Pyrolysis Plant for Perth Gets Closer - Biochar Use to Grow near Perth?

The development of the pyrolysis plant at the Hazelmere Resource Recovery Centre of the EMRC [ Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council] moves closer with the closure of the Public Environmental Review period recently.
More detail is here - http://www.emrc.org.au/pyrolysis-plant-facts.html with a video and some timeline details.


There has also been a widely publicised video on the international magazine Waste Management World newsletter which is seen here - http://www.waste-management-world.com/video-gallery/wmw-weekly-newscast.html?bcpid=2405324449001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEheacc~,POub7blnBC-Leu0uCpdg5kyy6daxQ3__&bclid=2405336528001&bctid=3619981298001
 [ note there are several items - just the first one]


Not too much has been said about the use of the pyrolysed residuals, but it could be a new source of biochar for use in WA.  The soils of the Perth basin especially are sandy and low in carbon - it would be a welcome development.  There are other options for biochar as well, but use in horticulture is well recognised.


The main focus for the plant so far has been gas to be burnt for energy production.


While this plant is modest in size it does illustrate growing interest in Australia for the potential of the technology.


Could it possible that the local Darwin council could potentially seize on the technology and find a partner to develop a plant here?  They were keen many years ago to look at pyrolysis for a waste to oil plant, but the current generation of pyrolysis plants is more focussed on burning flue gas.

Can Biochar Benefit YOUR Farm?

Maybe biochar might be coming to a farm near you soon.

In Australia, at least up to now, biochar production costs and the logistics / transport costs made use expensive.

While production costs are only really likely to fall with volume production systems [ which is not easily seen anytime soon] there may be some options that could surprise with costs by reducing production costs and getting closer to users.

A mobile pyrolysis unit developed by Earth Systems through an innovation program in Victoria, might offer some options, especially for regional users, by producing materials locally.

While the unit is not cheap to buy, innovative funding and ownership models could provide some progress.  For example - a council ownership option to deal with waste wood, making biochar available to users at a local price.  Co-operative and jont ownership may also be possible. Or small entrepreneur ownership.  Costs are around $350K so it is not out of reach for even regional local government entities.

Does biochar work?  So far, yield increases seem to occur in the 10 -45% range, with local increases at this early stage of limited work, or round 25%.

More to come!

Biochar May Also Sequester Carbon Dioxide

'Biochar' is the name for charcoal when it is used as a soil amendment. People add charcoal to land in order to increase soil fertility and agricultural productivity.  Water holding capacity in soils is also usually increased.

In addition to these benefits, researchers are now saying that biochar has potential to mitigate climate change as it can help sequester carbon and thus cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

Sean Case, a PhD student at the US NERC's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and lead author of the study says: "We've shown that adding biochar suppresses CO2 emissions very significantly over several years... Previous studies have found this effect in the lab and over short periods, but this is the first time anyone has looked at bioenergy crops in the field, and at the effects of biochar over a long period."

Results of the study show that by applying biochar before planting energy crops, soil greenhouse-gas emissions can be cut by around a third.

Researchers studied a plantation of miscanthus, a perennial grass which is harvested for fuel. They monitored how much CO2, nitrous oxide and methane came from the plot's soil over two years. They also monitored soil emissions under controlled conditions in the lab.

The plots that had been treated with charcoal emitted 37% less greenhouse gases than neighbouring plots that hadn't, while in the lab the impact was 55%. Most of this came from cutting CO2 emissions, with methane playing no significant role and only a small nitrous oxide component.

"There's a lot of interest at the moment in the potential of bioenergy crops to sequester carbon in the soil, because unlike arable land these crops aren't ploughed every year so the carbon is not being regularly disturbed," says co-author Dr Jeanette Whitaker of CEH. "Biochar contains a lot of carbon in its own right, so adding it to the soil is already having an immediate sequestration effect, but our research suggests that it also reduces the CO2 emitted by soil respiration, which makes the case for using it even stronger. It's about maximising the sustainability benefits of bioenergy crops."

Whitaker explains that in the long term, it is unlikely people will use wood as biochar. Instead, biochar can be made out of anything from municipal waste to chicken manure.

