.
  • Emissions from other crops grown in rotation with cotton, with the exception of green manure, are excluded from this draft Determination.

What is Synthetic fertiliser?

Inorganic are sometimes called synthetic fertilizers since various chemical treatments are required for their manufacture.

Synthetic fertilisers do not include solid or liquid organic products created using waste products of other industries that do not meet these labelling and minimum nitrogen content standards. For example, synthetic fertilisers do not include manures, such as poultry litter or beef feedlot manure, or mulches and composts, such as composted ginning trash.

What is a Green Manure?

A green manure is a legume that is planted in a paddock to improve the soil for a subsequent cotton crop. A green manure crop is not harvested and the above ground growth is returned to the soil. Examples of green manure are vetch, faba beans, chickpeas and annual clovers. Non-legume crops which require nitrogen fertiliser are not included in the definition of green manure

What is Organic fertiliser?

Organic fertilizers are usually (recycled) plant- or animal-derived matter. The main “organic fertilizers” are, in ranked order, peat, animal wastes, plant wastes from agriculture, and sewage sludge.

If you picked up on peat as a organic fertilizer and the reference that it has no nutritional value to the plants, but improves the soil by aeration and absorbing water. You might ask why is biochar not a fertilizer?

Bio char

It gets down to two issues:

  1. Bio char is described as a sequester of carbon and as such binds carbon to its properties.
  2. So broad is the definition that it is seen to be the product of ‘burning’.

The later point is where it gets interesting and frustrating. This is because the technology for fine chars is thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. In another speak, Bio char is created by pyrolysis of biomass.

We do not argue that is a fertilizer. What we argue is it is an agent to improve the efficiency of fertilizer use.

Another potential for confusion is linking soil carbon to bio char. Soil carbon is a condition and bio char is a conditioner. If you think one is the constant and the other the agent for change it makes sense does it not?

That leaves the issue of if it is helpful why is it excluded from the incentives?

Maybe the question is better put this way: Plants don’t need carbon, soils do. Biochar is but a hazardous waste from pyrolysis, looking for a below-the-radar application. Do we have that application? But that is for another discussion and a case study!

The business of BIOCHAR

The problem can be called “Marketing Myopia”, and the claim was made in relation to the uptake of BioChar. Quickly scanning to understand what was meant by that term the Business Dictionary was most helpful. Marketing Myopia – A short-sighted and inward looking approach to marketing that focuses on the needs of the company instead of defining the company and its products in terms of the customersneeds and wants. It results in the failure to see and adjust to the rapid changes in their markets.

The concept of marketing myopia was discussed in an article (titled “Marketing Myopia,” in July-August 1960 issue of the Harvard Business Review) by Harvard Business School emeritus professor of marketing, Theodore C. Levitt (1925-2006), who suggests that companies get trapped in this situation because they omit to ask the vital question, “What business are we in?” Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/marketing-myopia.html#ixzz2lJq5Y3wT

So: What is the business of BioChar? It can elicit a number of different answers that can supply at least 11 different industries. What might change is the name that suits the industry. For instance it may be called Bio-Carbon for industrial applications, and can be called carbon black, or graphite.

Applications in industry can be:  Insulation, Air decontamination, Decontamination of earth foundations, Humidity regulation, Protection against electromagnetic radiation (“electrosmog”), Exhaust filters, Controlling emissions, Room air filters.

  • It can be part of Industrial materials: carbon fibres, plastics.
  • Its use in Electronics: Semiconductors, batteries.
  • Use in Metallurgy: Metal reduction.
  • In Cosmetics: Soaps, skin-cream, therapeutic bath additives.
  • In Paints and colouring: Food colorants, industrial paints.

In Energy production:

  • Pellets, substitute for lignite.

In Medicines:

  • Detoxification, carrier for active pharmaceutical ingredients.

In apparel and footware:

  • Fabric additive for functional underwear, Thermal insulation for functional clothing, Deodorant for shoe soles.

In sleepware:

  • Filling for mattresses, filling for pillows

For protection:

  • Shield against electromagnetic radiation.

