There is some discussion of avoiding confusion for climate stabilization and ocean acidification targets at http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=683

A sub-issue is of course the CO2 vs CO2e problem, and we get into it with atmospheric concentration calculations. Particularly since methane’s on the rise again, we may need to clarify this as well, to confirm that our total atmospheric forcing targets are sufficient – or at least whether or not we’re talking about the same target. Do you agree?

Terra Preta is a uniquely Amazonian soil type with high carbon content.

Biochar is a product of pyrolysis of biomass. If woody biomass is used, the traditional name is charcoal.

Biocoal is the result of hydrothermal carbonization of biomass, a completely different (and exothermic) process from pyrolysis.

For permanent sequestration, biocoal is perferable. Being precisely high-grade coal, we know it will stay securely buried for millions of years. Biochar will not. Read a recent report on the subject:

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/node/578

20 lbs of CO2 emitted for a gallon of gasoline (direct emissions).
Another 4 or 5 pounds upstream (refining, etc.)

If I am going to demonstrate to somebody, say in an booth, the relative environmental cost of burning fuels I can have a 6.6 lb bag of coal and a gallon gasoline can with a jug of water that will represent the 19.4 lbs of CO2 that is in the atmosphere from that gallon. Keeping 19 lbs of dry ice at 19 lbs on Earth Day will be quite a trick locally where temps. average about 82 F. I can however show that it will take about 20 lbs of dry wood chips to get the 5.5 lbs of charcoal we have to bury to sequester the emissions from a single gallon of gas. I can then wave a printout of the virtuous carbon cycle from the Eprida website to show them that securing the carbon can be a benefit instead of a cost.

I’m not really sure how I could convince them to get rid of 16 lbs of fuming, hissing dry ice. It would be good to have some as a contrast though to show the difficulty of handling the stuff. It would have to stay in a “no-touching” lexan box. People get that carbon removed from the ground has to be returned to the ground as carbon.

Terra Preta or biochar vs. “biocoal”

David- I’m not sure where you get your information that there is somehow some advantage to burying “biocoal” as vs. biochar or Terra Preta. Terra Preta (378k results on Google) or biochar (21K hits on Google) seem to be the preferred usage for carbonized biomass used for fuel AND soil amendment whereas “biocoal” (6.5K hits Google) seems to be used in reference to the fuel usage only.

Adding the word “abstract” to the primary in a search reinforces this impression and justifies the impression that Terra Preta (terra preta+ abstract, 12.6K hits) is the common scientific usage with biochar (biochar + abstract, 1.6K hits) gaining ground and biocoal (biocoal + abstract) having limited use largely in reference to biomass to fuel operations. A review of the scientific literature available on Google scholar also supports my hypothesis yielding 11K articles or citations for Terra Preta and 78 (as in 78) for biocoal.

What has been repeatedly demonstrated is that adding powdered charcoal to active soil results in increased root and plant growth, thereby sequestering atmospheric carbon in addition to the carbon buried. It is therefore generally agreed that char in the active soil zone yields a carbon sequestration factor > 1. You seem to keep disputing this without references to evidence. So whether you are beating some kind of personal drum or muddying the waters could you please desist?