Different regions will have different availability of feedstock products, with crop residuals common.

 

 

 

Recycling Green Waste into Black - Biochar

Biochar offers some strong positives for use in agriculture, and not only in boosting highly durable long lasting soil organic carbon.

There are many articles on the subject, and Wikipedia has a good overview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar.  I have some previous blog posts as well on soil carbon and biochar.

The article below comes from the online edition Qld Country Life and due acknowledgement is made to them.

But it is a report on a forum in which the message is being delivered to Australian farmers that biochar is not some pie in the sky airy fairy technology.......it might be real, very soon and here.

It is true that delivering adequate carbon to larger farms is a difficult and costly issue with even the logistics expensive.  But systems similar to that below will evolve, and maybe quicker than peope realise.

Using pyrolysis is a reasonably well understood process system so marrying that into a field suitable system requires application and not inconsiderable $$.  But doable.

This is a reasonable step on an evolving process.

------------------------------------------------


Revolutionary recycling

       

14 Feb 2013

 

 

TO farmers in the Burdekin it may have looked like something out of a Dr Who episode - but it is possibly the forerunner to one of the most revolutionary machines to hit the agriculture industry in decades.

A farm may never use one, but research shows that the product the unusual looking machine produces – biochar - can increase the fertility of the soil, increase moisture retention and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Biochar is a form of charcoal and is produced by heating organic matter in a low oxygen environment. The process is termed pyrolysis which is “a thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures without the participation of oxygen”. Pyrolysis can even be achieved by microwaving.

Biochar has the potential to help mitigate climate change, via carbon sequestration. It can increase soil fertility, increase agricultural productivity and provide protection against some foliar and soil-borne diseases.

The man behind the biochar producing machine at the Ayr CFI forum is Dr James Joyce. Dr Joyce did his PhD on biomass gasification and, noticing a great biomass in sugar cane trash, set out to design a pyrolysis unit that met the criteria of low capital and operating cost, mobility, flexibility and ability to handle un-shredded cane trash.

The result to date has been a series of biochar machines of various sizes. His company BIG (Black is Green) presently has two machines in Canada, one in Hawaii, Germany and Wales and two in India.  The machine not only turns potentially methane emitting, green waste into stable charcoal or biochar, the heat it produces during the process can be used to generate electricity.

One problem he has come across is finding locations with a good supply of biomass where electricity generated can be uploaded into the main grid.  The machine can convert 1.2 – 1.5t/hr of green, agricultural or industrial waste (7000-10,000t per annum) into 0.2-0.3t/hr of biochar.

Currently there is a gate price of $700/t for biochar with most outlets selling biochar at $1000-$2000 per tonne.

In Europe 80 per cent of the biochar produced is being mixed into stock feed with experiments revealing impressive weight gains and health benefits in ruminant animals.

In India biochar has become extremely popular in home gardens from which owners not only feed themselves but obtain an income from selling the produce.

Whichever way you look at it, biochar production appears destined to become a major industry throughout the world for use as a soil conditioner/ fertiliser, stockfeed additive and as a way of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Investors in this technology are surely on a win-win situation.    

What is biochar?
Biochar is a stable form of charcoal produced from heating natural organic materials (crop and other waste, woodchips, manure) in a high temperature, low oxygen process known as pyrolysis. Biochars can be produced from a variety of organic sources or feedstocks.

Due to its molecular structure, biochar is chemically and biologically in a more stable form than the original carbon form it comes from, making it more difficult to break down. This means that in some cases it can remain stable in soil for hundreds to thousands of years.

The production of biochar via pyrolysis also yields bioenergy in the form of synthesis gas (or ‘syngas’). Syngas consists of a variety of gases which in turn can be captured and used to produce heat and power.

Not all biochars are created equal

There are many different types and qualities of biochar. The key chemical and physical properties of a biochar are greatly affected by the type of material being used and the conditions of the pyrolysis process (i.e. temperature and time).

For example, biochar made from manure will have a higher nutrient content than biochar made from wood cuttings. However, the biochar from the wood cuttings will be more stable over a longer period of time. The two different chars will look the same but will behave quite differently.

