[Terrapreta] Making Soil from Oil

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi A.D.

Please do not feel admonished by anyone else's comments in here.  Obviously, you will see things, on the ground there (in India), differently than others who are not there can see.  That's Okay.  Economic considerations are almost ALWAYS at the top when anyone is deciding issues of living.  I wish that were not so, especially among those interests with extraordinary economic wealth.  But, alas, chasing and keeping "the filthy lucre!", is not altruistic, and is common among both rich and poor.  Everybody's gotta eat and gotta live, right?

I believe it is quite clear that global climate change is being effected by human burning of fossil fuels (see the anthropogenic source of CO2 emissions and their consequent effects on global climate change in any reference to the work of the IPCC).  Additionally, it is first world which burns the bulk of all fossil fuels.  But, because third world population and industrialization is growing rapidly, then soon they too will contribute vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels.  Unfortunately, I think that it is the poorest people in this world who will pay the dearest of prices for world wide CO2 pollution.

So, as a world of humans, we ALL need to recognize the problem of using fossil fuels stop trying to get richer by harvesting and using this least expensive form of energy, fossil fuels.  CO2 emissions do not exact a price in the markets that sell fossil fuels.  This is the travesty.  CO2 laden energy resources which create a positive increase in atmospheric carbon should pay the cost that CO2 emissions exact on our world!  They don't now!  The owners and marketers of fossil fuels won't pay!  If they are required to pay, they will very very likely just pass those costs onto the consumers (you know, that filthy lucre thing bobs its head again).

The only reasonable alternative I can see is to create and uses methods to harvest both carbon neutral energy and more importantly CARBON NEGATIVE ENERGY.  World populations are going to wake up to the true costs of using carbon emitting fossil fuel burning to get energy.
Some areas already are (they signed the Kyoto Protocol).  My view is that CARBON NEGATIVE ENERGY will soon be more economically viable than any other form of energy.  Biomass processing, to harvest both energy and charcoal (for use in carbon sequestration in soil, Terra Preta style) is already the greatest possibility for actually achieving CARBON NEGATIVE ENERGY.

BIOMASS processing = cheaper ENERGY + more productive AGRICULTURE soils - atmospheric CARBON.

You're either with'us or agin'us!?  (<- Nah, skip that, sounds too much like Dubyah)

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: adkarve<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Making Soil from Oil


  Dear Ron and others who admonished me,

  It is not that I am opposed to the terra preta methodology. I agree with you that charcoal incorporated into the soil would enhance soil fertility and also act as a carbon sequestering mechanism. I have, in fact, developed and commercialised a process by which agricultural waste can be converted into charcoal. Farmers can earn a substantial income by selling this charcoal. The agronomists advise that organic matter should go back to the soil and that it should not be used as fuel. I have discovered a new method of agriculture, in which, by using non-composted, high calorie organic matter, I need to apply only about 25 kg dry organic matter to the field, once every two months. The rest of the organic matter can be used as fuel. If, as a farmer, I converted my agricultural waste into charcoal, I have the option either to incorporate it into my field or to sell it to urban users as fuel. The path to be chosen would be on economic considerations. If somebody pays me money for incorporating the charcoal into the field, I would not hesitate to do it, because it saves me the hassle of transporting the charcoal to the nearest city and finding customers for it.

  Yours 

  A.D.Karve 

    ----- 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 9:28 PM
    Subject: 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/commentary.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/d791b03a/attachment-0001.html