[Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Jun 1 23:50:52 CDT 2007
Hi Lou,
Nice commentary. I like that. You do tell a good story. I think you are right. Humans need to embrace natural philosophy, and handle "wastes" differently, view them differently, as potential resources, even.
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>
To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
I'm a storyteller, a metaphor guy. So please don't expect the techno-details from me. I don't know them. That's why I'm reading this forum and everything I can find about bio-char on the Internet.
My story is that I retired to live in Brazil after 20 years of being a peripatetic storyteller traveling the US as a voice for saving the remnant old growth forests of the the US. As an environmentalist I was locked pretty much into thinking that human consumption (in numbers and size of appetites) necessarily meant "bad" things for the earth and her critters.
Then I stumbled upon information about Terra Preta and especially the Charles Mann speculations that there may have been high density new world indigenous populations that somehow had developed harmony with their niche basically by cycling their wastes into increased fertility and productivity. That's when the light bulb went off.
Einstein famously noted that that a problem couldn't be solved with the same thinking that created it. Then came that gnarly dilemma of whether light was a particle or a wave which could not be solved within the logic of either/or, the logic of classical physics. Next came quantum thinking (which Einstein didn't like) and it said there's another logic of both/and, light is both a particle and a wave and what you get in an experiment depends on the question that you ask (or how you look at it).
If we see humans and nature as adversaries (either/or) we get a war and conquering nature (and indigenous cultural views) becomes a necessary part of "development." But what if humans and nature are co-creators (both/and) and "harmony" depends not on eliminating waste but knowing what to do with it? Doesn't this suddenly expand the possibilities rather than shrinking them and might this be the path from scarcity to abundance?
Nothing is quite as simple as the storyteller makes it but it does seem to me the either-humans-or-nature view is no longer the full story and that the answer of how to achieve harmony for both-humans-and-nature may be found buried in Terra Preta.
OK, that's my best shot.
lou
On 6/1/07, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> wrote:
Yes, Yes, Yes, Lou! I like your thinking on this. "Neo Terra Preta" is NOT a zero-sum-game. Follow up on this and tell us more on this idea.
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>
To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
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<mailto: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<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 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<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<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>]
Sent: May 31, 2007 10:01 PM
To: still.thinking at computare.org<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto: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<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<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>]
Sent: May 31, 2007 10:23 AM
To: still.thinking at computare.org<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto: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> [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>
----- 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/>
_______________________________________________
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/>
--
Lou Gold
My blogs:
(English) http://lougold.blogspot.com/<http://lougold.blogspot.com/>
(Portuguese) http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/<http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/>
--
Lou Gold
My blogs:
(English) http://lougold.blogspot.com/<http://lougold.blogspot.com/>
(Portuguese) http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/<http://visionshare-pt.blogspot.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070601/fcf2432a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list