[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Jon, Adriana,

We are not operating from fear, when we say anthropogenic causes for global climate change are real and happening.  We are alerting this to the members of this discussion.  It is becoming an established theory, support by a vast consensus of scientists, both global climatologists and many other scientists from many other fields.  We are not on a fear-mongering ruse.

We suggest that this reality of "anthropogenically caused global climate change (including global warming from human emitted GHG)" is a serious consideration and should not be dismissed as a simple un-based fear.  It should be discussed over by scientists and engineers and dealt with, especially as a consideration when making massive amounts of charcoal
to build Terra Preta formations in soil.

I think the soil AND the atmosphere are tightly coupled together, even with the biology, to provide a "total climate" for the growth of living things.  Repairing degraded soils on Earthen landforms via TP formation and even making deserts bloom will not happen, if before this, the global climate change we see occurring now, changes everything and dashes our plans to do this, because we did not consider dealing with what was obvious at the time.  Realize that atmosphere and soil together ARE the climate.  Its not fear issuing this statement, it's a defensive, preventative, conservative, reduction-ist's strategy.  It's a scientific and engineering statement about or understanding of the problem we are ALL trying to help solve.

Nobody is getting jailed for emitting some methane-CH4 while making a little charcoal, either.

I've always considered this GHG problem like urea is to bacterium in a petri dish.  I have faith that the rest of us living others standing around in our petri dish called Earth are going to see our obvious "wastes" and "over-taxing of natural resources" for what they are.  When we all see this together, without fear, then we can clean up after ourselves, before we all die in our own filth, like stupid, little, "faithful", ignorant, bacteria in a petri dish

We could all have faith and be praying to "Sweet-be-Jesus" that we can do this "be alert" and "be prepared" thing.  The world needs more "lerts and preparations", don't you think?

I hope I've not scared anyone?

SKB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com> 
  To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar



    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??


    [Jon C. Frank] 

    Of course people are altering our environment.  I was responding to the general discouragement of using primitive methods of making charcoal.  I do not believe that the production of charcoal in primitive fashion is an environmental concern.  Rather it is part of the solution and should be encouraged along side the encouragement that is to be given to companies like yours to make biochar available for soil restoration.  



    "Worrying about global warming" 

    I don't buy into the hysteria about global warming.  Even if it is actually happening it is not the issue of concern.  The fear of global warming and trying to respond in a direct fashion to it (such as by discouraging primitive methods of making charcoal) is like trying to get 2 horses to push a cart down a busy street.  If you put the horses in front they can pull the cart but it won't happen the other way around.  The main issue is the global degradation of soil.  This is the issue where man has altered the environment with such devastating affects.  Trying to correct atmospheric issues without correcting the underlying causes is like a dog chasing its' tail.

     

    My interest in Terrapreta stems from my interest in soil restoration.  Terrapreta can play an important role in restoring soil.  It is not the only thing needed but it can be a key component.

     

    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. 


    [Jon C. Frank] 

    Fear?  I don't operate under fear.  I suggest faith instead.  Mankind has been given the job of stewarding the earth.  In our greed (especially corporate greed) we have done many abominable things.  Yet we also have the knowledge to really be good stewards of the earth.  This is my goal--good stewardship.  As far as methane goes I would hardly call it "unnatural" such as DDT.  I suspect that even you are "naturally contributing" to the methane buildup in Australia. :)



    You mentioned quality of life.  This is very important.  The biggest impact on quality of life comes from eating foods with high nutrient density.  This is a primary end goal for soil restoration.



    For more information on the nutrient density of foods see:



    Food Quality and Digestion

    http://www.highbrixgardens.com/highbrix/digestion.html<http://www.highbrixgardens.com/highbrix/digestion.html>



    The Quest For Nutrient Density

    http://www.highbrixgardens.com/foods/quest.html<http://www.highbrixgardens.com/foods/quest.html>



    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.

     

    No I don't think global warming is big concern.

     

    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<http://www.highbrixgardens.com/restore/remineralization.html>

     

    and

     

    http://www.remineralize.org/about/context.html<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<http://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://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070830/01e1d832/attachment.html