[Terrapreta] a braoder theory of torrefaction and TP

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Duane,

I'm pretty sure I agree with most of your comments here.  I view the production of charcoal for the purposes of sequestering it in soil (or amending topsoil) as a better method to combat GW, too.  I also have other task to attend to now as well.  It is just that my tasks now are performed on this computer, so I tend to read posts and write some as I go along.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> 
  To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Jim Joyner'<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 
  Cc: 'Terrapreta preta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:03 AM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] a braoder theory of torrefaction and TP


  Sean,



  I'm wondering if it may be necessary to rethink landfill type concepts and move toward direct production of char from such waste products in the long run. Perhaps we need to avoid waste management and other practices which generate excessive methane.  I would be leery of the schemes being discussed on the list right now with respect to simple burial of organic material for similar reasons. I suppose even terra preta production involving a mix of char and organic materials might produce some methane, but I'm not sure how the micro-organisms break the organic material down to ultimate CO2. Perhaps that is another point to ponder.



  Of course there are already landfills in existence and perhaps in the interim, emission reduction credits for them could be allowed.



  To repeat, I'm suggesting that practices such as the burying of organic waste in landfills might need to be phased out in favor of char production. That would be a way of capturing the hydrogen component of organic material and extracting some energy. The only credit allowed would be for the char component. That would move us toward a carbon negative system, rather than carbon neutral that comes from burning or producing methane subsequently burned from waste.

  . 

  The char production - emission reduction credit - approach would avoid providing an incentive to those who might perversely seek to simply continue to harvest more emission reduction credits via the development of processes that create methane for the sake of harvesting emission reduction credits. 



  The establishment of emission reduction credits is a complicated business and I doubt I've made my views perfectly clear, but I do have to go to another task for a while.



  Thanks,



  Duane







  -----Original Message-----
  From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
  Sent: December 11, 2007 8:06 AM
  To: still.thinking at computare.org; 'Jim Joyner'
  Cc: 'Terrapreta preta'
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] a braoder theory of torrefaction and TP



  Hi Duane,



  If you are suggesting that CO2 equivalent emissions reductions credits be paid for burning renewable resource based Methane-CH4, rather than letting it be released into the atmosphere (I think you are), then there really is nothing "perverse" about doing this.  Even though it involves the release of CO2 to the atmosphere, it is far better (25 to 72 time better) to release the carbon in Methane-CH4 to the atmosphere in the form of the combustion products of CO2 and H2O, rather than merely releasing the Methane-CH4.  It would only be fair (not "perverse"?) though, to pay those credits if the Methane-CH4 arose from renewable sources like harvested biomass or urban waste, etc., and not fossil fuel Methane-CH4, natural gas.  Preventing the release of non fossil fuel based Methane-CH4 is a service towards the goal of reducing GHG (CO2 equivalent) concentrations in the atmosphere and I think if could be reasonably argued as a creditable carbon (CO2 equivalent) reduction scheme.



  Regards,



  SKB

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> 

    To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; 'Jim Joyner'<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 

    Cc: 'Terrapreta preta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 

    Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:38 PM

    Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] a braoder theory of torrefaction and TP



    Thanks Sean,



    I would object and already have formally - if CO2 equivalent reduction credits for burning the methane were issued for it. In the developing world of CO2 emission reduction credits, that is already proposed and possibly happening.  It is unlikely credits for charcoal in terra preta will develop as long as such  schemes are place. It is a much more lucrative way to earn credits thanks to the greater efficacy of methane as a greenhouse gas. Being perverse myself, I did write an article to try and explain the nature of some schemes. Here is the introduction and a link to it. Check section 3.3 on Landfill Gas

    May 2006 - Kyoto and Beyond: Development of Sustainable Policy
    Some solutions which are proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will turn out to be ineffective. Some will even counter efforts to reduce emissions by setting up "perverse" incentives which could actually encourage the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This paper<http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Sustainable%20Paper%2006_05.htm>, discussed at greater length in the Fora Input section of this website, provides some examples and argues in favor of solutions that can be sustained over the long term. (DRP 06/09/12)

    Duane 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071211/230d55e6/attachment.html