[Terrapreta] charcoal costs

[Tom Miles]

Sean,

 

Supply and demand will take care of logistics. Production is likely to be
located near the resource. With the advanced transportation infrastructure
in Europe and North America demand can be anywhere. In Latin America, Africa
and Asia production is likely to be more decentralized and closer to the use
because of the lack of roads. 

 

Production in North America is more likely to be determined by who will be
the charcoal producer. My 35 years of experience with wood and crop residues
suggest that it will not be the farmer or logger who produces the charcoal.
It is usually someone from a farm family but who gets most of their income
off the farm, in trucking, production or related activities. That's because
residue handling and processing is a different management activity than
farming. It takes a different mentality and it take a mind that is not
preoccupied with the farm or mill. 

 

If I had a few acres in your area I would be tempted to produce charcoal.
You appear to have cattle and poultry as sources of nutrients. You have some
cropland (800 farms, 96,000 acres) and a little woodland. 3% of the land
(3,000 acres) is in nurseries and greenhouses which produce 60% of the farm
income in the county. A great potential market. Because of the
aforementioned transportation infrastructure you have access to (20+)
millions  of acres of productive cropland to apply your charcoal. So when do
you start production?

 

Tom   

  

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. BArry
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:04 PM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; Jeff Davis
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] charcoal costs

 

Hi Jeff,

 

I agree that charcoal is best made on or very near the point of use.
Shipping biomass and/or product charcoal to/from an industrial size
biomass-to-charcoal processing plant just seems to unnecessarily pay for the
transportation cost.  "Neo Terra Preta" will require biomass from large
areas spread over much of the land and the applied charcoal product will be
put back again, onto large areas of land.  When trying to achieve or bring
down that $200/ton of charcoal price, it will be much more efficient to
eliminate "raw materials and product transpotation costs" from process.
Does anyone else in the group agree with this sense?

 

SKB

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

From: Jeff Davis <mailto:jeff0124 at velocity.net>  

To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] charcoal costs

 

Tony wrote:
>Reasonable enough until I enquired
> about shipping cost.  The shipping added an additional $900.  I wouldn't
> flinch paying the $125, but $900 shipping?

I think shipping, for most things, will be a problem in the future. Lucky
are those who can make it on or near the point of use.


Jeff



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070715/e978312b/attachment.html