Similarly, biochars produced at higher temperatures (700°C compared to 400°C) are more porous and more adsorptive. These biochars have greater potential to adsorb toxic substances and could be used to help rehabilitate contaminated environments

Understanding the characteristics of a particular biochar is important to match it to the requirements of its end use.

Soils Benefit if Compost or Mulch is Used

Twelve Benefits of Compost

 Many scientists and farmers speak highly about the use of compost and mulch in soils.  There are often soil and crop improvements attributed to using these organic additions but are they real benefits?

While there is a certain amount of quackery over many soil additives, with some very dubious clams being made for them, it is now considered that there is a reasonably comprehensive set of truisms that can be attributed to compost use, with compost consderd in a broad sense to also include organic mulches.

These benefits and soil improvements are seen in temperate regions in the US, Europe and Australia as well as in tropical regions, with the latter often seeing very big improvements as the soils are tending to be lower in soil organic matter anyway.  Small additions of organic materials can mean big crop performance improvement.

The twelve well recognised benefits of compost are listed below. 

The following list of compost benefits have been approved by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). This organization is made up of state Department of Agriculture regulatory officials from every state in the US. These claims are permitted to be made, and are considered as valid, on compost labels, literature and websites in the US and are also relevant elsewhere.

Compost -  

a. Improves soil structure and porosity – creating a better plant root environment;

b. Increases moisture infiltration and permeability, and reduces bulk density of heavy soils – improving moisture infiltration rates and reducing erosion and runoff;

c. Improves the moisture holding capacity of light soils – reducing water loss and nutrient leaching, and improving moisture retention;

d. Improves the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soils;

e. Supplies organic matter;

f. Aids the proliferation of soil microorganisms;

g. Supplies beneficial microorganisms to soils and growing media;

h. Encourages vigorous root growth;

i. Allows plants to more effectively utilize nutrients, while reducing nutrient loss by leaching;

j. Enables soils to retain nutrients longer;

k. Contains humus – assisting in soil aggregation and making nutrients more available for plant uptake;

l. Buffers soil pH.

There are many articles and newspaper stories about the benefits of compost - so if you are not using compost or any other organic additions such as mulch, why not?  The photo shows mechanised compost production using a row turner.

In the tropics where rainfall is often in short higher intensity storms, surface mulches and composts provide a very effective surface barrier that prevents the dislodging of soil surface particles caused by the energy of impact of rain drops - this dislodgement commences the process of soil erosion.  A mulch cover can greatly reduce that problem while also controlling the infiltration of the rain.   "Cover"is a significant term in the universal soil loss equation [ USLE] used to calculate erosion, and is a factor that can be easily modified - as distinct from some of the other factors.  And soil cover is why dense grassland or rainforest is less prone to erosion.

The carbon in the organic materials often remains in the soil for some time so it also contributes to sequestring carbon, although not always for really long periods. [ that is another complicated issue - you could read about biochar or terra preta soils]
Surface mulch and compost are great contributors to better soils and the products grown in them!. 

Composting in Australia - More Action Needed

Breaking down the benefits of composting
Tuesday, 16 November 2010

A press release worth reading.......

Increasing the use of organic compost to intensive agriculture industries such as citrus could save 30% of irrigation water and deliver millions of dollars of extra income through increased crop yields to regions such as the Riverina as well as providing significant carbon abatement and sequestration opportunities for the nation, according to the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA).

CEO of the WMAA, Val Southam. believes greater investment in the utilisation of organic materials in agriculture may be part of the solution to restoring health to the Murray-Darling Basin without jeopardising the livelihoods of farmers and regional communities.“The economic and environmental benefits of composting are enormous. In addition to improving water use efficiency, there are significant environmental benefits accrued through carbon abatement and sequestration.

Organic material diverted from landfill could abate 2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year- approximately 461,893 cars off the road annually.

“Around 420,000 tonnes of compost is used in our intensive agricultural industries per year. Compost improves soil condition by adding organic matter, and a 5% increase in soil organic material will result in the quadrupling of a soil’s water holding capacity. It also suppresses weed growth thus reducing the need for chemicals.” Southam said composting also prevents the loss of valuable top soil and reduces the damaging effects of erosion - savings of between 2.3 and 17 tonnes per hectare of soil loss due to erosion can be achieved. “Our industry is calling on all levels of government to provide R&D funding to fully evaluate the economic and environmental benefits of composting and fund programs which promote awareness of the benefits of compost use in our agricultural industries and wider community,” she said.