Then for applications of decontamination and waste handling:

  • Soil additive for soil remediation (for use in particular on former mine-works, military bases, radio transmitters sites and landfill sites)
  • Soil substrates (highly adsorbing, plantable soil substrates for use in cleaning waste water; in particular urban waste water contaminated by heavy metals)
  • A barrier preventing pesticides getting into surface water (Sides of field and ponds can be equipped with 30-50 cm deep barriers made of biochar for filtering out pesticides)

Treating pond and lake water (Biochar is good for adsorbing pesticides and fertilisers, as well as for improving water aeration)

  • Use as or in a Biomass additive, Biogas slurry treatment, Active carbon filter, Pre-rinsing additive, Soil substrate for organic plant beds, Composting toilets.

Then for applications of the treatment of drinking water:

  • Use in: Micro-filters, Macro-filters in developing countries.

Then for numerous Agricultural purposes it can be used or invaluable for:

  • Silage agent, Feed additive/supplement, Litter additive, Slurry treatment, Manure composting, Water treatment in fish farming, Carbon fertiliser, Compost, Substitute for peat in potting soil, Plant protection, Compensatory fertiliser for trace elements.

But you will say some of these are activated carbon. What is the difference? According to Achim Gerlach and published in ithaka (ithaka is also the reference to the 55 uses of biochar above): “Activated carbon = biochar – Generally speaking, all activated carbons are originally biochars. Active carbons are however “activated” using acids or hydroxides or 900°C water steam. In doing so, their specific surface area increases from app. 300 m2/g to over 1000 m2/g. Activated carbon is 5 – 10 times more expensive than simple biochar, so it is possible to use 2-3 times the amount of biochar to achieve the same result – whether with regard to digestion in cattle or in a sewage treatment plant. As activated carbon is for the most part produced without adequate controls in South-East Asia or South America, the eco-balance often leaves a lot to be desired. Biochar by contrast is produced from controlled, locally grown raw materials using controlled production methods. There is no real difficulty involved in producing activated carbon from biochar.”

This still does not answer the ‘what business are we in’ question. It follows that you define your product by way of what it does. But in business it is a definition of purpose for whom the business does serve is how you tend to answer ‘what business are we in’. Now consider the question of whether your product is to be considered as sourced from a co-product, or a by-product. Looking at this logically, it could be seen that the former broadens the scope of available uses that go beyond considering it a variable price component. A by-product might not be a business, and is more likely to be treated in a similar way to waste and less likely to be refined.

If you understand business you will know that the value model assumes you will seek what the market will bear in terms of price and volumes. A by-product only seeks to dispose of the ‘waste’ at a level that mitigates the cost of production. The issue then becomes how do I guarantee a quality product if it is not priced correctly.

Therefore a successful business proposition will have the price set in terms of purpose, price of bioenergy plants and the need for the plants to be tweaked so as to be priced accordingly and as a minimum must have a value sufficiently above its inherent energy value for the use of, and, or the market intended. Why, your business customer base needs to be accommodated to broaden the available uses, and that will be more than agricultural soil amendment.

So what is the business your in? Conventional wisdom suggests you need to be “Cool”, have a willingness to collaborate with end users, understand the proposals of purchasing chars from many sources, spend as much time & effort in researching/ formulating/inoculating to get the biology balance right, and set yourself up as best practice biochar ‘finisher’.

What is a finisher? John Christy asked the same question on LinkedIn, and as best as CO2Land org can find is: A biochar ‘finisher’ is someone who augments it, packages, and distributes. All they want is a price and a place to sell to, and focus on energy production. Is there anyone doing this or willing to consider at this point. Christy continues saying “Offtake agreements are needed now in order to get the financing for these projects. Ideally we want a 20 year agreement to take a minimum amount of biochar, meeting certain criteria….or a memo of understanding would help”. Maybe, that is the tact your business can take too, to satisfy the customers need!

