[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
Richard Haard
richrd at nas.com
Wed Aug 29 22:46:11 EDT 2007
Hello Adriana
While I respect the high standards you and Best technologies maintain
on not contributing to global warming the relative contribution from
thousands of mound charcoal piles, a technology which has not
changed for a few thousand years, cumulatively, does not match the
methane contributed to the atmosphere by permafrost destruction from
petroleum development in the Prudhoe Bay oil field alone.
I had the privilege of meeting Dr Tim Colette, a scientist with US
geological service who is working on commercialization of methane
hydrates locked in permafrost of the circumpolar north. He made a
study of the actual amount of methane released to the atmosphere by
permafrost destruction by hot oil moving up drill stems through the
frozen ground in the giant Prudhoe Bay, Alaska oil field. His
calculations show that the methane released from this source only,
an oil field perhaps 15 by 20 miles is 23 times the total energy
value of the all oil taken from the field. So for every 100 million
barrels of oil taken from Prudhoe to feed our energy needs in the USA
2.3 billion barrels oil equivalent of methane have been released to
the atmosphere.
We need our hands on experience with charcoal in soil and the
environmental cost of our small scale studies is minute relative to
the real scale of the problem. With global population at full tilt -
6 billion and growing , and near universal demand for economic
growth, with positive feedback global warming mechanisms at play ,
survivalism or primitivism as a study topic at least is a rational
alternative to your approach the industrial - technological fix. As
we finish this fossil fuel feast of the last 100 years and as we
reach our global population limits created by this past 10,000
years of agriculture our numbers will return to our sustainable
level , most likely something less than 1 billion souls.
Our mission needs to be how we might humanely return this earth to
sustainable levels of human habitation.
I do value your insight on this and follow your comments on what to
expect from experimenting with charcoal in soil very closely. I am in
the midst of my first year of a 2 year project at my farm and next
year starting a project in closed canopy conifer forest. You do need
to let us charco-anarchists loose. You never know what we might come
up with.
Best Wishes
Rich Haard
Bellingham, Washington
By the way here is a link to a DVD that has been released recently by
some unaffiliated people in eastern US who foresee our future in a
return to our pre-agricultural roots while bringing with us wisdom
learned in this technological era.
' What a Way to Go' 'Life at the end of empire' Tim Bennett,
director, Sally Erickson, Producer
http://whatawaytogomovie.com/
On Aug 29, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Adriana Downie wrote:
> Jon, so do you not believe that humans are not altering our
> environment and that ‘creation will cope’ with anthropogenic
> emissions and therefore we should all stop worrying about global
> warming? This is how your post reads. If so why are you interested
> in this concept at all??
>
>
>
> Most of the conversation on this list has come from the fear that
> unburnt methane and all the rest of the ‘unnatural’ compounds we
> are emitting are causing detrimental effects and the planet simply
> can’t cope, or rather cope to a degree that ensures our continued
> quality of life.
>
>
>
> I certainly don’t find fault in pre-columbian practices; however a
> lot has happened since then, the industrial revolution for example.
> What was good for them is not necessarily good for us. It is
> irresponsible to continue to knowingly emit unburnt CH4, unless you
> don’t think global warming is of concern of course.
>
>
>
> Adriana.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon C. Frank [mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 7:47 AM
> To: Terrapreta
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
>
>
>
> The big fear over unburnt methane is overdone. If it was so bad
> then the creation of all the original terra preta soil in Latin
> America would have doomed the earth to destruction. Obviously that
> didn't happen--nature coped and we are all here today. Nature
> makes unburnt methane all the time (so do you and I). So what.
> Believe me creation was designed in such a way to cope. This is
> one of those "The sky is falling" fears.
>
>
>
> The creators of terra preta did not have all our advanced chemical
> industry to utilize the gases the way we can now. If we can
> utilize these gases for energy great--lets use the industrial model
> and make charcoal available for soil improvement.
>
>
>
> On the other hand many people, especially in developing countries,
> do not have access to expensive pyrolysis units but still wish to
> improve their soil by making charcoal without capturing the gases.