Chair of Compost Australia (a division of WMAA), Peter Wadewitz believes there’s much more government, industry and the community can do to increase the use of compost. “At least 20 million tonnes of organic material is available for recycling through composting. Composting organic material such as cardboard and food scraps can reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by as much as 50%. “The Recycled Organics Industry is already processing over 5 million tonnes of organic material annually but the benefits to our environment and economy from increasing this amount are significant,” Wadewitz said. “In addition to increased R&D funding and raising awareness of the benefits of composting, one option may be to establish tax incentives for producers of recycled organic products in more sustainable agricultural production systems,” he added.

Compost for Soils reported that SARDI (South Australian Research and Development Institute) citrus trials (composted green organics, grape marc, animal manure) showed a positive return on the initial investment.An application of 40 m3ha-1 of composted green organics in Loxton North produced the highest benefit at 5.38 – that is, for every dollar invested around $5 is returned to the grower.

---------------------

While this information is not new, in our current debate about carbon, and improved productivity in Australian agriculture, this is a very timely press release and should be heeded around the country.

There is so much wasted food and recyclable organics available. There is technology available to do a lot more, from very simple systmes to quite complex operations. Other countries see this as a valuable resource for agriculture, yet we in australia with relatively poor soils and low moisture holding capacity in soils, really do need this material to improve productivity of the land.

And that applies especially so in the tropics, with higher temperatures driving a faster turnover of the soil carbon as well as a faster soil moisture cycle........and even poorer soils in general.

There are structural issues, with local government [or their contractors] often the handler of organic wastes, yet it must have better leadership at State or National level to achieve serious change.

Yes, there are skilled people that could achieve more.........let there be some action along the lines proposed in terms of R and D!!

Climate Change and Land Use

Recently released is the new World Watch Institute Report on climate change and land use.

Nothing too radical really, but a sensible approach to improving everyday land use with a focus on the actions that can mitigate climate change.

Some of the actions may not be practical - afterall, most grain crops are annuals - so you cannot farm perennials to meet the world grain needs. But you can improve what is being done now.

It is also true to say that for many countries already, some of these steps are being taken, with minimal and conservation tillage having a significant use in many of the major grain production regions of the world.

It is interesting to note they advocate using biochar [agrichar] to enrich soil carbon. Unfortunately the Australian government does not seem too interested in this option.......it needs more research! BUT.......biochar results may not start being discernible for a number of years, probably after the current term of the government; maybe it is time to start sometime soon on expanded research. At least in Australia, initial research has been quite positive on a role for this product so work on further R and D should be cranked up and not left without funding. CSIRO has got some money......for a 3 year trial period. But unfortunately, they are unlikley to do much in the tropical areas of Australia.

Read the summary. Make up your mind. Climate change is everyone's business.
------------------------


Worldwatch Report: Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use

Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use
Author: Sara J. Scherr and Sajal Sthapit ISBN 13: 978-1-878071-91-0 Paperback 50 pages
Summary Table of Contents
E-book $12.95

Summary
Land makes up a quarter of Earth’s surface,and its soil and plants hold three times as much carbon as the atmosphere. More than 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions arise from the land use sector. Thus, no strategy for mitigating global climate change can be complete or successful without reducing emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. Moreover, only land-based or “terrestrial” carbon sequestration offers the possibility today of large-scale removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, through plant photosynthesis.

Five major strategies for reducing and sequestering terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions are:

• Enriching soil carbon. Soil is the third largest carbon pool on Earth’s surface. Agricultural soils can be managed to reduce emissions by minimizing tillage, reducing use of nitrogen fertilizers, and preventing erosion. Soils can store the carbon captured by plants from the atmosphere by building up soil organic matter, which also has benefits for crop production. Adding biochar (biomass burned in a low-oxygen environment) can further enhance carbon storage in soil.

