[Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Jun 1 15:16:07 CDT 2007
Hi Ron,
Way too cool! You would like to jump in and collaborate on a report like this. Thanks Ron, I'd really enjoy your help and advice. I think others in the group here would still give us any more information of this type and we could compile it in a report of sorts.
I'd like to start out with an outline of the report, presented here first, so we can can a better idea of what kind of information we are at all interested in. We can add, delete, or modify it, with input from the group, before we compile the report. I don't have a draft this outline entirely as yet, but I will put some semblance of one together. When I finish writing one, I'll send it to you, Ron. After your review, we can post it here, for comments from the group.
There are a lot of things going on in published papers I have read. Sources, bibliography, analysis, possible new research, editing, and etc. I try hard at writing, but I am not doing all of the things required for research quality writing. Postings are one thing, but I would like this report to have a lot more documentation and analysis behind it. I don't know how long to make it or hold long it might take to write it, but I suppose that depends somewhat on what we want the report to cover.
Change of subject:
You say,
"4. The area I have found most confusing and I have not seen in your summary so far relates to the multiplier that we should place on added future biomass growth due to charcoal sequestration.".
I just recently have been thinking more about that, too, since I have written it into some statements here. In the paper I quoted, I think it said 132 Gt of new growth and 120+ Gt of decomposition. I'm thinking these numbers are very close, on the scale of things. In fact, I'd bet these numbers are more likely to be darn near equal. The basic amounts of land and ocean and plants has not grown or shrunk much in eons. These two are in balance. I say this, because the Earth's natural environment is very mature, and it's likely to have achieved some sort of stabile equalization of inputs/outputs by now.
With that in mind, I then thought, well the 6 Gt of new/old carbon we are pumping up into the atmosphere is NOT making more plants grow and uptake more CO2?! Where does the carbon naturally go in the sustained environment? It came from buried in the ground. It's got to go back, because it's no good in the atmosphere. The CO2 is going to choke the life off of this planet, if we keep putting more and more into the atmosphere.
We need to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere, period! The atmosphere and the natural fauna are beyond saturation with gaseous CO2. The plant growth doesn't seem to uptake the CO2 anymore. It's just getting hotter, too hot in the kitchen (Earth). Maybe not for plants, but probably for people.
Additionally, I read somewhere (I think in a permaculture kind of article) that the classic, very old landform called Savanna is the kind of land that humans have put into cultivation ever since the dawn of agriculture. Savanna WAS ONCE, the most photo-synthetically productive type of terra-form! Now, all agricultural land, that humans built, uses less CO2 than it did before we started.
We dug a BIG damned hole! We threw all the carbon (CO2, CH4) and N2O we could up into the air. We killed off the most productive land we could (for taking CO2 out of the air), where we grow our palsy little crops, that can't yet feed the world or clear the atmosphere of all the choking carbon. Now, too, our stinking pits called agricultural land, are gassing off even more into the atmosphere, with nitrous oxide loss from industrial fertilizer, and methane from animal manure. We till it up and throw it more and more into the atmosphere every day year round.
This Terra Preta thing has an obvious natural balance thing to it. We took carbon from the ground, mining out the fossil fuels (dense carbon). We put it into the air, by burning it. Turn 180 degrees, people! Take carbon from the plants, which have taken it from the air. Put it back into the ground (as dense carbon charcoal into the soil). The plant material taken will have new plant growth come in after it and it will respire more CO2 from the air. When we do this fast enough, the soil (ground), holding the natural carbon again, primarily this time as soil organic carbon, and some excess more pure carbon (kind of like charcoal replaces the old coal or oil carbon in the ground), will again begin to thrive. The plants and animals living in and on that soil will have less CO2 and heat in the atmosphere to deal with, The Earth will have its ground (soil?, mine?)-to/from-atmosphere carbon cycle restored once again.
In summary, the realization that I have made is that we won't get carbon out of the atmosphere, or get the plants to take carbon out of the atmosphere, until we get some of the carbon out of the plants and put it back into the ground. Does this make any sense to anyone else?
More on this later. I gotta take a breather.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Christoph Steiner<mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle
Sean -
1. Thanks for taking the lead on this. In response to your request below, I'd like to work on this data summary exercise with you (including the subject of rationales that should enter the economic calculations).
2. I haven't found anything wrong with any of your numbers - but have seen some that differ a tad. I think it will be helpful to show most everyone's numbers, if we can.
