[Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta

[adkarve]

We are told that the mineral oil would start declining in the next 20 years. Food and energy are two pillars that support our civilization. Up till now, farmers were producing only food, but now they have to produce energy too. According to the science establishment, one needs chemical fertilizers for producing anything on the farm. Chemical fertilizer industry currently uses 1.2% of all the fossil fuels that are used in the world. Add to this the cost of transporting the fertilizer from the factory to the farm. This means that the production and distribution of chemical fertilizers will be adversely affected if there is no petroleum. From this point of view, using relatively small quantity of high calorie, non-composted biomass as a source of energy for the soil micro-organisms and applying charcoal to the soil to offer a place for the soil microbes to inhabit, appears to be a highly attractive way of farming. 
Yours
A.D.Karve
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Cowan 
  To: terra preta list 
  Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta


  Thanks for your explanation, Sean.
  I think that we all agreed that there are huge hidden subsides of all sorts for petrochemical use. I guess what I should have said more correctly is that it is a false economy rather than misspeaking about a subsidy with carbon credits. I don't see how a threat of a fine, fee or tax makes for a real economy in carbon credits. Trading pieces of paper or bytes? Who's paying for enforcement and based on what genuine criteria? 

  The entities that became rich and hence powerful by creating and supplying the petrochemical economy influenced the politics and direction of the US and a large part of the rest of the world. This has been 100 years or more in the making. There are huge infrastructure investments. The daily profits are substantial. I find it hard to believe that simply passing laws is the arrow that is going to take this behemoth down. To say that it is a cancer would not be incorrect. I would further say that is has metastasized - that is, a huge systemic problem that cannot simply be disengaged from without serious disruption in all sorts of areas. I am not try to be discouraging merely realistic about the extent of the broader issue beyond TP.

  John


  Sean K. Barry wrote: 
    Hi John,

    When you consider that the bulk of biomass is hydrocarbons, then increased plant growth (biomass growth) equates to increased CO2 uptake.  Plants do not get carbon from any source but the atmosphere (inspired CO2).

    Using fossil fuel as the standard for lowest cost energy source today (it is, ask an oil company executive , or a coal mine operator), then there is an obvious cost for BTUs/kwH/horsepower of energy (like $2.55/gall for gasoline @ ~125,000 BTU).  The cost to bring this @$2.55 gallon of gasoline includes raw material (petroleum crude), transportation (oil tanker shipping, tanker truck), production (refining crude into gasoline), distribution (gas station marketing), credit management (your gas station credit card), and greed (ENRON).  It does not directly include costs like security (the war Dubyah started in Iraq and the consequent taxes your grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for that), hurricane Katrina (ferocity and frequency caused by global warming, not to mention is effects on the costs of operating the USA's largest and nearly only petroleum refining sites in the world), third world drought, famine, and starvation, which the first world feels compelled to pay for (and well they should, since it is our activities which effect world climate and are in part causing it), and etc (the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of our current energy economy).  I'll stop the diatribe.  The point is, the price paid for using carbon emitting fossil fuels does not even begin to accommodate the true cost of using them.

    This is recognized by many who do not have a direct financial stake in selling fossil fuels.  It is ignored by those who do.  What the Kyoto Protocol tried to do, and is doing in other parts of the world, is cap the level emissions of carbon to the atmosphere by enacting legislation which would impose a fine, or a fee, or a tax, on economic entities which produced net positive carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.  Also enacted, these carbon polluters could trade for carbon credits (offsetting their CO2 emissions fees) with entities which could show a net carbon negative system, a sink.  These are not government subsides, these are not taxes on populations.  These were fees and credits transacted between entities which either produce CO2 emissions or sink carbon.

    Too be sure, these would represent immediate costs to entities who produce CO2 emissions and who could not find credits for the sinking of carbon by others.  Too be sure, if CO2 polluters had to sink enough carbon to equate with their own emissions, they would endure costs.  Greed caused powerful business interests from big CO2 polluters (oil, coal, and automotive industries) to run their screaming US congressional lobbyists to Washington DC, to scare the bejezzus out the the US congress by telling them that "Well, we will JUST HAVE to pass these costs on to the American public."  "Your constituents will blame you for doing this to them and not re-elect you!"

    But, in places like Australia, where they did sign on to the Kyoto protocol, "carbon cap and trade" is big business now.  In 2005, carbon trading was a $100 BILLION business just that year.  By 2012, it is estimated to be $500 billion, in Australia alone.  That does not represent government subsidy in any way shape or form.  It is potentially huge government revenue (business income taxes).  It represent enormous new business growth (carbon sequestration businesses selling credits).

    It is currently very easy to take local agricultural waste (free raw material, no transportation, no very high tech refineries) and turn it into economically produced locally usable energy (electricity).  It is also entirely doable to make biomass into liquid transportation fuels (ethanol and synthetic diesel are already being made from biomass).  Additionally, all of this can be cone with biomass and at the same time, carbon can be removed from the atmosphere and put into a very long term sink (charcoal in soil).  Doing this can increase plant growth in those soils, and consequently increase CO2 uptake by those fields.  Doing this can make soils which require less or even NO application of industrial chemical fertilizer (the production of fertilizer, incidentally, is the second largest user of fossil fuels in the USA, after transportation).

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

    SKB

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: John Cowan 
      To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:08 PM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta


      Hi Sean,

      I don't understand your line of questioning. How would I measure the carbon dioxide uptake? In some kind of artificial lab chamber? In the open environment it would be very difficult to measure. You could do a dry weight measure of the whole plant but what about exudates to the soil and microbes [10-50% of photosynthate]. Have you measured the CO2 uptake?