• Farming with perennials. Perennial crops, grasses, palms, and trees constantly maintain and develop their root and woody biomass and associated carbon, while providing vegetative cover for soils. There is large potential to substitute annual tilled crops with perennials, particularly for animal feed and vegetable oils, as well as to incorporate woody perennials into annual cropping systems in agroforestry systems.

• Climate-friendly livestock production. Rapid growth in demand for livestock products has triggered a huge rise in the number of animals, the concentration of wastes in feedlots and dairies, and the clearing of natural grasslands and forests for grazing. Livestock- related emissions of carbon and methane now account for 14.5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions—more than the transport sector. A reduction in livestock numbers may be needed but production innovations can help, including rotational grazing systems,manure management, methane capture for biogas production, and improved feeds and feed additives.

• Protecting natural habitat. The planet’s 4 billion hectares of forests and 5 billion hectares of natural grasslands are a massive reservoir of carbon—both in vegetation above ground and in root systems below ground. As forests and grasslands grow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere. Deforestation, land clearing, and forest and grassland fires are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Incentives are needed to encourage farmers and land users to maintain natural vegetation through product certification, payments for climate services, securing tenure rights, and community fire control. The conservation of natural habitat will benefit biodiversity in the face of climate change.

• Restoring degraded watersheds and rangelands. Extensive areas of the world have been denuded of vegetation through land clearing for crops or grazing and from overuse and poor management. Degradation has not only generated a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions, but local people have lost a valuable livelihood asset as well as essential watershed functions. Restoring vegetative cover on degraded lands can be a win-win-win strategy for addressing climate change, rural poverty, and water scarcity.

Agricultural communities can play a central role in fighting climate change. Even at a relatively low price for mitigating carbon emissions, improved land management could offset a quarter of global emissions from fossil fuel use in a year. In contrast, solutions for reducing emissions by carbon capture in the energy sector are unlikely to be widely utilized for decades and do not remove the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. To tackle the climate challenge, we need to pursue land use solutions in addition to efforts to improve energy efficiency and speed the transition to renewable energy.

Yet so far, the international science and policy communities have been slow to embrace terrestrial climate action. Some fear that investments in land use will not produce “real” climate benefits, or that land use action would distract attention from investment in energy alternatives. There is also a concern that land management changes cannot be implemented quickly enough and at a scale that would make a difference to the climate.

-----------------

It is a sensible and sober assessment. But action is needed.

Are Plastic Bags Important in Waste Management Policy?

Plastic bags and their management have become a symbolic issue in Australian waste management. In doing so, waste management has largely become irrelevant, for it has meant that the large issues are being ignored. We all love to hate industry, those making a living from our waste, but in reality they perform a public good function. Some even argue they could do much better, if allowed to do so.

In northern and north west Australia we have tended to ignore waste issues. Afterall, plenty of space and relatively few people, so waste issues are of modest interest, except in relation to a kerfuffle over nuclear waste, where those emptier spaces around Australia could serve a useful role. And yes, plastic bags are noticeable here too........but that is largely a litter issue, not a major waste problem.

But waste issues are of pressing importance in relation to the coming changes over carbon management. Superior organics management could yield improved outcomes in carbon emissions and capture, while potentially improving agriculture [ see any of the posts on carbon management on this site], and of even greater relevance in a time of reduced jobs.......better waste management could create many new jobs, and these would be permanent ones too. Technology to do this is available right now.

The following article provides a decent overview of some of these issues. Are we focussing on an irrelevant issue in trying to ban plastic bags? I would agree with the author.
---------------------------

Increasingly, the humble plastic bag is being highlighted as “public evil number one” when it comes to waste and the environment. It seems all levels of government have got the demise of plastic bags firmly in their sights. Never was so much effort and political capital spent on such a marginal issue.

Don’t get me wrong – reducing plastic bags as part of a litter management scheme is an important place to start but from a waste management point of view it is symbolic at best. Plastic bags represent just one thousandth of the waste stream or 0.1%. 20,000 tonnes out of a landfill waste stream of 20 million tonnes.

Resource recycling and greenhouse gas emissions must be the waste policy priorities as we move into an era of climate change and a carbon constrained economy.

