[Terrapreta] Soil improvemnet (sic) from oil ?
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Jun 1 12:57:43 CDT 2007
Hi Duane and All,
It's kind of a dreamy supposition, I think, that we can continue to burn fossil fuels of any sort (oil, coal, or natural gas) at current or even greater levels, because now we could just use charcoal made from increased biomass to negate all the amount of CO2, NOx, and or SOx going into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.
You say, "Grow plants to capture the carbon dioxide". I say that is already occurring. Why haven't the plants that are growing (on the land and/or in the sea) already taken up the excess carbon dioxide humankind has pumped into the atmosphere? The terrestrial plant growth alone already does take up ~53 Gt of carbon and fixes it into ~132 Gt of new plant growth every year. The oceans do almost as much again. So, what's another 6 Gt of anthropogenic carbon? Well, it doesn't work! The plants are not taking up the excess carbon we pump into the atmosphere. The plant growth (and photosynthetic productivity) has not bloomed up to make up the difference.
In fact, human activity in agriculture is going the other way with photosynthetic productivity of land. Every acre of virgin land that we convert from savanna and put under cultivation, we reduce the amount of CO2 fixing capacity of that land. We till it up (emitting green house gases) and we plow in green house gas emitting fertilizers onto it. We drive green house gas emitting equipment on it and to/from it to till, plant, fertilize, harvest, and ship crop produce from it.
The crops get eaten and respired as CO2 by people and animals (fart CH4 methane too!) and the agricultural wastes get left to decompose on top of the soil until the next growing season (emitting CO2 the whole time).
The pig shit and cow manure gets left in pools and is composted in open air into organic fertilizer (emitting green house gases the whole time).
Industrial agriculture and burning fossil fuels CAN NEVER restore the green house gas balance in the atmosphere. We have to STOP burning fossil fuels. We have to change dramatically the way we do agriculture. We are not going to find "virtuous circles" that involved things the way we are already doing it.
We have to change. We have to observe the natural way of things and get ourselves involved in the natural "positive feedbacks" that are out there, not try to synthesize them from human activity. We just cannot compete with "Mother Nature" on how to operate the natural world and we have got to stop trying.
We need realization about the human place in the natural world, not rationalization that current human activity
can somehow fit the natural way of things. If that were true, then we would not be changing the world climate as we are. We don't "fit in" the way we do things now. That just has to change.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>
To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: Soil improvemnet (sic) from oil ?
Sean!
The suggestion that soil could be made from oil at the Georgia conference was strictly in the context of the terra preta concept. Burn oil. Grow plants to capture the carbon dioxide. Turn some of plant material into char or charcoal, possibly with fertilizer amendments. Enhance, or help create, soil with it. Help nature out a bit. That was it. I thought it was a nice positive slogan for terra preta, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.
Duane
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
Sent: May 31, 2007 11:03 PM
To: still.thinking at computare.org; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: Soil improvemnet (sic) from oil ?
Hi Duane and All,
Soil from oil? Do you mean better soil using the energy obtained from oil? Or do you mean a direct amendment of oil or a petroleum based product put into soil to improve its characteristics?
We already make and use 150 million tons of industrial fertilizer a year worldwide. It is made primarily from natural gas, cracked into hydrogen (H2) from off-gassed copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then ammonia (NH4) is synthesized from nitrogen in air with the hydrogen (H2). The ammonia made this way is the main constituent in all industrially synthesized nitrogen based fertilizers. Some of these fertilizers are pure anhydrous ammonia (NH4 liquid/gas), ammonium nitrate (NH4HNO3) of ANFO explosive fame, ammonium carbonate ((NH4)2HCO3), ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3), and ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2HSO4), ammonium phospate ((NH4)2HPO4), and etc. Also there are many industrially synthesized pesticide and herbicide chemicals that are made directly a petroleum products.
All of the fertilizers are necessarily very water soluble (gas and salts) and many of them give off ammonia gas and nitrous oxide gas (N2O) when dissolved in water (e.g. NH4NO3 -> N2O(gas) + 2H2O(liquid) + heat). These salts dissolve into gases and free ions in water. They pollute water flowing over the fields, leaching free oxidizing (acidic) ions into ground water, streams, rivers, and lakes. They pollute the atmosphere with nitrous oxide and ammonia off gassing.
N2O is a terrible green house gas, with 296 times more potent deleterious global warming effect on the atmosphere than that per mass unit of CO2! This means 150 million tons of NH4NO3 ((14+14+16)/(14+1+1+1+1+14+16+16+16) = 55% NO3 in NH4NO3, weight basis, or 82.5 Mt) would have the same effect on the atmosphere as ~24 billion tons of CO2 (296*0.55*150E6 = 24.4E9)! CO2 contains 12/(12+16+16) = ~27% carbon, so 24 Gt of CO2 is the same as ~6.7 Gt of carbon!
Jesus!? If only half of the nitrous oxide (N2O) in the fertilizers is emitted, then I just proved that the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from the worldwide annual use of industrial fertilizer could potentially be as bad as half the carbon dioxide problem! 150 Mt of industrially produced petroleum based fertilizer is as bad as 3 Gt of carbon emissions.
Our attempts a making soil amendments, actually directly from oil, is, in my opinion, way NOT something we want to continue doing! It is something we maybe better ought to stop as soon as possible.
Again, if anybody wants to review my analysis above and would like to differ, then I would, again, enjoy the rapport.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>
To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
Even our use of fossil fuel may become virtuous again Sean, if we can "make soil from oil" as someone at the 2004 conference in Georgia suggested. To quote Governor Schwarzenegger from his speech to the Toronto Economic Club yesterday, "My view is that humanity is smart, and nature is amazingly regenerative"
I note that humanity is very much a part of nature.
Duane
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
Sent: May 31, 2007 10:23 AM
To: still.thinking at computare.org; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; 'joe ferguson'
Subject: Re: 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. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'joe ferguson'<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>
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<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<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<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: joe ferguson<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070601/290c0e9b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list