[Terrapreta] Durability of charcoal as carbon sink?

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Edward,

Welcome to the group and to this discussion. The summary of your currciculum vitae reads like you probably know more about this stuff than all of us in the group.  It will be very interesting talking to you.  Please stay in touch.

Thanks for the interesting retort to my assumption, 

I said, "I am assuming, by hypothesis, that the "fixed carbon in charcoal" is NOT DECOMPOSED by microbes ................".

You say, "YES FIX CARBON IN CHARCOAL WILL BE DECOMPOSED sooner or later, from nature point of view rapidly, but from human point of view slowly."

So "fixed carbon slowly decays" over time.  That can answer why it seems like carbon stays around a long time in some soils. It just lasts longer in some soils, but decays at different rates on different sites.  Do you think the original "Neo Terra Preta" land reformers may have noticed that?

The ancient Amazonian people were maybe around for ...

"somewhere between 10,000 and a couple of 100s of years, more or less, all depending on the soil condition"

Maybe that's why they continued to make Terra Preta for centuries?  They were seeing it slowly disappear.  So, they threw some more charcoal in to get the effect again, or moved on, to better soil conditions, because the local soil conditions weren't right for making a go of growing crops there.  Look for somewhere where food crops growing well and start throwing charcoal onto it.  Or, if you find a place with some charcoal on it, probably a place where food crops are growing well, then throw some more on top of it.  It will just get better with more time, more charcoal, more wastes, more living there with it (with age, with you and your offspring's family trees).  It's a story like someone with an agrarian lifestyle might live.  

This recycling follows a linear progression through time, when considered within the site-specific context.

That's neat.  I like simple linear relations.  You can make simple series of measurements, lay out a graph and an equation on a spreadsheet, and make predictions with them, build them into programs, and run lots of machines and projects with them.  I'd bet you can predict carbon levels in soil over a long period of time with some accuracy.

New text

The effect of the biochemical degradation of charcoal and soil humic material is measured by a ratio of the total organic carbon to the readily oxidizable carbon in the soil sample.  ... This ratio is  the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio.

Do you measure, test, and/or attempt to adjust it (or all of that) with this "Organic Carbon Ratio (OCR =  "total organic carbon (TOC) : readily oxidizable carbon (ROC)" ?

What is a high value for the TOC:ROC ratio (one which is found on an existing terraform)?
What does that mean to the carbon balance or the soil climate there?  High TOC:ROC is a desert or a mine?

What does a low TOC:ROC ratio mean?  Verdant?  Smelly?  Wet?  Poisonous?  Alive?  Dying? Useful for agriculture?  Land with inertia in terms of carbon decay rates?

The rate of biochemical degradation will vary within the specific physical and environmental contexts of the sample.  An age estimate of the organic carbon is determined through a systems formula that accounts for the biological influences of oxygen, moisture, temperature, carbon concentration, and the soil reactivity. 

This is fascinating news, Edward.  You are saying that carbon in soil can be "aged" in a way other than radioactive carbon dating of some of the carbon.  Do you think this systems formula can be used to accurately and verifiably make determinations about future carbon content in soil?

The UN aegis called the "Climate Executive Board nees to make determination about soil carbon content in the futre.identifying whether a "Certified Emissions Redcution" (CER) project can earn "carbon credits"

New text

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Edward Someus<mailto:edward at terrenum.net> 
  To: Christoph Steiner<mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de> ; Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Durability of charcoal as carbon sink?


        Dear All, 

        I am new member in the TERR PRETA network. 

        INTRODUCTION: My name is Edward Someus, a Swedish environmental engineer. WEB:   www.terrenum.net <http://www.terrenum.net/> My organization is one of the leading carbonization technology international development  and engineering organization, is short COAL & CARBON for clean coal energy and biological available carbons. Past years I had several large EU projects in this subject. Beyond the carbonization thermal treatment an other applied research thematic I work on is carbon/mineral/microorganism/plant interrelations is agricultural soils, where I biologically - plant available mobilize minerals and reformulate organic materials by an innovative solid state fermentation and formulation technology, for which results I have ongoing tests in Italy, Israel, The Netherlands, Germany and Hungary. 

        RE I am assuming, by hypothesis, that the "fixed carbon in charcoal" is NOT DECOMPOSED by microbes ................