There is an enormous opportunity for the Australian recycling and waste sector to lead positively from the front on issues of emissions reductions and climate change. A study by Warnken ISE points to the potential to deliver nearly 35 million tonnes of greenhouse gas abatement through innovative resource recovery, organics processing and improved landfill gas capture practices. That adds up to a reduction of nearly 7 percent in Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions – equal to taking all cars off Australian roads.

Doing so would see investment of around $4 billion in new infrastructure and the creation of 4000 new jobs.

Waste is one of those sectors where there is an alignment of Government policy on climate change and business opportunities for growth and diversification. I’m not advocating we ignore plastic bags but can we also focus on the big issues?

Gas capture from landfills
When organic waste, mainly wood, garden waste and food is disposed to landfill, it generates methane which is a significant greenhouse gas. While on the positive side it is estimated that 70% of household waste is disposed into landfills with gas capture systems, capture inefficiencies taken with the 30% of landfills without capture and importantly the massive amounts of organics sent to Commercial and Inert landfills, amount to a landfill emission profile of 15 million tonnes CO2e/year.

Landfills will always have a role to play in an integrated waste framework so it is important that we get the landfill platform operating with the lowest carbon footprint possible.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will go some way to address this by putting a cost on methane emissions from landfill. For the first few years of the scheme the price is likely to be $25-40 /tCO2e. That could see landfill gate prices rise by anywhere from $10-$50 /t of waste across the weighbridge depending on whether the landfill has a gas capture system and the organic loading of the waste.

At a particular carbon pollution price, landfill operators will install new and improved gas capture systems.

Alternatives for organics treatment

At a particular carbon pollution price (taken with rises in landfill levies), waste generators will seek out alternatives to landfill and those alternatives become commercially viable. The main treatment options for organics are “clean stream composting” and “residual processing” through an Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) plant.

Clean stream composting is widely practiced in Australia and growth in carbon costs (taken with the potential for some form of carbon storage benefit) will see this sector flourish. In 2008 there were 12 “residual processing” AWT plants either operating or under construction across Australia, up from 1 in 1994. AWT has been taken up for different reasons in different states – sometimes government policy and targets driven through regional waste boards (e.g. Perth), sometimes price signals via landfill levies (e.g. Sydney) and sometimes local Councils have taken the lead (and the cost burden) (e.g. Cairns, Port Macquarie, Port Stephens).

More than 30% of Sydney Councils are now using AWT to process their waste. Tenders for the processing of residual/organic waste are expected for another 40% in 2009. By mid 2009 with two new plants coming on stream, NSW will have one of the highest concentrations of AWT’s per head of population in the world, with 7 AWT’s between Coffs Harbour and Campbelltown (3 anaerobic digesters and 4 MBT composters).

Perth is similarly fast tracking towards low emission and high resource recovery options with 4 AWT’s operating or being constructed. Adelaide has Australia’s premier timber treatment technology turning a greenhouse gas liability in landfill, into an alternative fuel source with outstanding greenhouse gas benefits. Melbourne has signaled its intention to start aggressively down the path of 12 new AWT and organics processing facilities.

Resource recovery

The third key action is to rapidly ramp up resource recovery and recycling. Australia recycles only 48% of the total waste stream. Recovering the embodied energy in recycled materials reduces energy consumption in other manufacturing sectors of the economy. But this benefit is given limited recognition by governments.

There is a desperate need for improved infrastructure and programs to support commercial and industrial, construction and residential recycling.

Getting Australia’s recycling rate up toward 70 or 80% will deliver massive greenhouse gas benefits, as well as generally lower costs of production to manufacturers. It will also generate huge numbers of jobs.

If a company was closing up shop today and taking 4000 jobs with it, it would be front page news. But the waste sector can create 4000 new jobs with significant environmental and economic benefits, and at very low cost.

What is required is a change of perspective on the role of waste within a carbon constrained economy. We need to move past old images of the waste sector as garbos in trucks and dumping at the local tip, toward a view of waste as an integrated part of resource reuse in the economy.

Toward an understanding of the role recycling, resource recovery and waste management can have in helping to solve Australia’s (and the world’s) climate change problems.

These are the key issues from a waste policy perspective.