      I have read a large portion of the hard and web-based literature on terra preta and the use of charcoal in the soil. Your biomass production scheme is pretty standard fare for biomass energy production/carbon sequestration. If you can figure out a way to make it economically work that would be great. Onsite electric generation might by one way. Personally, I like bamboo as a biomass crop but it depends on various circumstances.

      I do have to question the concept of government payments for carbon credits. Subsidies do not represent a true economy. The fact that payments are made does not reflect that this is indeed solving or going to solve the world climate crisis. Positive alternatives do not necessarily lead to change. Think about the medical field. The driving force is not the positive alternatives that are out there but instead it is the system already in place that has its own economic interest and paradigm. Thats not to say that change won't happen just probably not in a nice linear fashion.

      John Cowan


      Sean K. Barry wrote: 
        Hi John Cowan,

        Welcome to our discussions.  Have you ever attempted to measure the effect on carbon dioxide uptake there is by plants that show increased growth, due to enhancement of the soil under them with even a small amount of charcoal (say 5% in the top 15cm)?
        What if charcoal was put into soil that was used to grow and energy crop, like Salix (fast growing willow), or sugar cane, or switch grass?  Those crops could be harvested annually, or coppiced every three years (Salix), the biomass used to produce carbon neutral fuels (like ethanol, methanol, or synthetic diesel) and/or carbon neutral electric power.

        If only part of the biomass energy was used for fuel and the rest left in charcoal, then that charcoal could be used to make another field of an energy crop grow faster and bigger, increasing it's uptake of atmospheric CO2 and its yield of energy.  It would also make the energy originally harvested for use into CARBON NEGATIVE energy.

        There are areas of the planet, countries and governments even, who have pulled their heads out of their donkey's and they have enacted a "carbon cap and trade system" to provide an economic incentive to reduce CO2 emissions.  I believe that charcoal production from biomass and the consequent gains in biomass yield (CO2 uptake), along with a worldwide market for carbon trading, can change our worldwide energy economy over to one which is carbon negative.  In the current state of the world, I believe there are better economic incentives in harvesting carbon negative energy, than there are in harvesting carbon neutral energy.  Charcoal in soil will enhance the productivity of both.

        Regards,

        Sean K. Barry
        Principal Engineer/Owner
        Troposphere Energy, LLC
        11170 142nd St. N.
        Stillwater, MN 55082
        (651) 351-0711 (Home/Fax)
        (651) 285-0904 (Cell)
        sean.barry at juno.com
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: John Cowan 
          To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 
          Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:40 PM
          Subject: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta


          After monitoring this group for a month, I am both encouraged and 
          disheartened by the messages submitted by others.

          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.

          After years of doing my own organic growing research, I would say that 
          from my experiments done last year that the use of charcoal in specific 
          ways can be a very powerful tool for improving the physical, chemical, 
          colloidal properties of the soil.and microbiological ecology.

          One of the big reasons that charcoal is so beneficial to worn out 
          tropical soils is that the colloidal nature of the soil is changed so 
          that it can hold on to cations in a way similar to most temperate soils. 
          Check out mellitic acid and its variants. Google for "Soil: Our 
          Interface with the Environment" by Bruce Johnson. This explains the CEC 
          transformation.

          The most important issue about improving the soil for plant growth is 
          the microbiology. Charcoal provides all sorts of factors favorable to 
          beneficial microbes. Everyone needs to know about mycorrhizia and the 
          exudates they produce. Also about the nitrogen fixers like rhizobia, 
          azosprillium and azotobacter who need excellent soil structure to 
          perform. Think about the living process of granule formation and crumb 
          structure. These are the true marks of progress to a healthy soil.

          This leads me to the crazy notions about adjusting soil pH like we are 
          adjusting the air/fuel mixture on a carburetor. Applying large amounts 
          of sulfur, chemical nitrogen or various limes to move the pH down or up 
          has many problems - nutrient imbalances, microbe die out, toxicity to 
          name a few. Yes, it is espoused by ag and hort experts as important and 
          pragmatic. Consider the source and what other sterling advise they give out.

          The biggest problem with charcoal is how to make it efficiently on a 
          small scale with local materials. I don't have any good answers yet. 
          Some of the work in India looks good but requires lots of time to manage 
          the process. Like Sean said high tech retorts aren't cheap. Plus you 
          have to be in an area where such a process is legal to do.

          So far I have used Cowboy lump charcoal ground to a powder, more or 
          less, with an old meat grinder and/or an electric coffee mill. Don't 
          laugh. It works for a few pounds. I have cultured the charcoal with my 
          own high quality worm castings, about 50/50, plus a small amount [3-5% 
          vol.] of soluble fish powder [or krill meal] plus a little rock 
          phosphate. I've use a very small amount [ maybe a couple of heaping 
          TBS.] of this on problem plants in pots or as a test on a few plants in 
          the veggie garden with positive results that were very obvious. And, 
          yes, I've used these materials separately without these results. It is 
          not a raw nutrient effect. This was all surface applied and watered in.

          I've also played around with potting soil tests and found the charcoal 
          to be too much at 5-10% compared to controls. A coarser charcoal might 
          be different but seems a waste [expensive] unless you have lots of 
          charcoal at hand. For potting soil there are lots of other granular 
          materials to increase porosity.

          Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by pressure 
          cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal but has 
          some new issues to overcome.
          http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html

          If anything I have said is worth discussing publicly or privately, 
          please have at it.

          John Cowan

          _______________________________________________
          Terrapreta mailing list
          Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
          http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/


      _______________________________________________
      Terrapreta mailing list
      Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20070421/02630c8b/attachment-0001.html