My guess is that biochar isn’t considered by the CSLF for purely jurisdictional reasons. I imagine that EERE (the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) would take the lead on biochar and any other processes related to biomass. It’s even possible that USDA is investigating biochar.

In the US, “carbon sequestration” often is used to mean a subset of carbon sequestration processes that exclude plant-based organic sequestration. Really, the three types of sequestration are geologic sequestration, terrestrial sequestration, and ocean sequestration. This post was just about geologic sequestration because it is the prime candidate for dealing with captured carbon-dioxide from power plants. There is a lot we could be doing on terrestrial sequestration: from reforestation to biochar. Ocean sequestration would be a difficult process to stimulate, but iron fertilization is one possible route.

If you have some info on point-source organic CO2 capture that could be applied to a power plant smokestack, I’d love to hear about it.

Is it opportune to broaden the technologies under consideration to include “mineralised” biomass in the form of biocarbon (aka biochar)? i.e. To also consider using plants or algae or micro-organisms or another procedure to capture atmospheric or point-source CO2 in a lignocellulosic (or similar) form which can then be converted to inert carbon for sequestration in soil.

Two additional considerations:
a)Such carbonisation is exothermic, and therefore provides a source of renewable energy.
b) Under investigation is a belief that biochar in soil has extensive other benefits in relation to GHGs, including reductions in NOx emissions from soil, improved fertility, & others. Much work still to be done in classifying & proving this.

Or is there a coherent logic which prevents CSLF from considering biochar as a CCS mechanism?