3. As an example, Tom Miles has quoted the "official" US future cellulosic biomass availability of about 1 GT/yr. I have read (actually closer to skimming that full report), and believe that number was pretty conservative. The idea of terra preta is nowhere in that document - so they are avoiding counting many residues, which if going to TP would improve the soil they are (justifuably) trying to protect. I believe energy plantations are largely excluded, and the forestry contribution seems (intuitively) low-balled. I wouldn't be surprised if we could double or triple the 1 GT annual biomass availability figure for the US. I am sure we can find other experts who will dispute the US availability statistic. We must if we are to get close to the Lehmann upper value of 9+ GT/yr of "wedge" C-offset.
4. The area I have found most confusing and I have not seen in your summary so far relates to the multiplier that we should place on added future biomass growth due to charcoal sequestration. In one of Johannes Lehmann's papers (details from me coming later), he attributes a multiplier of three to eleven to work by his collaborator at Cornell: John Gaunt. I talked to John at the IAI conference - and believe the result to be likely credible - but no details on the methodology used have yet appeared. This is a huge factor, with probably the greatest present level of uncertainty. But the TP in Brazil tells me that over thousands of years that a factor of 11 is on the low side.
5. I like what you have said recently about NOx emissions - and can report this was a bombshell announcement in Australia - enough (without CO2 ever being discussed) to justify TP. We saw several examples in Australia of sensors to detect NOx and CO2 emissions reductions after charcoal sequestration - so I think you data base has to get into this area as well (as I think you indicated).
6. I will make a better effort at re-reading your nice start - but don't recall enough emphasis on the employment topic. I believe this can be a huge impact in selling the TP area in political circles - as demonstrated by the way Bill Clinton justifies RE emphasis. So data on employment and income may be needed and useful. This result will vary by country a lot - so we are talking about a world-wide data base in many ways. (It is pretty hard even to find the current price of charcoal anywhere in any part of the production-sales chain.)
Again - thanks for volunteering to take on this hard task - and I look forward to working with you on it. Ron
(ps - I'll bet Tom Miles has a preferred way of posting and updating this data set that we need to keep in mind. Tom?)
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Christoph Steiner<mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle
Hi Christoph and All,
Those are super additions to the list of ideas about "positive feedbacks" (virtuous circles) for the use of charcoal amendments into soil! Thank you.
Now I want to right a paper on this. I start a list (with proven ideas and yet to be proved). Anybody else want to add any ideas here. I'll post the list as it grows.
Can anyone do this kind of research to meat out any of these proposed ideas?
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Christoph Steiner<mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de>
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle
Sean K. Barry,
Thank you for this good synopsis of possible feedback loops. I would like
to add a few more:
The farmer’s the income could multiply from increased crop
production, reduced fertilizer use, carbon credits and most important
renewable energy production. Some rural communities might get electric
energy and/or fuel for their machines. As we know farmers abandon their
lands everywhere, because they can not compete with the agro-industry and
look for a better future in the cities. If the biochar cycle provides new
income for farmers local food production could be maintained, thus
reducing transportation and fossil energy consumption.
For several reasons we assume that soil charcoal amendments could enhance
natural carbon sequestration in the soils. This is not only increased
biomass production but charcoal might be able to increase aggregate
formation and aggregate stability. In addition carbs could be sequestered
in the charcoal's micro-pores. These pores are big enough to enable
dissolved organic matter to enter but exclude decomposers.
There might be more to add but we need research to prove these assumptions.
Best,
Christoph
Am Do, 31.05.2007, 19:22, schrieb terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org>:
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
>
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
> 1. Re: Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle (Sean K. Barry)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:23:04 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
> To: <still.thinking at computare.org<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>>, <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>,
> "'joe ferguson'" <jferguson at nc.rr.com<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>>
> Message-ID: <AABDF77UAAGMEQW2 at smtp03.nyc.untd.com<mailto:AABDF77UAAGMEQW2 at smtp03.nyc.untd.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> 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<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>>
> To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> ;
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>> ;
> 'joe ferguson'<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com<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/public<http://www.computare.org/publications.htm%3Chttp://www.computare.org/public>
> ations.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<htt<http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=839324<htt>
> p://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>
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
> Sent: May 30, 2007 11:01 PM
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com%3Cmailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: joe ferguson<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com<mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>>
>
>
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto: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<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<h<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/%3Ch>
> ttp://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070531/af0751df/at
> tachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/>
>
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 200
> ******************************************
>
>
_______________________________________________
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/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/d684454c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list