No one knows exactly how many social enterprises were founded around the world over the last 12 months but the conventional wisdom is that about 95% of these will go bust in the first year.
Re:char is an ancient company by these standards.
The four year-old scrappy startup thinks it can improve the livelihood of the world’s energy poor by converting 6 billion tons of agricultural farm waste[1] produced annually in developing countries into sustainable biomass fuel (like briquettes or biodiesel, for example) and biochar, a valuable soil additive that can dramatically boost a farmer’s crop yields.
Biochar is best described as charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass, and differs from charcoal only in the sense that its primary use is not for fuel, but for capturing essential soil nutrients and for storing CO2 in the ground.
Another important distinction is that biochar is produced at a very strict temperature range (450-500C). This temperature range gives biochar a much higher surface area than fuel charcoal. This important factor gives biochar its soil amendment properties. 
Re:char’s idea is simple: manufacture low-cost kilns that pyrolyze crop residues and turn them into char, which can be added to soil to boost crop production or converted to fuel briquettes for sale as a sustainable alternative to wood, charcoal, or animal dung.
Re:char’s potential impact on energy poverty relief, Climate Change through carbon sequestration, and poverty alleviation caught the eye of Echoing Green, a group that invests in social enterprise startups through its annual fellowship program.
Jason Aramburu is re:char’s founder and one of 16 recipients of this year’s Echoing Green fellowship. (See Echoing Green’s 1:30 YouTube video of Aramburu explaining re:char)
We talked to Aramburu to find out more about re:char.
The Charcoal Project: Jason, walk us through this. How will re:char make money and provide social benefits to its recipients?
Jason Aramburu: re:char is an effort to promote low-cost, sustainable production of carbon-negative energy technologies. We think our technology can help produce energy and biochar, two commodities with huge potential for the base of the pyramid.
Right now we’re working on two lines of products, a low-cost kiln aimed for the typical 1-acre farmer, and a “fast pyrolysis” kiln for large-scale production of char for urban areas. These would most likely be adopted by actual charcoal-producers.
TCP: Let’s take the biomass fuel first. What’s the big idea here?
JA: The idea is that by adopting the kiln technology, the small farmer can choose to produce biomass briquettes for sale or for personal consumption. The briquettes will need to be price competitive with existing alternative fuels, of course. But the farmer will have the choice to use the kiln’s char production as either biochar or convert it to fuel briquettes.
We realize the local price of charcoal will play a key role in the farmer’s decision on how to use the char. That’s why we are also working on larger “fast pyrolysis” kilns that will provide sustainable, alternative biomass fuels for urban areas. The rationale is that by providing a less expensive fuel alternative to urban populations, the demand for traditional wood charcoal will diminish. This allows farmers to hedge against fluctuations in the price of biomass fuels. That is, if the price of alternative sustainable fuel briquettes is to high compared to, say, charcoal, the farmer can use or sell the biochar as a soil additive. But if the price of biomass briquettes is high, he can use the char to make briquettes.
UNEP published this valuable resource: Converting Waste Agricultural, Biomass into a Resource — Compendium of Technologies.
TCP: Tell us more about the larger, “fast pyrolysis” kilns?
JA: Increasing the temperature of kiln has different results on the pyrolysis of biomass.
The “fast pyrolisis” process is useful because it generates biocrude oil, which can be used to power a diesel-type electric generator, for example. The large kilns will be able to carbonize biomass more efficiently, in greater quantities, and with fewer emissions. And all this while also generating energy for the larger community.
TCP: What about deployment and prices of these technologies?
JA: Right now we’re in the pilot state for both technologies. Our plan is to begin testing the smaller kilns by deploying 500 of these in Kenya and Tanzania over the next 12 months. The goal is to validate the technology and make sure people want to use them. We’ll also be using this first batch to refine the education and social marketing strategies.
Despite our progress, we want to make sure we get it right, which is why we are still probably 1 to 2 years away from large scale deployment.
We don’t have a date set yet for the larger kilns. We’re still fine-tuning the technology.
As to the price, we’re still studying the issue but our best guest right now is that the smaller kilns it will go for between $20 and $50. The larger units will be more expensive, obviously, but they will also provide higher margin products. To keep costs down and avoid local tariffs (which can significantly add to the final cost) we are contemplating local production of the units, so we’ll be looking for local partners.
TCP: How are you financing re:char?
JA: Right now it’s self-financed. We have some angel investing and some grant money, too. The Echoing Green Fellowship has really helped drive attention to our work, so perhaps that will translate into financing down the road, too.
TCP: What about selling carbon offsets?
JA: We think the kilns have the potential to capture and sequester large quantities of CO2, but we’re not basing any of our business model around the sale of carbon credits. However, if it does happen, it will be icing on the cake!
TCP: Switching gears, let’s talk about the biochar. How’s the acceptance of biochar as a valuable sustainable development tool going?
JA: Biochar is a tougher sell in industrialized countries but not in the developing world where there is limited access to modern fertilizers and technology. One reason is that labor is less expensive in developing countries, so the overall cost of producing biochar is cheaper. We’re reaching out to policymakers to talk to educate them about biochar. We’ve been to the World Economic Forum, the UN, and we were in Copenhagen. We’re trying to get more attention from other influential development groups like the Clinton Global Initiative and the Gates Foundation.
[1] Biomass wastes include agricultural wastes, such as corn stalks, straw, sugarcane leavings, bagasse, nutshells, and manure from cattle, poultry, and hogs; forestry residues, such as wood chips, bark, sawdust, timber slash, and mill scrap. Municipal waste, such as waste paper and yard clippings, are also part of the cellulosic biomass waste stream.