The campaigns for politicians to ban plastic bags are understandable given that plastic bags are such a visible waste stream, but from a strategic waste perspective, a ban on plastic bags is symbolic at best and distracting at worst.

written by Mike Ritchie, President NSW Branch of the Waste Management Association of Australia and General Manager, Marketing & Communications, SITA Environmental Solutions.

----------------------

While these views may be quite in your face and definitely confronting.........they are logical and deserve more thought from the NT and Darwin City politicians.

One of our major issues in the NT is construction and demolition waste, and most goes straight to landfill. Other jurisdictions have made major attempts to reduce and manage that material, but not here. A simple one would be to use all the waste gyprock/ dry wall in the compost. Grind it and add to the green waste, and there is a lot of dry wall wasted!

And in Darwin the MRF avoids many useful grades of plastic - they are banned from recycling, yet are widely reused in many types of new plastic products, even as co-mingled materials.

Can the NT do better than it is now?

Soil Carbon Reality Check

Following up from the previous post, there has been additional material form the recent Soil Carbon conference in Australia, that does offer some sort of a reality check. Nothing that cannot be factored into the equation, but that does need some thinking about.

The message from high-profile scientists Dr Jeff Baldock and Professor Peter Grace was clear: soil carbon is intrinsically valuable, but on current understanding it seems unlikely to yield a meaningful return to farmers in a carbon trading scheme.

Dr Baldock, a leading CSIRO soil scientist, and Prof. Grace, a climate change specialist at the Queensland University of Technology, offered a contrary point of view against the prevailing mood of optimism at last week's Carbon Coalition's Carbon Farming Conference in Orange, NSW.

Prof. Grace observed that soil carbon will be traded under a scheme that also accounts for emissions—and right now, the farming ledger balances out with carbon inputs/outputs firmly in the red. He showed modelling of emissions from a 400 hectare Darling Downs farm, with 300ha of crop, 12ha of trees, and some cattle, which collectively resulted in 416 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year.

As a rule of thumb, mainstream science considers soil carbon sequestration potential in the more fertile, high-rainfall parts of eastern Australia to be around 500 kilograms per hectare per year.

The reality might be considerably less.

"You can't just sell the carbon," Prof. Grace said. "You have to look at the whole farming system and your profitability. A whole farming systems approach is essential—all gases have to be taken into account."

Carbon isn't just carbon, Dr Baldock told the conference, and the type of carbon a soil contains determines whether the carbon has a role in a trading scheme. At one end of the scale is the "labile" carbon pooled in plant residue and fragmented organic matter, which is quickly cycled and lost back to the atmosphere; at the other end is humus and charcoal, which lock away carbon and other nutrients. "We can induce big variations in the carbon across various pools by changing farm management," Dr Baldock said.

The challenge for farmers looking to rebuild their carbon is ensuring that it is rebuilt in the right pools.
In an modelling example shown by Dr Baldock, 18 years of soil carbon rundown under one farming practice was rebuilt in 10 years by another farming practice—but the carbon lost was largely humus, and the carbon that was rebuilt was in more labile pools. Dr Baldock also noted that building carbon requires nutrient, which comes at a cost.

While carbon has been run down on most Australian farms, in decomposing it released other nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, which masked the detrimental effects of carbon loss. In an example, a soil that started with a carbon content of 3pc was progressively run down to 1pc carbon.
The nitrogen released as the carbon decomposed came to 2.8t/ha.

"I can turn this on its head," Dr Baldock said. "If I want to build carbon from 1pc to 3pc, I have to find nitrogen."

Soil organic matter has a consistent carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, which depends on the parent material. As the amount of carbon grows, so must the amount of nitrogen to ensure the ratio is maintained.
"That nitrogen can come from legumes, it doesn't have to come from bag fertiliser. "The important message to take away is that to build carbon, you have to supply nutrients. You can’t build one without the other."

Dr Baldock suggested that carbon trading would not be a natural fit for all farmers.

Deciding to build carbon, and keep it there under contract, would demand changes in production systems. Before making the change, farmers would have to consider their profitability, and their willingness to incur the liability of contracted carbon that might compromise their flexibility to change production systems in response to new circumstances.

