[Terrapreta] Response to Dr.A.D.Karve

[Christoph Steiner]

Dear Dr.A.D.Karve,


I agree that charcoal is a valuable fuel. But I also think that the
charcoal carbon sink is the best long term sink we know. For the following
reasons:
1) How long is the half live time of carbon in trees? Usually trees are
harvested and usually trees are planted on land previously forested.
2) Huge amounts of biomass (forests and crop residues) a currently burned
to get rid of it. This is an enormous waste of energy and carbon. Lehmann
J, Gaunt J and Rondon M (2006) Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems - a review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 11: 403-427
3) The production of charcoal can be coupled with energy production
(www.eprida.com, www.saffe.biz). Saffe is developing cooking stoves where
charcoal remains as byproduct. Biomass gasification results in charcoal
formation if the gasification is not complete.
4) not every charcoal is a valuable source of energy. Rice husks are
charred frequently with the purpose to use it for soil amelioration. Many
other crop residues could be charred instead of burned. Charring instead
of composting is a waste management in Japan. The charcoal is used as soil
amendment. Composting demands too much space.

I do not think that the production of valuable charcoal for the purpose of
soil amelioration is economically feasible. But the combination of
charcoal production with energy production and the use of alternative fuel
biomass which is currently burned, offers opportunities to sequester huge
amounts of CO2, address the problem of soil degradation, can increase the
income of rural households (increased crop production, energy production,
carbon credits)