A group of Latin American NGOs has called on the World Bank and IDB (InterAmerican Development Bank) to pay greater attention to energy efficiency and Climate Change mitigation and adaptation.
According to a story reported in IPS, a news service that does a great job of covering the Global South, a group of 10 NGOs from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and United States told the regional bank “it should reduce its projects’ contribution to climate change, respect communities’ rights, make accounting more transparent, finance the development of renewable energy sources and phase out fossil-fuel sources and hydroelectric dams.”
The IDB, headed by Colombian Luis Alberto Moreno, opened a first phase of consultations with NGOs from Apr. 26 to May 26, and will begin a second stage, Jul. 30 to Oct. 30, centred on drafting a strategy against climate change. 
IPS quoted Astrid Puentes, co-director of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defence (AIDA, in Spanish), and a signatory of the letter as saying, “access to sustainable energy should be a priority.”
In November and December, the bank — which was created to promote development and reduce poverty in the region — is to receive more comments, and has slated April 2011 for the release of the final climate change plan.
IPS said the NGO’s called on the the IDB “to put the priority on investments in energy efficiency and truly renewable and clean energy, which effectively promote climate change mitigation and adaptation, and discourage those investments that cause serious impacts.” 
“Hey, watch out Robert Zoellick, they’re coming your way, too!”
– Luis Alberto Moreno, President of the IDB.
This time, 13 different NGOs told the World Bank it needed to consider its energy strategy, emphasizing communities’ rights, green energy and transparency in the elaboration, execution and accounting of the projects the bank supports.”
IPS said, “groups from Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and United States want the World Bank to make equitable and sustainable energy a priority, and to take into account the past, present and future effects of its financing on the environment, the climate and the communities.
In a timeline similar to the IDB’s, from February to June, the World Bank collected comments from civil society around the globe, and from July to September it is drafting a strategy, and will conduct more consultations in November and December.
Tranquilo, Luis, I have it under control.
The World Bank plans a public debate of the final document in February-April 2011 amongst its top officials.
The Charcoal Project hopes Mssrs. Zoellick and Moreno will take a personal interest in ensuring that access to energy efficient biomass technologies and sustainable alternative solid fuels for the base of the Latin American pyramid becomes a reality in this decade.
OPINION
Bill Gates last week joined the CEOs of GE, Bank of America, Xerox, Lockheed Martin, and others, in calling on the United States to modernize its energy systems with investments in cleaner, more energy efficient technologies.
With Europe and China eating corporate America’s energy innovation lunch, I, too, would be a worried CEO if I saw my country giving up the lead in the driver of all future global economic growth.
What seemed especially ironic is how the group’s exhortation could easily have come from the top CEOs of companies based in developing countries.
Listen to this:
“As business leaders, we feel that America’s (substitute the Global South, Developing World, or whatever you choose to call it) current energy system is deficient in ways that cause serious harm to our economy, our national security, and our environment. To correct these deficiencies, we must make a serious commitment to modernizing our energy system with cleaner, more efficient technologies.
Of course, the irony here is that industrialized societies and the climate change movement are adamant about not funding more coal fired power plants to meet the energy needs of developing countries. But that’s another story we’ve blogged about before, so let’s not go there now.
Quoting from their manifesto, the CEOs remind us that to “continue with the energy status quo, we will expose ourselves to risks that pose significant threats to our way of life.”
Alas, this is already the state of affairs for those who depend on biomass for their primary energy. The irony of course is that the solutions exist, are inexpensive, and can be rapidly deployed to the great benefit of all, not just the energy poor.
While The Charcoal Project couldn’t be more supportive of this call to arms by America’s top managers, we hope they will also recognize the importance of promoting clean energy and improved fuels for the world’s 3 billion energy poor who are still burning biomass using 10,000 year old technology.
Kim
OPINION
World Energy Consumption: 1989 - 1991
BP, the US Congress, and the White House don’t know this yet, but we think the Macondo gusher in the Gulf of Mexico is going to help put better cookstoves, fuels, and policies in the pots of the world’s 3 billion energy-poor households.
The boldness of the assertion should be clearer after President Obama’s Oval Office address tonight at 8 PM (ET, GMT – 4), where he is expected to announce ambitious plans to reduce American dependence on foreign oil and increased energy efficiency standards.
Environment and policy experts say the US Congress is likely to take up sweeping energy legislation before the year is out. A legislative debate in America around energy efficiency offers the best chance to draw attention to the plight of the world’s energy poor.
So, for all those of us concerned with the 2 million people that die each year from indoor air pollution, the unsustainable harvesting of wood for biomass energy, the loss of habitat for endangered species, and climate change, this may represent our best chance to draw much needed attention to this very real problem and its eminently practical solutions.
Stand of Sequoia Sempervirens in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, California, USA.
As Climate Change negotiations get underway in Bonn, a coalition of green groups has released a report sharply criticizing the United States for its projected use of biomass for electricity generation.
Specifically, the group warns that increased demand for wood for bioenergy is triggering logging and expansions of tree plantations using genetically modified tree species in the United States, Ghana, the Congo, Brazil, and West Papua.
“U.S. plans for large-scale expansion of bioenergy, the promotion of bioachar, and the recent USDA approval of a large-scale release of GE (genetically engineered) trees in the American South, threaten to devastate forests and communities,” says the press release.
The report claims wood is projected to become the main source of renewable energy in the U.S.
“The Senate version of the U.S. climate bill, the American Power Act has alarming provisions that will dramatically increase production of biochar,” explained Rachel Smolker, of Biofuelwatch in the U.S. “The idea that we can heal the climate by burning trees and burying charcoal is unfounded, untested and dangerous. A letter to Congress from 90 top scientists this past week challenged industry claims that burning trees for energy is ‘carbon neutral.”
(Read more)