This post does not attempt to address the production or the farm scale platforms for biochar use other than mention some of the factors of the business that will affect how you will function as a business. Country to country the price and composition of biochar will differ. Like all product, the material inputs is important. Here in Australia we have a forestry industry that can provide feedstock from floor waste and we can calculate the manufacturing cost of biochar from that source, other countries might not have such a luxury and have other sources of feedstock materials. The point is well made by John “There is much to be done to define biochar quality, learn how to ship large quantities without significant losses”.

As a footnote references:

 

http://www.ithaka-journal.net/55-anwendungen-von-pflanzenkohle?lang=en

 

CFI – a XANADU

If you follow that Shangdu as the summer capital of Kublai Khan’s empire, then you would be forgiven for thinking the CFI is our XANADU and an enigmatic bright feature on the surface. Thereby, we have a problem because it is being profiled as exactly that and actively marketed by government as a series of experiments to showcase. Practitioners are asking: What about us in the ‘real’ world, can we believe something that looks good on the surface is enough? Some say yes, many no.

This conversation started because projects are to be funded that address recognised program gaps of the Carbon Farming Futures activities. This round: The Extension and Outreach Phase two submissions were due Wednesday June 12 5pm. Information is be found on Extension and Outreach daff.gov.au.

Some disquiet continues and numerous amounts of feedback do focus on the issue of the bankable when needing to finance, and other is the number of reference groups that were set up to work through the matters and the concern some of the critical consultation groups are difficult to contact or not able to be mobilized. A prime example being: The Biochar Reference Group. After some searching key people advocating the approach found part of the problem was people moving on to further their personal interests. The difficulty is that the group has funding to develop the soil carbon methodology necessary to be approved by the DOIC to produce ACCU’s (carbon credit units), and although soil carbon methodologies now has an active ‘reference group’ to attempt to push it along, the two subgroups (Mixed farming, and Rangelands) do not, or have not formally communicated what each are up to in their work levels. Compounding this the CFI is looking less of a ‘farming’ initiative in terms of reward systems, and as of the time of writing the government has not produced an example of a good news story on a true ‘farming’ credit. It is difficult to sell virtues without success stories and Gant chart the project support from the farming community without it.

A closer look at the cost of participating is also most interesting, and it is easy to see another genuine hurdle is related to the methodologies development. There is considerable variation in calculating the cost of participating, and some use this as an excuse that farmers are simply not ready to seek approval of their methods, some say it is simply too expensive to get approval. Some even say there is a genuine disinterest for government to get on with ‘innovation’ attempts.

In terms of cost we need to consider that published 8 April 2013 by Co2Land.org: ” It costs up to $1M to develop a methodology acceptable under CFI. Once accepted the transaction cost to create the ACCU’s is said to be about $70,000. Although it is not a definite cost, it can be less but a reasonable guide and it requires you to look carefully at the potential yield of each project and whether you can smear the transaction cost across the entire project to determine the minimum size for it to be a worthwhile program”.  Then Country Carbon ( www.CountryCarbon.com.au ) said the numbers posted by CO2land of transaction cost of $70k for ACCUs are ridiculous. They made no attempt to say what is a typical transaction cost other than a comment, and the spokesperson (identified as NC) said “I have no idea where they sourced those”. Curiously NC goes on to say: “The Clean Energy Regulator register shows only a few projects from farmers and only 1 I believe has done a transaction. 
I doubt very much that every methodology needs $1 million for development as well. Too many variables to generalize”.

Co2Land org agrees that too many variables are involved, and then notes two other people advocating for the CFI saying: “None of the methodologies applicable to general farming, that we have examined so far, appear to have net positive financial benefits. Some can lead to substantial unknown liabilities in the future or limit land use in overly prescriptive ways. 

If I am wrong in this please correct me, and show me where it does work and I will be happy to spread the good news”. 

And, “I am a farmer (even if less active than I would like) and all the ones I know are not only not ready to adopt but are only following the program with peripheral interest until such times that they are satisfied something of genuine benefit to their own operation has become apparent. Many I have talked to see it as another under handed greenie grab for the land, some of the prescriptions on approved methodologies certainly seem lifted from this camp. 