Best wishes,

Christoph Steiner
Response to Dr.A.D.Karve



Am Fr, 20.04.2007, 09:51, schrieb terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org:
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
> 1. Re: John Cowan's comments (Sean K. Barry)
> 2. Re: Making Soil from Oil (Sean K. Barry)
> 3. Re: Responding to Part 1 (size of activity) of	JohnCowan's
> "thoughts" message of 18 April (Sean K. Barry)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:27:06 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
> To: <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>,	"adkarve"
> <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
> Message-ID: <AABDCS43PAMZSNPJ at smtp02.nyc.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Hi A.D.
>
>
> Why can't it be that a well fed (by sugars in organic material) soil
> microbe population will make more ions of plant nutrients (elements N, P,
> K, Ca, Mg, Fe, etc.) available for uptake by plants (through their
> roots)?  What makes you think that Silicon or any of the other elements
> found in soil minerals and as mere trace elements in plants are what
> microbes are decomposing off of mineral rocks and making available to
> plants? Plants which show increased biomass yield have far greater
> increases in the numbers of atoms of the plants nutrients (N, P, K, Ca,
> Mg, Fe), and molecules of CO2 and H2O, than they have in increases of
> trace elements.  Do you not think so?
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: adkarve<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:41 PM
> Subject: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
>
>
>
> Dear John,
> I am a hundred percent with you. Charcoal is a valuable fuel. A small
> quantity of charcoal added to the soil as an amendment would be
> acceptable, but making charcoal and burying it in the soil just as a
> means of carbon sequestration would not be acceptable. Growing forests is
> a better way of carbon sequestration. Charcoal is highly porous. It is my
> hunch that it not only offers extra surface for microbes to settle on,
> but also a place where they can survive in the dry season. I have also
> aired my view, that the microbes degraded soil minerals because they
> needed the mineral ions for their own metabolism. Plants learned the
> trick of feeding the microbes with organic matter, so that their numbers
> increased and they thus made more nutrients available to the plants. Yours
>  Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> Pune, India.
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/bd824649/at
> tachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:46:36 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Making Soil from Oil
> To: <still.thinking at computare.org>, "'adkarve'"
> <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>,	<Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <AABDCS578AEB6ZWA at smtp04.nyc.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Hi Duane,
>
>
> Send your articles to Tom Miles and ask him to post them on the
> terrapreta.bioenergylists.org website.
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>
> To: 'adkarve'<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in> ;
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:58 AM
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Making Soil from Oil
>
>
>
> Dear Dr. Karve,
>
>
>
>
> I'm not quite sure why you suggest that "growing forests is a better way
> of carbon sequestration".  If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really is
> a problem, then we need to seek long term means to manage it. I
> understand that growing forests reach a sort of steady state where little
> if any additional carbon is sequestered. Nature tends to burn forests
> occasionally, probably converting some of the wood to charcoal. The
> regrowth of forests thus establishes a soil sink over generations of
> forests. The terra preta concept seems key to human enhancement of this
> process of growth, regrowth and carbon sequestration over generations of
> humans and forests to build soil and manage atmospheric CO2 content,
> although John Cowan's concerns about grand dreams are fully justified.
>
>
>
> Naturally, humans give high priority to events occurring in their own
> lifetime. Here in Alberta, Canada, the life time of forests is apparently
> similar to that of humans, as fires are fairly frequent. It would seem
> that would provide some additional incentive to investigate the potential
> of the terra preta concept here. Some commentary on my website is
> intended to stir some interest - unsuccessfully so far as I know.
>
>
>
> http://www.computare.org/commentary.htm<http://www.computare.org/commenta
> ry.htm>   - second article "September 26, 2006 - Carbon sinks in northern
> Alberta"
>
>
>
>
> Many are concerned with the potential destruction of land in northern
> Alberta from the development of the oil sand deposits there. Indeed,
> Google shows a massive scar there, and the oil recovery has barely begun.
> It seems there is great potential, with our fast growing forests, to
> undertake a grand terra preta research and development project funded by
> oil companies as a part of their land reclamation initiatives. The terra
> preta concept that we might be able to "make soil from oil" is no where
> more fitting than here.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
> Duane Pendergast
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of adkarve
> Sent: April 18, 2007 6:41 PM
> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
>
>
>
>
> Dear John,
>
>
> I am a hundred percent with you. Charcoal is a valuable fuel. A small
> quantity of charcoal added to the soil as an amendment would be
> acceptable, but making charcoal and burying it in the soil just as a
> means of carbon sequestration would not be acceptable. Growing forests is
> a better way of carbon sequestration. Charcoal is highly porous. It is my
> hunch that it not only offers extra surface for microbes to settle on,
> but also a place where they can survive in the dry season. I have also
> aired my view, that the microbes degraded soil minerals because they
> needed the mineral ions for their own metabolism. Plants learned the
> trick of feeding the microbes with organic matter, so that their numbers
> increased and they thus made more nutrients available to the plants.
>
> Yours
>
>
> Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
>
>
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
>
>
> Pune, India.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/f124f16c/at
> tachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:50:48 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Responding to Part 1 (size of activity) of
> JohnCowan's "thoughts" message of 18 April
> To: "John Cowan" <johncowan at earthlink.net>,
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>,	"Ron Larson"
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> Message-ID: <AABDCS6F4A37E24S at smtp04.nyc.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Rah, Rah, Ron!
>
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: John Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net> ;
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Responding to Part 1 (size of activity) of
> JohnCowan's "thoughts" message of 18 April
>
>
>
> John (cc terrapreta list (assuming you don't mind my including all)):
>
>
> You sent today the following (given in full after this response).  Since
> there are few disagreements apparently between us, I will just list below
> a few additional comments:
>
> Item 2a:  I did not intend to imply TP was ".. THE answer to climate
> change..".  In fact, if we could get up to the level of one "wedge" of
> carbon reduction (about 15%of the total reductions from the no-action
> levels) with TP by 2030, that would be huge.  I doubt any single solution
> (ie wind, solar, other biomass) other than energy efficiency will be more
> than one "wedge".
>
> Item 2b:  I agree that "there are also other drivers".  In  particular
> the #2 driver is CH4 - which (fortunately for our arguments) should also
> go down as more biomass if pyrolyzed rather than allowed to "digest".
