[Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle

[Ron Larson]

Sean (cc terrapreta list):    See few more comments below (in bold):
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sean K. Barry 
  To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Christoph Steiner ; Ron Larson 
  Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Global Carbon Cycle


  Hi again, Ron

  On #6 ... I can't drop this conversation!

   

  6.  [RWL-original):  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.)

   

  [SKB]:  Well, again from something I've read about "carbon trading"; it pays currently 10$ a ton for sequestered carbon, maybe going to $34/ton.  [RWL2:  Note these prices are for CO2.  Multiply by 44/12 = 3.67 to get prices for carbon.  Other corrections needed for tonnes and for charcoal (not carbon) - but we can talk of  $100/tonne as a realistic future subsidy for sequestered charcoal.]  It was Chicago trading, so I assumed US dollars.  I read also about a type of charcoal making kiln, developed by a UN aegis, for use in rural, developing countries.  With two of these type of kilns, two well trained men could make 23 tons of charcoal per week, with farmer like workdays (8-16 hours).  If they worked 50 weeks or so a year, then they could possibly make 1000 tons of charcoal per year.   [RWL:  I hope you will be able to find and cite that UN kiln recommendation.  Too many simple kilns only vent (not flare) the pyrolysis gases - which I hope this discussion list can agree to oppose.  My strong preference would be to move the biomass to a location where the pyrolysis gases can be put to productive use.  The rural jobs requirements could even go up with that strategy.]

   

  If they make it on the spot, from standing biomass, and leave it on the spot, then the only cost for operation (making sequestered carbon, a.k.a. Terra Preta) would be the capital for the piece of equipment and the salaries of the men running the kiln.  Were they to sell this as charcoal used in carbon sequestration, and receive "carbon credits" for this, then I think they could earn $10,000-$34,000 US dollars per year between the two of them.  I think that plenty good spoof for your average third world country, Joe.  Maybe, huh?  [RWL:  We need to show that the dollars received from the "carbon credits", when coupled with value received for improved soil productivity, will exceed the value for using that same charcoal for residential cooking/barbecuing.  I haven't yet seen an analysis that this will happen with the $100/tonne charcoal subsidy.  But I think we can - and I think your estimates of annual income increase can be achieved.  Can you give a bit more on the 23 tons/week value and the rest of your computation? (Mobility? Diameter and height, etc)   At your 1000 tons per year value and $34,000 per year, we are only talking about $34/ton for charcoal - and I think we can expect a higher value to use that charcoal for its energy content.

      Even though your numbers won't work for the US economy - I believe we will find huge enthusiasm for TP ideas among those (like 25x25) promoting RE for rural America - for jobs and rural economic development reasons.

   

  I've seen the kiln, how it's built, and how it works.  I'm building one.  I estimate that it could be built for some few thousands of dollars, even here.  The design I've seen will last a couple to a few years under use like that (500 tons per year).  It could be made more expensively and last longer and they could be recycled to make new ones.  I'd call it a workable business model for Non-Annex 1 counties signed and ratified under the Kyoto Protocol and "Carbon Trading Scheme" right now.  [RWL:  OK by me if it doesn't simply vent gases - but I'd much rather use those gases.]

   

  I think it is important thing to go to the United Nation's "Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board" and get a reading that "Neo Terra Preta" forming is an accredited "carbon sequestration" methodology and has a right to a collect "carbon credits" as a Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) under an approved "CDM Project".

  This is the best way I can think of, to progress towards making "Neo Terra Preta" forming a really valuable rural employment opportunity.   [RWL:  Agreed.  At the IAI meeting,  I found considerable uncertainty on what is now allowed or prohibited for TP ideas under the existing CDM or JI mechanisms.  If anyone reading this can explain how to assure early UN endorsement of a TP approach, your information will be most welcome.]



  One last point, too.  This analysis really depends on the Annex 1 countries (the net positive CO2 polluters, like the US) on being willing and able to pay $10+/ton for this.  It's not too bad, but it will be a tax.  [RWL:  agreed - but we may finally be (even in the US) beginning to realize we have to get control of CO2 - including its removal from the atmosphere.  But we are digressing from the jobs issue. ]  Ron





  Regards,



  SKB


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Ron Larson 
    To: Sean K. Barry ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Christoph Steiner 
    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 

            <snip lots>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070601/4c0ab105/attachment.html