[Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle

[lou gold]

On 6/1/07, lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Sean,
>
> I'd like to jump in here.
>
> My old political science professor taught me (a long, long time ago) that
> power
> doesn't corrupt nearly as much as the fear of losing it does.
>
> Of course you are correct in noting that the "developed folks" fear that
> they will have to pay and thus both the US and Australia reject "cap and
> trade" notions. That's the zero sum game scenario -- what is "gained" by one
> is "lost" by another.
>
> BUT, couldn't the bio-char approach say that it's a win-win, that everyone
> can go carbon negative and and be paid for doing so -- the Chinese peasant
> farmer and the Iowa agri-mogul. It's a system of competition with profit
> (greed) geared toward healing the earth and increasing her productivity.
>
> Just a thought....
>
> lou
>
> On 6/1/07, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Duane and All,
> >
> > I don't think humanity needs to feel guilty either (that is just more
> > poopey diapers).  Humanity needs to make active observations and
> > transformation itself into behaving more harmoniously with Mother Nature.
> >
> > The troubling part, which grate's against, mostly the conservative,
> > western, right political, wealthy people, and societies, is bearing the COST
> > of the transformation.  It's going to lay squarely on their heads.  Their
> > burden is to clean up the mess their civilizations have made of the world.
> > It's not guilt that we need to fight to ignore, it's "the greed" that we
> > have to fight to quell.
> >
> > Why do you think the United States and Australia did not sign and ratify
> > the Kyoto Protocol?  It calls out specifically for the developed Annex 1
> > countries to bear the cost of the Global Climate Remediation.  I think the
> > greedy bastards in this country saw that and tucked theirs back in.  No way
> > are they willing to share their capital or allow any other part of the world
> > (Non-Annex 1 countries) to earn from working out a correction for the world
> > climate, and so as to require them to pay the earnings.
> >
> > Power and Greed corrupt absolutely, not guilt, nor poverty.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I'm trying in my indefatigable way, to stay on point.  I'm
> > trying to work out a justification for use of "Neo Terra Preta" forming.  I
> > want to show (to this group and possibly others) that I think using "Neo
> > Terra Preta" forming is a scientifically feasible and workable plan to
> > mitigate the anthropogenic ill effects on global climate.  I want the plan
> > to be harmonious with what is observable natural phenomena.  I want it to be
> > economically feasible.  I want it to fit in with the best and only Global
> > Climate change treaty that we now have, "The Kyoto Protocol".
> >
> > I write my ideas on the subject here, posted to the entire Terra Preta
> > group, because you are my best audience.  You give me the best feedback.  I
> > read most of what goes through this blog.  I take comments from all of you.
> > Sometimes I argue or discuss them.  Sometimes I see something someone else
> > has posted, I go off and so some research on it, and I come back having
> > learned something from it.  That usually gets posted in here too.  Thank you
> > all for the rapport we have in here.  I find it tremendously valuable.  I
> > hope I'm not boring anyone to tears in here, but what should I do, if I find
> > it valuable to continue?
> >
> >
> > SKB
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> > *To:* 'Sean K. Barry' <sean.barry at juno.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> >
> > *Sent:* Friday, June 01, 2007 4:16 PM
> > *Subject:* RE: Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
> >
> >  Sean,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd started this response to your question last night. In the meantime
> > I've risen to take the bait you dangled on some more questions. Please let
> > me finish before another question comes.
> >
> >
> >
> > We are part of Mother Nature so we are not really meddling. There were
> > huge changes in climate and environmental conditions before humans came on
> > the scene, let alone developed the collective power to noticeably change the
> > earth's appearance and the environment. Maybe humans are Mother Nature's
> > experimental development project? It seems she has had many. Apparently some
> > didn't work out in the very long run.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't carry any guilt at all for our use of fossil fuels. They have
> > been very good to us overall. Engineers have done a tremendous job of
> > increasing efficiency of its use and as result many have benefited. We have
> > identified problems with fossil fuel use and problems with "wastes" from
> > other energy sources too. We can see ways to turn those wastes into
> > resources so let's stop worrying and get on with it.  I 'm pretty sure we
> > can adapt our overall behavior as you suggest - and I don't mean that we
> > should drastically cut our use of energy. I find it more likely we will need
> > more if we are to adapt to climate changes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made another interesting comments about
> > guilt in Toronto yesterday. A partial quote follows.
> >
> >
> >
> > "My point is that the environmental movement needs this kind of active
> > optimism, not just doom and gloom. For too long the environmental movement
> > has been powered by guilt."  .. ...   I don't think that any movement has
> > ever made much progress based on guilt. Guilt is passive, guilt is
> > inhibiting and guilt is defensive. That approach just doesn't work."
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the Governor makes some excellent points. He may be biting off a
> > little more than he can chew but his enthusiasm is engaging. I suspect he
> > would be quite enthusiastic about Terra Preta. His full talk is available
> > from the Financial Post, and I suppose there is little doubt he has been
> > polishing it for quite a while at home.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=da231777-358a-4e08-9e9f-27d83b3bb49c
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway, you and I are using an awful lot of bandwidth on this discussion
> > of man's place - or not - in nature. This site is really intended for people
> > getting their hands dirty - probably literally very dirty in some cases -
> > learning how to make charcoal in an environmentally friendly manner and to
> > test their ideas on how it might play a role in building and enriching soil.
> > I think you are one of those.  I sense our colleagues want to keep on track.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If we have anything more to say on man versus nature I invite you to
> > contact me off list. I doubt I can keep up with your indefatigable keyboard
> > though.
> >
> >
> >
> > Duane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> > *Sent:* May 31, 2007 10:01 PM
> > *To:* still.thinking at computare.org; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > *Subject:* Re: Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Duane and All,
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you think is the best way to deal with a criticism that "We
> > shouldn't meddle with Mother Nature"?
> >
> >
> >
> > My thought is that we already have "meddled" with a balance that Mother
> > Nature had maintained for some time before we started using fossil fuels.
> > It we do not attempt a correction for the imbalance, then I suspect the
> > correction Mother Nature deals (and she has started) will be too harsh (or
> > too slow) for humanity to survive until she is done.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, I say, we make our very best observations about the worlds natural
> > imbalance problems, try to form hypothesis, design and conduct experiments
> > from those hypothesis, develop theories, and make applied corrections "for
> > our past misapplied meddling" by using the theories we can show have we have
> > strong evidence for.  Basically, I suggest we apply the "Scientific Method"
> > and actively make "a human based correction" for "past human behavior".
> >
> >
> >
> > I think, too, that this will mean humankind will need to change human
> > behavior as it relates to obtaining life giving energy from this world and
> > dealing with the wastes of our energy harvesting activities.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > SKB
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:*  Duane Pendergast <still.thinking at computare.org>
> >
> > *To:* 'Sean K. Barry' <sean.barry at juno.com> ;
> > 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 <still.thinking at computare.org>
> >
> > *To:* 'Sean K. Barry' <sean.barry at juno.com> ;
> > terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; 'joe ferguson' <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   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 0.46Gt 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 ferguson <jferguson at nc.rr.com>
> >
> > *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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Lou Gold
>
> My blogs:
> (English) http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> (Portuguese) http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/




-- 
Lou Gold

My blogs:
(English) http://lougold.blogspot.com/
(Portuguese) http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070601/3e1e5a29/attachment-0001.html