"There's potential there, but there's a lot of bits and pieces we need to put together before we can decide whether it's appropriate for a given landowner."

However, Dr Baldock and Prof. Grace agreed that increased soil carbon was a highly desirable objective in itself for any farming system.

"Soil carbon is the key to long-term profitability," Prof. Grace said. "If you've got it, that's your superannuation."

So the options seem to be to add long term source materials - products such as agrichar and similar but in the short term cycling materials suxh as those from crop residues. This issue does have a lot to work through yet, although one message does seem very clear.........increase your soil carbon!

[partially sourced from Matt Cawood report - Queensland Country Life]

Carbon Emissions Reduction in Australia - Here We Come - Maybe: The Garnaut Report

The Garnaut Report - the final report is published today on 30 September 2008.

It is a gargantuan report, and is best digested in small bites.......a bit like a termite munching through wood! There is a significant chapter now on agriculture, and the report does join agriculture and forestry together as land users with potential for doing good, carbon wise.

Much will be made of the view espoused in the report that we need to reduce cattle and sheep and farm kangaroos, principally to reduce methane emissions. Maybe modification of the gut bacteria using modified bacteria is feasible as recently suggested at a conference I was at which looked at carbon issues in agriculture. A "big science" approach might be needed to achieve an outcome, but the payoff would be huge...and exportable. However, in the report, a 5-6% increase in costs at retail level for beef would occur at a carbon price around $20 per tonne. So that is modest, although cattle producers would have to purchase permits.

However, the potential for soil carbon sequestration is recognised......and about time, even in tropical savannah woodland, as the photo.

Savannah burning contributions to the carbon emissions, including the West Arnhem Savannah Burning Project gets a mention, but for Australia, the carbon contributed by this source is very small, even if large for northern Australia. In this project fire reduction by wet season buring at low intensity, funded by a large emitter, offsets their emissions from another source.





Carbon sequestration in soils has enormous potential for Australia, and the report does make some serious comment on that issue, with some detailed references on soil carbon management by Dr Rattan Lal among the citations. It is not just carbon sequestration........it is as much about higher soil productivity in Australia.

The chapter on agriculture and land use can be accessed at:

http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Chapter%2022.pdf

It is too detailed a topic to easily cover here and should be required reading by those in Australian agriculture.

More detail and individual chapters are available at www.garnautreport.org.au .

Glomalin - Not Heard of it Then Take Note - THE Soil Carbon Fixer

A soil constituent known as glomalin provides a secure vault for the world's soil carbon. That’s according to Kristine Nichols, a microbiologist at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory in North Dakota, USA.

Glomalin is a sticky substance secreted by threadlike fungal structures called hyphae that funnel nutrients and water to plant roots. Glomalin acts like little globs of chewing gum on strings or strands of plant roots and the fungal hyphae. Into this sticky “string bag” fall the sand, silt and clay particles that make up soil, along with plant debris and other carbon-containing organic matter. The sand, silt and clay stick to the glomalin, starting aggregate formation, a major step in soil creation.

On the surface of soil aggregates, glomalin forms a lattice-like waxy coating to keep water from flowing rapidly into the aggregate and washing away everything, including the carbon. As the builder of the formation “bag” for soil, glomalin is vital globally to soil building, productivity and sustainability, as well as to carbon storage.
Nichols uses glomalin measurements to gauge which farming or rangeland practices work best for storing carbon. Since glomalin levels can reflect how much carbon each practice is storing, they could be used in conjunction with carbon credit trading programs.

In studies on cropland, Nichols has found that both tilling and leaving land idle--as is common in arid regions--lower glomalin levels by destroying living hyphal fungal networks. The networks need live roots and do better in undisturbed soil.

When glomalin binds with iron or other heavy metals, it can keep carbon from decomposing for up to 100 years.
Even without heavy metals, glomalin stores carbon in the inner recesses of soil particles where only slow-acting microbes live.

This carbon in organic matter is also saved, like a slow-release fertilizer, for later use by plants and hyphae.

Glomalin is one of the factors that help build soil carbon stores. Othes include biochar or agrichar, another form of macro carbon materials, said to be the underlying factor aiding high productivity of terra preta soils in Brazil.