[Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle

[Duane Pendergast]

Sean,

 

A twisted version of this concept is already working against greenhouse gas
management. The incentives to turn food into fuel for cars and trucks are
raising the price of food crops and changing the market. The sad part is
that this alleged solution to carbon dioxide mangement has not been thought
through. It is interesting that the green groups, who once seemed to
enthusiastically support and promote this concept of "renewable" energy,
have belatedly realized it likely will not reduce atmospheric CO2.  It's too
bad all their early loud rhetoric has set our governments off on a wrong
headed path. I guess there will be a short term benefit for farmers, but it
will last? On the bright side, all those ethanol plants could help humanity
drown future regrets (smile).

 

Duane

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: May 31, 2007 11:21 PM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; adkarve
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle

 

Hi AD Karve and All,

 

That is a very interesting comment about "agricultural product yields".  I
would differentiate that from "crop and plant growth yield" that is
increased by adding charcoal to soil. I would also suggest then that
maintaining a leash on the growth of "product yield" and consequent price
depression could still be done.  All farmers would need to do is pyrolyze
the excess crop yield which is over market demand and turn it into charcoal.
That'll fix 'em, huh?  No price slippage on crop products and more charcoal
(with more earned "carbon credits" for that carbon sequestration product).
They would just turn the excess "crop yield" into a different revenue
generating product.  Do you think that would work?

 

Regards,

 

SKB

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

From: adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>  

To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle

 

Increasing the yield per acre of an economically important plant species may
not necessarily mean that the total yield of that commodity in the world
would be increased. Because agriculture is linked to the price of the
concerned commodity, there is a tendency among farmers to reduce the cropped
area  to avoid overproduction and crashing of prices. In fact, the U.S.
Government used to pay farmers money for not planting a part of their field.
There is even a joke about it. A farmer wanted to know from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture the name of the breed of hogs for which he would
get the maximum amount of money by not raising them. 

Yours 

A.D.Karve 

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

From: Sean K. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  Barry 

To: still.thinking at computare.org ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; 'joe
<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>  ferguson' 

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:53 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle

 

Hi Duane and All,

 

Thanks, I will review those papers.  My intent on writing this analysis was
to counter something Joe Ferguson said (no offense intended, Joe),

 

"The scope of the CO2 problem is mind-boggling.  My back-of-the-envelope
calculations show that we couldn't keep up with CO2 released by fossil
fuels even if the product of all cultivated land were sequestered in
some manner as locked-up carbon or CO2."

 

It is interesting, Duane, that you say humans already control 24 Gt of
agricultural biomass.  I wonder how much of that is crop and how much of
that is waste?

 

Another thing I forgot to mention last night, too, was that carbon in soil
has been shown to increase plant growth (yield) for plants grown in that
soil.  So, increasing the area of carbon amended soil at ~ 1 billion acres
per year would presumably increase uptake of CO2 by these higher growth
(yield) plants.  This is another one of those "virtuous" circles (positive
feedback).

 

Altogether, I think there are several "virtuous" circles involved in using
charcoal in soil; CO2 sequestration via charcoal in soil will lead to 1)
more fertile and productive agricultural soils, 2) greater use of a very
clean energy source that can reduce our use of fossil fuels, 3) increased
CO2 uptake by plants, 4) a potential revenue stream for poor rural economies
from increased crop yields and "carbon credits", 5) cleaner water systems,
6) less industrial fertilizer use (means lower use of fossil fuel natural
gas used to make nitrate fertilizers), and etc.  There could be more?!

 

Regards,

 

SKB

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

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

To: 'Sean K. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  Barry' ;
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; 'joe <mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>  ferguson'


Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:43 AM

Subject: Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle

 

Sean

 

That's a very comprehensive paper and I think your calculations are
credible. There is a link to a peer-reviewed paper I wrote in 2006 somewhere
on the terra preta website which I think you will find will also support
your estimates.

 

Perhaps better, although not peer reviewed, is an earlier paper presented to
an American Nuclear Society hosted meeting in 2004. It uses illustrations
and data from the 2001 IPCC Science report to establish the point that
humans already control some 24 billion tonnes of carbon annually through
agricultural activities in comparison with some 6 billion tonnes of carbon
per annum released from fossil fuel burning. My paper also touches on  the
possibility of terra preta development as a means of carbon control. As you
can imagine, the nuclear industry audience may not have appreciated the
concept. The industry tends to see itself just as a near emission free
energy alternative rather than a very bounteous energy source to be
integrated into the energy flows which support life on earth.

 

My 2004 paper is available from my website at;

 

http://www.computare.org/publications.htm   a bit down the page under the
sub-title ; October 2004 - Science and Technology Development to Integrate
Energy Production and Greenhouse Gas Management.  It is extensively linked
to references.