> This is also great. Lets also encourage the primitive model to
> improve the soil. After all that's what the natives did in Latin
> America with great success.
>
>
>
> In whatever way people can, we should be increasing the carbon
> content of soil. The other aspect that needs to be done at the
> same time is soil remineralization with rock powders. The concept
> is more fully explained at:
>
>
>
> http://www.highbrixgardens.com/restore/remineralization.html
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> http://www.remineralize.org/about/context.html
>
>
>
> When the soil is carbonized with charcoal/biochar and remineralized
> with rock powders the soil biology greatly increases and the amount
> of carbons retained in the soil dramatically increases. In other
> words carbon sequestration significantly enhanced.
>
>
>
> The main goal with making charcoal by either process (industrial or
> primitive) is soil restoration on a large scale. When that happens
> the soil and plants will automatically clean up the air. The best
> response will come from people getting much more nutrition in their
> foods and the increase in health that results from this.
>
>
>
> Jon C. Frank
>
> www.aglabs.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-
> bounces at bioenergylists.org]On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:58 PM
> To: Adriana Downie; Larry Williams
> Cc: Miles Tom
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
>
> Hi Larry,
>
>
>
> Conversion of biomass to charcoal in an "open air" retort,
> depending on conditions of moisture content, pyrolysis temp, and
> air flow, can retain as much as ~63% of the original carbon in the
> feedstock (giving ~25% charcoal on a weight of charcoal/weight of
> of dry feedstock basis). Usually under best practices, more carbon
> can be retained in the charcoal, than is released in the exhaust
> gases.
>
>
>
> The critical problem with the "open air" mound or retort is the
> release of UNBURNED methane (CH4), which can be a relatively small
> part of the producer gas output and contain a relatively small part
> of the original biomass carbon. It not the amount of carbon that
> is the problem, though. It is the methane (CH4) molecules that are
> the problem. The reaction of burning methane is just
>
>
>
> CH4 + 2(O2) => CO2 + 2(H2O)
>
>
>
> One methane molecule is oxidized (burned) with two oxygen molecules
> producing one carbon dioxide molecule, two water molecules, and
> heat. So, when "burned" (or "flared" as it is called), the methane
> (CH4) puts one GHG molecule (the CO2) into the atmosphere.
>
> This CO2 molecule has no more effect on the atmosphere than any of
> the other CO2 molecules that would have been released as part of
> the producer gas "exhaust" output from the pyrolysis reactor.
>
>
>
> Left UNBURNED though, that one methane molecule, has a much more
> potent GHG effect than any single CO2 molecule. Its GHG effect
> ranges from over 100 times more potent in the first 20 years to 30
> some times more potent 100 years later, on average 62 times the
> potent than a CO2 molecule.
>
>
>
> So, its 62 times more important to NOT release the carbon as
> methane (CH4), than it is to prevent the release of carbon as CO2
> molecules. If you retain 60% of the carbon in the charcoal and the
> rest goes into the air as CO2, then you will have taken more CO2
> out of the atmosphere than would be released. The exhaust gas CO2
> would contain only 40% of the original carbon
>
>
>
> Producer gas is roughly 20%-H2, 20%-CO, 10-15%-CO2, 40%-N2, 2-3%-
> CH4, plus some <<1% trace gases. The 40% of the biomass carbon
> which is released in the producer gas, goes into 3 molecules CO,
> CO2, and CH4, in the ratio #CO:#CO2:#CH4 of 20:15:3.
>
> So the methane can contain ~3-4% of the original biomass carbon,
> 40% x (3/(20+15+3)) = 40 x (3/38) = ~3-4%
>
>
>
> 3% x 62 = 186%!, 4% x 62 = 248%
>
>
>
> So, this shows that the detrimental effect of releasing unburned
> methane(CH4) is 3 to 4 times (186%/60% to 248%/60%) the beneficial
> effect of storing all of the charcoal that could possibly be
> produced into the soil. And, it would only reduce to being only
> this bad of a thing to do after 50-75 years!
>
>
>
> The lesson for anyone making a "simple" charcoal retort is to BURN
> the or "Flare Off" the producer gas any way possible.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> SKB
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070829/d771b674/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list