Methodology development using all our substantial ‘in house’ skills and resources we estimate to still cost in excess of $100,000 with no guarantee of success “(source identified as PK). Then source LK – not related, said “Many unresolved issues remain, however moving ahead is better than waiting for the ‘perfect’ answer in my view. Just wish for political consistency at this end – the fact that State Coalitions have stripped climate change policies bare is of most concern to me.”

In all this there does seem to be agreement that for farmers, environmental planting does not pay a sufficient return to justify the investment on carbon alone. NC also said “It is also considered that the RMT tool (modeling tool) is deliberately using carbon sequestration estimates well below average because no direct sampling is required for audit”. Possibly this is an oversight, maybe not? In this approach they have taken an ultra conservative approach and the indications are these carbon estimates are so low it is not economical to do it – participate in the initiative that is!  So it remains only one of those methodologies remain with few takers. Even the CSIRO was showing how low these estimates are for the RMT. Reported is the government has taken a decision to use the lowest rates possible for landholders carbon sequestration from tree planting. A good source of this view is https://twitter.com/CountryCarbon/status/332655918254792706/photo/1 

They go on to say: ”In simple language the govt will only recognize extremely low carbon sequestration rates regardless of what happens on the land. It is not even the mid-point average. So that farmers would earn very few carbon offsets. Therefore they say, why bother? 

Most of the extension and outreach to date talks about tree planting or piggeries. (Piggeries are a different question). Most projects approved are all about landfill projects and they are town councils.” They also say: “It actually has less to do with government cut backs or Coalition vs Labor politics and more to do with implementation”. More than one providing input say it may be just a simple matter as readjusting the RMT tool.

CO2Land org intends to continue this thread of knowledge and asks: Unless you be fortunate enough to have a government program that is more generous behind you. 
Should we lobby government harder to be more encouraging for innovation in CFI?

Notwithstanding, CO2Land org wish everyone the best with their endeavours in the initiative. Applauded is the intention is well founded, the legislations well intended, and the potential well received – but something is missing! Maybe it is a case of it is too difficult to include farming in CFI and the outreach context for farmers is that the potential liabilities that could be incurred by landholders using some already approved methodologies are not properly explained and/or are dismissed as of a trivial nature. The great harm in this possibility is that the program reputation will be tainted – irrespective of its intention of fairness. Even recent Government decisions on department restructuring (especially the Department of the long name – too long to repeat) and budget constraints required by departments and the continued efficiency dividends to Treasury are not helpful to the pledge. What is hoped for by farming advocates and practitioners is a more direct show of continuous steps to perfection for the farming community and eliminating any direction that might be seen as a series of steps to dismantle or derail such a worthwhile cause from its name sake – the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Closing 21 Feb – excluded

Closing 21 Feb 2013, Community Renewable Energy Projects: Message  – Innovations excluded and technology chosen must be commercial. This is despite many innovators being able to prove an environmental benefit at least cost.  It is not a new issue it is a matter that is a symptom of measures providing a pathway regardless of the evidence. Albeit, justification for this approach can be found by some oblique reference to some far away story.

As the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory explains “One of the most serious (and valid) criticisms of subsidies for “renewable” energy is that they heighten the perception (but not the reality) that wind and solar are less expensive and more energy efficient than conventional fuels”.

If we single out the NSW Renewable Energy Precincts Program and the expression of interest for funding the wording says “EOIs will only be accepted for projects proposing to use renewable energy technologies that are commercially available and have been demonstrated in operation at a similar scale generation capacity for 12 months or more. Solar photovoltaic technology and wind are the two most common, and commercially available, renewable energy technologies. Most CRE projects internationally use one of these two technologies”. This is interesting as world wide, and in Australia, there are technologies that offer a better power capacity ratio. It is also interesting that in Australia at least one public entity has taken legal action to restrict (Suppression) the opportunity for a commercial opportunity with alternative renewable energy. When the reference is made to power capacity ratio it simply means – coal fired can be replaced by this technology as base load. It should also be said at a lower cost than wind and solar. AKA – cost benefit is superior.