 

The paper is also posted at the link below as a public document without
copyright restrictions. This one, in .pdf format,  loses a few links to
other information

 

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=839324

 

Sincerely,

 

Duane Pendergast

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: May 30, 2007 11:01 PM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; joe ferguson
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Large-scale experiment opportunities

 

Hi Joe and All,

 

I read in a paper written in 2004 for the Encyclopedia of Energy and the
Biomass Energy Research Association  which had an estimate for annual carbon
yield from worldwide terrestrial plant growth.  The numbers presented in
this paper were taken from 2002-2004 data developed by the International
Energy Agency.

 

There is ~53 Gt (billion tons) of carbon fixed into ~132 Gt of terrestrial
biomass every year.  If the average yield from carbonization of biomass were
only 25% on a weight/weight basis carbon/biomass, then it would only require
~27 Gt of biomass to be converted into charcoal to offset the ~6.6 Gt flux
of carbon into the atmosphere from human activity (due mostly to burning of
fossil fuels).  It was interesting to note, too, that 0.46 Gt carbon
equivalent of that ~6.6 Gt is from human respiration of carbon dioxide.

 

So, we need only convert ~20% of annual terrestrial biomass growth into
charcoal each year to neutralize the crbon inputs to the atmosphere from
burning of fossil fuels at current levels.  There is 829 Gt of standing
carbon in terrestrial biomass (27 Gt is only ~3% of that).

 

This computation does not take into account the amount of energy which could
be harvested for use, while pyrolizing/carbonizing 27 Gt of biomass, either.
This could reduce the amount of fossil fuel being used by a substantial
amount.  

 

Currently, only ~10.5% (= ~45.1 EJ, exajoule, 10E18, one quintillion joules)
of all worldwide energy consumption is supplied from biomass sources.  The
average enrgy content in biomass is somewhere around ~19 MJ/kg or ~19 GJ/t,
giga-Joules per metric ton.  So, ~45.1 EJ / 19 GJ/t = ~2.4 Gt.  We already
convert (by complete combustion) 2.4 Gt of biomass into energy (and, again,
this is ~10.5% of all the energy we use).

 

We start by carbonizing 27 Gt of biomass into charcoal, heat, and energetic
gases (H2, CO, CH4).  If we left 60% of the energy in the charcoal, and
harvested only half of the other energy in the heat and gases, then we would
harvest about ~5.4 Gt worth of biomass as energy (100% - 60% = 40%, 40%/2 =
20%, 20% of 27 Gt = ~5.4 Gt).  This would amount to something like 5.4 Gt *
19 GJ/t = ~103 EJ.  That is another 25% of all the energy we consume
worldwide!

 

So, energy harvested from ~27 Gt of biomass, which was being converted to
charcoal, could supply another 25% of our current world consumption of
energy.  This would reduce the use of fossil fuels for the supply of energy
by at least 25%, if not more (we only get a fraction of our worldwide total
energy consumption, a large one albeit, from fossil fuel energy sources).

 

I think my analysis above is fairly correct.  If anyone would like to
discuss any of it, I surely would enjoy the rapport.  The paper I referred
to mostly, I've attached.

 

 

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: joe <mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>  ferguson 

To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:48 PM

Subject: [Terrapreta] Large-scale experiment opportunities

 

Here are some ramblings on the topic.

The recent wildfires in New Jersey (US) and still raging fires in the
southeast US (Georgia and Florida) might serve as good sites to
experiment on the nearby soils to see what an abundant local source of
char would enable.  I visualize some of the large machines that I have
seen at work grinding up storm debris going to work on charred snags and
making hundreds of tons of char chips.  Perhaps the local agriculture
officials and academic researchers could get involved, liberate
necessary funding, and start getting answers to some of these questions.

What level of charring is needed to get an impact?
What level of application of char/unit area?
What depth of mixing into the soil?
What kinds of soil are improved by char treatment?
Is the burned clay a critical element?
What mineral mixture of said clay is required?

I believe that the problem of CO2 accumulation is severe enough to have
every avenue explored that might lead to reducing or even reversing the
trend.  But it's necessary to get started, to obtain real data, and to
have knowledgeable  experts from many disciplines  analyze the data. I
visualize participation by a full gamut of agricultural scientists,
biologists, geologists, mining engineers, economists, etc. (and you name
your own lists.)

The scope of the CO2 problem is mind-boggling.  My back-of-the-envelope
calculations show that we couldn't keep up with CO2 released by fossil
fuels even if the product of all cultivated land were sequestered in
some manner as locked-up carbon or CO2.  But until humanity gets a
handle on economically attractive sources of non-fossil energy, we have
to do the best we can.  And the least we can do is to get started.

Perhaps the carbon credits being discussed would provide a source of
funding to defray some of the investment needed to create some
large-scale demonstration projects.  We have certainly seen how some of
the US energy programs can create some UNeconomic projects, like the
"synfuels" programs that would collapse without tax credits and the
ethanol-from-corn nonsense that can't unequivocally  be shown to break
even on an energy basis.  And speaking of the ethanol programs, at least
those operating the fermentation facilities should be required to
capture the CO2 for sequestering.

Joe Ferguson


_______________________________________________
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/20070601/a500ef60/attachment-0001.html