The Toronto Star reported earlier this month on an interesting new technology that promises cleaner burning natural gas with potentially valuable solid carbon as a by-product.

CarbonSavor is the trademarked name of this new technology privately developed by Atlantic Hydrogen Inc. It uses a "low temperature plasma reactor process" to separate hydrogen gas and solid carbon from the natural gas stream without releasing any carbon dioxide in the process. The gaseous hydrogen is then re-routed back into the natural gas line creating a hydrogen enriched mixture that is about 20% hydrogen gas.

Hydrogen enriched natural gas is purported to be compatible with existing appliances, furnaces and automobiles. According to the Toronto Star article the hydrogen enriched natural gas burns with a 7% reduction in carbon emissions. Furthermore, they claim that automobile exhausts have 50% to 60% reduced nitrogen oxide content when using the hydrogen enriched natural gas fuel. Two demonstration applications are slated for 2008.

The solid carbon by-product created in this process may have several uses. It may have manufacturing applications, such as a in components for automobile or airplanes.

Then, the Toronto Star takes one step too far:

"It could also be permanently stored in soil – used alongside fertilizer to regenerate depleted farmland. This approach, often referred to as biochar sequestration, could fetch revenues in the form of saleable carbon credits."

Biochar sequestration? Not really.

Biochar looks like charcoal and is sometimes referred to as agrichar or terra preta. It is primarily carbon and is made by heating bio-mass in the absence of oxygen. Bio-mass comes from plants and animals. It contains carbon removed from the atmosphere during plant growth. When biomass is made into biochar and used as a soil amendment it sequesters carbon in the soil for hundreds of years. Production of biochar also generates a number of carbon negative bio-energy options.

Carbon separated from natural gas is a poor substitute for biochar with respect to global warming. It is derived from fossil fuel, not bio-mass. It converts fossil carbon to soil. It does not sequester atmospheric carbon. It is “synthetic agrichar”. If synthetic agrichar is cheap and abundant, it may stifle the adoption of genuine biochar.

On the other hand, I can’t argue with a 7% per unit volume reduction in carbon emissions for natural gas. Synthetic agrichar could be the catalyst that American agriculture needs to start examining the potential benefits of soil carbon sequestration. Farmers need more research to determine the usefulness and correct application rates of agrichar on various soil types. This synthetic product may generate the funding for that research.

Synthetic agrichar leaves me scratching my head. More technology gives us more options. But, do I want more fossil fuel options? Is hydrogen enriched natural gas a step towards a hydrogen economy? Will carbon from natural gas actually prove valuable? I welcome your thoughts.