It is difficult to understand why a ‘community’ program is directing a bias in this way towards wind & solar. CO2Land org feels this is a shame because more than a few communities would be able to scratch together sufficient green waste and other biomass resources to run a genuine base load or peak lopping plant, from what is waste with the added advantage of also having very useful co-products and creating more permanent local employment.

It follows that local government have obligations for services and various industry is within the boundaries they manage. Industry does two things: 1) They tend to consume more of the fuel resources available in the geographical area, and 2) Produce waste that is often toxic or hazardous in the environment.

In a growing trend around the world (being a reference was made in the NSW REP EOI), and since 1980, as far as CO2Land org can see, major industry is increasingly looking at methods for recovering the fuel value from many wastes.

CO2Land org can identify some of the different methods to do so and each is superior in their own way, and certainly make use of existing problems of waste and remove much of the need for virgin material in the products they offer. The point is made – not one product such as electricity generation of wind and solar, but also other products that make up the needs of society.

To give examples: Gasification, Pyrolysis, Plasma conversion are increasingly being piloted or in production in other parts of the world. Not surprising is that many of the leading work was from Australia, then ‘discovered’ by America, India, China and other countries determined to solve their resource and waste problems. If you were to argue it is cost that is the problem. As a single product produced wind and solar can argue they the high ground. “But consider this case of cement kilns converting waste: The ash in waste fuels becomes part of the cement product in a cement kiln, this system is one of the very few that actually consumes all of the waste material – both organic and inorganic turning all of the waste into product – no ash, no change in emissions and no impact on product quality”. Patent Number 8268073 System and method for making cement and cement derived therefrom

Inventors: Burton J. Kunik, James C. Berns, David G. Gossman

More recently, engineered fuels (Synfuels) are carrying on to advance the latest step in the process that started over 30 years ago. Some might even recall or have read that in World War 2 years the need to ‘invent’ devices to get the family car around as fuel was rationed. The new advances present the real potential for using a wider variety of waste materials, including treated medical wastes, to consume waste materials instead of coal and other natural resource based fuels in the manufacturing process.

Then there is products from the treatment of medical waste including sharps: Embodiments of this invention provide methods for converting a used healthcare material including a complex mixture of components including pulp materials, polymer materials, metal materials, and/or other material such as ceramic materials, ash materials, etc. directly into a burnable fuel, Without the need for component separation. Patent Number 8163045 Method and system of making a burnable fuel Inventors: Burton J. Kunik, James C. Berns, David G. Gossman

Still struggling in Australia is Real Power Systems. Peter and Kerry Davies have built a considerable amount of bench testing conducted (circa 2009 to now) and are successfully testing, including onsite pilots of their gasifier and pyrolysis retort and this success continues to lead to product identification not previously considered. They started being most interested in bio-char production for agricultural purposes, and the range of fuels that can produce and the range of waste they can treat under various water saturation condition is striking. And, they can produce syngas, synfuel, syncrude and have solved problems such as “Cavitation Phenomenon at the Reactor Chamber” that plaqued or was the reason for more expensive offering in the field.

If you can consider the cost savings when compared with traditional fuels it can be enormous. The environmental saving through the use of engineered fuels (syfuels) is a significant reduction of GHG emissions. So much so that engineered fuels, are getting overseas regulatory approvals and are meeting EPA definitions for “sufficiently processed”.

We are saying we should compare complimentary and alternative solutions to our energy problems, and being we should be very conscious of the traps involved in the development of technology, It can be very hard to stay focused when development is proving there is so much flexibility and opportunity in direction.

Possibly this is why the 21 Feb 2013 closing EOI has chosen to stay focused on wind and solar, but then something more needs to be done in keeping with the developments and as such building on advances to ensure uniform characteristics can be judged to gain a higher level of understanding and open whole new avenues for applications of otherwise problematic materials. What could be better than the local government waste dump having onsite production capability of syncrude made from waste tetra packs and plastics? it does make things oddly enough, a tad more difficult…but not impossible.