>
> Item 3:   Re "...get behind this quickly",  I am very scared that
> "getting behind" isn't happening fast enough.  Still very few people (and
> almost no policy makers) are aware of TP.  What will be the worst outcome
> is allowing the idea to gain credence that the TP idea has no legs
> (before we have the required data, if that is the case).  This is the
> reason for my wanting to keep up the dialog on how big an influence this
> can be for climate improvement purposes.
>
> Your final paragraph:  I agree with you re "....understanding the powers
> that have much invested in things the way they are. I am pessimistic in
> this respect...".   I also am pessimistic - about especially the coal and
> nuclear industries, with declining importance of oil and gas as they pass
> (pretty soon I believe) the peak oil/gas points.  However, I am
> optimistic about the rapidly growing role of the ag lobby - which should
> be strongly on our side.  We have a tough job ahead of us to get a place
> at the table.
>
> Ron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>
> To: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Responding to Part 1 (size of activity) of John Cowan's
> "thoughts" message of 18 April
>
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
> Response embedded below.
>
>
> Ron Larson wrote:
> John:
>
>
> Thanks for a lot of useful ideas in your 18 April message.   I have kept
> my own thoughts, in this message,  just on your part 1 - so we can
> separate out the several valuable new threads you have initiated (and
> this starts also a response to AD Karve, with whom I also disagree).
>
> 1.  You said
>
>
>> First off, Terra Preta is about adding charcoal and other
>> organic-derived nutrients to the soil. The spinoffs of somehow saving the
>> earth from runaway carbon dioxide by dreaming of massive charcoal
>> production and soil incorporation are just a bit unrealistic when you
>> consider the scope of the problem, the complexity and who controls the
>> infrastructure resources of the planet to make such a program possible.
>>
> (ADDED EMPHASIS)
>
>
> 2.  Not sure i have correctly interpreted your term "just a bit
> unrealistic"  - but am assuming you have doubts that we will ever see TP
> as a major international activity.  I am also not certain and can
> appreciate your doubts.  But I believe that major world effort is
> justified to check it out.  So far, I am aware of only 2 US federally -
> supported TP research activities.  I used to work at the US National
> Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) - and can assure you they have some TP
> supporters who have done some good internally-funded work (and none
> on-going at the moment).  I feel the climate concerns are so serious we
> should be talking of thousands of Federally (and corporate) supported TP
> projects (needed ASAP). Yes, I more or less agree. I do think, though,
> that TP is important even if it is not pursued as THE answer to climate
> change. I think that there are also other drivers to global warming that
> have nothing to do with CO2. However, I don't think we should sit on our
> hands waiting to figure out all the details before developing options.
>
>
> 3.  Now on why I think there is a good chance for getting this greatly
> increased funding.  First is that even though the introduction problems
> are at least as difficult you have indicated, I believe that the costs
> and difiiculties of almost every other climate mitigation approach are
> higher (excepting wind and some solar thermal approaches).  We might be
> able to technically justify more coal, shale, tar sands, etc with carbon
> capture and sequestration (CCS) - but I think costs and public concerns
> about safety (CO2 being a deadly gas) will kill that approach - which
> anyway takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere.  Removing CO2 is sometimes
> discussed ( combusting biomass with subsequent CCS using liquid CO2) as a
> negative carbon approach, but I am pretty sure that TP will be a cheaper
> and more publicly-acceptable approach for actual CO2 removal.  My main
> point in this paragraph is that we are seeing huge public opinion changes
> this year on CO2 - and I predict that opinion wil! l soon switch, because
> of increasing perceptions of urgency< in favor of supporting negative
> carbon approaches (and again - I think TP is the clear negative carbon
> leader).
>
> I think that education needs to be tried but most of the time power is
> exerted from the top down. Industries, governments and NGOs need to get
> behind this quickly [not 50 years] for there to be serious impact.
>
> 4.  Fortunately, I think TP also helps solve several serious energy
> supply problems as well as the soil and biomass productivity improvement
> aspects about which we still know so little (but with apparently great
> potential as you  and many others on this list have indicated).  This
> aspect should turn AD Karve into a believer.  More on this in a later
> message.  TP is a net energy gainer - not a loser (because of out-year
> productivity gains).
>
> 5.  Many on this list, like yourself, come to this discussion group from
> the soils side.  I come from the other two sides (that you mention
> above):  charcoal production and climate concerns.  I agree that charcoal
> production on the scale of removing a "wedge" (a gigaton C per year) is a
> formidable task.  But I submit that pyrolysis is easier than gasification
> and maybe about the same as combustion (being lower temperature).  We
> need lots of work on many production scales, but today's pyrolysis
> equipment availability and costs will/can see the same improvements that
> we have recently seen in the wind and PV areas (learning curve slopes of
> .8?) when we (the world - probably led by the Japanese and Germans)
> really get into gear.  Also, a pretty good hunk of the world's energy
> supply already is coming from biomass.  Converting most of this from
> combustion to pyrolysis is not out of the question.  I see no shortage of
> land or labor.  Indeed, the organization 25x25 has (sort ! of) endorsed
> charcoal sequestration - largely for rural economic development reasons.
> Even though the US Department of Energy still is waking up, I am told
> that our Department of Agriculture has this on their radar screen -
> because the Farmer's Union and Farm Bureau both see big advantages to
> farmers of adding energy crops to their portfolios.
>
> 6.  Lastly, just a bit more on my climate thinking.  Today, we are seeing
> carbon offset prices of maybe $10/ton (I think even in the US where there
> is no real market yet).  However, I have seen many projections that we
> will see $100/ton in the relatively near term (and in energy price terms
> this is not a big deal!).  If this or the next US Congress passes
> significant greenhouse gas control legislation,  funding for areas like
> TP will rapidly expand.  Because we have had a stupid US national policy
> of ignoring renewables in favor of nuclear, coil, oil, and gas - the
> tables must soon turn and I predict TP-research will be a big
> beneficiary, because it is carbon negative.  We now know very little
> about how cheaply we can produce charcoal nor how soil-valuable it will
> be (for many years, not one) in the ground.  So I think it is way too
> early to say we are dreaming or that our discussions are "just a bit
> unrealistic".
>
>
> (John -  sorry for taking so much space [I have more in the wings] - but
> think you have raised the most important issue to date on this list;
> here's hoping we will see more thoughts on this topic.)
>
> Ron
> I appreciate you response and willingness to converse. We don't all have
> to have exactly the same perspective to agreed about the bigger picture.
> Part of my issue is with the idea of creating massive change without
> understanding the powers that have much invested in things the way they
> are. I am pessimistic in this respect but if there is opportunity to try
> and change things, we should try.
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/02b4b334/at
> tachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 55
> *****************************************
>
>