CFI – ‘black swan event’ treatments

Friends recently said they have been challenging conventional thinking, and they are tiring of the seemingly ‘black swan event’ treatment for their CFI ideas. It seems despite what is obvious until it is policy it cannot be measured and the process to change that view requires a consensus from the vested interests. In open discussion it was thought the matter centered around influence and the funding facility too old school as it measures either through historic evaluation or by a formulae that has not been questioned. This could be relevant because we are talking of the action of innovation being exercised to get results as opposed to standard measures for an outcome.

It follows that I was told a few years ago ‘ as a courageous person we need to reward you, a generous package should do it. But beware your ability to see through the veneer of policy, and act with sincerity is not the true reality of the politics. This of course points to how easy it is that the person acting out of moral fortitude can be seen as counterproductive in the minds of those that ‘play the game’. CO2Land org postulates that the ultimate manifestation of the artificial reality is by manifesting confusion and resentment and formulating as if the views were facts in order to direct perceptions of ‘doing good’ in their public decision-making declarations.  Postulating in this way shows that the courageous are seem as dangerous to those maintaining the Status Quo, or business as usual, and to get momentum for your good ideas or even get a fair audience on the carbon risk products you might offer will be subject to a difficult path.

A very good example is provided by Peter & Kerry Davies <realpowersystems@gmail.com>where they said it is eerily quiet when we asked about Bio char Methodology using Traditional Indigenous burning techniques. When questioned it was obvious they have products and advanced thinking capabilities that can reduce emissions and control waste impacts. They also actively showcase what is possible and are prepared to demonstrate the possible and as a direct quote from them where they asked a government officer in Climate Change a question on business as usual in the hope it could receive a fair audience, or influence for a commonsense response:

“Can you tell us whether there is any Carbon Methodologies based on Aboriginal burning practice under consideration or proposed?

The reason we ask is that we were privileged to have Rod Mason the Monaro Landscape Connectivity Project’s Indigenous Land Manager out to our property yesterday. He was showing us how they would manage some woodland and forest restoration using small patch burning. Now the question was asked of us by one of the other project officer’s present ‘Did we understand what he was doing and how it actually worked?’(Because they had witnessed some outstanding results but had no good scientific explanation for what was really happening).

The funny part is we do, but only because of our multidisciplinary background in sustainable forest management AND bio char production and use. What he showed us was a distillation of several thousand years of practice evolved through observation of the response.”

The Davies are uniquely qualified for their perspective, and know that these methods are actually optimised in situ bio char production techniques where temperature and duration of the process is controlled and aimed at minimizing damage to living plants and creating a interconnected pathway “for mycorrhizal fungi growth, which in itself is one of the key reasons  Bio char provides benefits well above its inherent fertiliser value”.

CO2Land org knows there is lots more to this and the material viewed shows a viable business we are quietly excited about. What is needed is recognition of the methodology. It is proposed that CFI and ACCU creation is the way forward. The ACCU could be more effective in encouraging the benefit from the concepts – it will also provide the incentives for training and education and research that might fill in our own knowledge gaps. It is certainly worthy of much greater research than we are aware is happening.

Some numbers you might like to think about in terms of conversion to bio char:

Method as proposed – char ratio yield approx. 5%

Uncontrolled bushfire – char ratio yield approx. 1%

In perspective (back of the envelope calculation) the yield volume of the method proposed would produce a suggested volume equivalent to around 1.25 tonnes/ha bio char application through this managed patch burning. The Davies’ mention that “this practice should not to be confused with large area mosaic burning as practiced by National Parks Managers”. The point out being “mosaic burning is a poor parody of the indigenous practices”.

It should also be added that “Rod Mason indicated that Wattles, Tea trees and Eucalypts produced different chars that were applied in specific areas to encourage particular plant communities” – Interesting is it not?