        YES FIX CARBON IN CHARCOAL WILL BE DECOMPOSED sooner or later, from nature point of view rapidly, but from human point of view slowly. Carbonized organic matter, as charcoal, consists mainly of elemental carbon and inorganic compounds, and is generally thought to be immune to short term biochemical decay and natural recycling. While some forms of organic carbon,such as fresh organic matter,are quickly recycled,other more resistant forms,such as charcoal, are recycled at a much slower rate.This recycling follows a linear progression though time when considered within the site-specific context,and includes the factors that influence biochemical degradation of organic carbon. Charcoal once thought to be inert, is biologically recycled at a slow but measurable rate. Therefore, the decomposition rates are (approx. Estimated) somewhere between 10,000 and a couple of 100s of years, more or less, all depending on the soil condition.  However, some geological conditions may conserve carbon for very long time. The effect of the biochemical degradation of charcoal and soil humic material is measured by a ratio of the total organic carbon to the readily oxidizable carbon in the soil sample.  In general, as the total amount of organic carbon decreases though time due to recycling, the relative percentage of readily oxidizable carbon increases.  This ratio is  the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio.  The rate of biochemical degradation will vary within the specific physical and environmental contexts of the sample.  An age estimate of the organic carbon is determined through a systems formula that accounts for the biological influences of oxygen, moisture, temperature, carbon concentration, and the soil reactivity. 





        Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
        Terra Humana Clean Technology Engineering Ltd. 
        (ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certified organization for scientific research, technical development and industrial performance engineering design of agro-biotechnological and pyrolysis methods, apparatus and applications) 

        ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
        TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
        TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
        TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
        WEB:   www.terrenum.net <http://www.terrenum.net/>
        I am assuming, by hypothesis, that the "fixed carbon in charcoal" is NOT DECOMPOSED by microbes (but the VM may be), and that the "fixed carbon" is NOT TAKEN UP in any way by plant roots (plants only get carbon from gaseous CO2 in the air and/or water).  We're not mining it out or letting it wash away from the experiment, either.  So, the soil carbon content and soil organic matter may well or will go up (mostly, and possibly down?), but the "sequestered carbon from charcoal" will stay, and the soil carbon content (weight of soil*%C(soil)) WILL NEVER GO BELOW THE BASELINE "SEQUESTERED CARBON FROM CHARCOAL" LEVEL (weight of charcoal*%C(charcoal)).  Isn't that all we are trying to show?

        Do any external fluxes matter at all, if we are only interested in measuring if the carbon that we put in soil goes away?

        I think if any random "proximate analysis" of the soil/charcoal mixture were made on any date after the "sequestration incept date" and then compared to the baseline measurements, then it can show whether or not the "sequestered carbon from charcoal" is reslient over time.  No other measurements would be needed.

        The results will show the hypothesis is met

            (weight of mixture*C%(mixture post)) / (weight of charcoal*C%(charcoal)) always > 1.0 ?

        Or, they will show it isn't met.

        Do you think this will work?  Did I miss something?

        Duane, do you think a successful, continuous, long term experiment like this, which would validate this hypothesis, will suffice for
        proof that "sequestered carbon from charcoal" stays in the soil for a very long period of time.

        There is another argument to lend support to this hypothesis, which can be made, I think too;  Since soil carbon content is significantly greater in the original 2500-6000 year old Terra Preta than in the surrounding native soils, then the "carbon in the form of charcoal, which was added to the soil" by the ancient Amazonians is all still mostly there.  We can see it. 
        We can see it in the Terra Preta soil (which has the high carbon%) and we don't see it in the control (native soils right next to it with low C%).  There is carbon from the charcoal along with probably a whole lot more in the enhanced soil organic matter in the Terra Preta soil.  If you could take all of the "carbon from charcoal" out of the original Terra Preta, then it may still have more carbon in the soil organic matter left, than the native soils do.  Bottom line is, no matter how you cut it, there is still as much carbon in the original Terra Preta as was in all of the charcoal that was put into it, and then some more from later growth by soil microorganisms.  This growth in soil organic matter didn't happen in the native soils.  It begins to look fairly obvious; putting carbon from charcoal in soil isn't going to make carbon decay out of the soil, its going to make the soil hold even more carbon.  The carbon is just a stable catalyst, not a reactant or a product in the phenomenon.

        I say those seeking earnings from "carbon credits" can say,

        "Pay me only for what carbon I put in the soil now and I can promise that soil will hold even more carbon in the future.  That's gratis."

        They could become a very rich person selling a deal like that.  Don't you think?

        It's proven!  Q.E.D.  Let's get the CDM Executive Board to see this and change the rules now.  Chop! Chop!



        Regards,

        SKB
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Christoph Steiner<mailto:Christoph.Steiner at uni-bayreuth.de> 
        To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
        Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:53 AM
        Subject: Re: Durability of charcoal as carbon sink?


        Dear Sean,

        I got more than 50 answers to my latest post, therefore I need to be
        short. Do you intend to measure CO2 fluxes? If so you need to consider
        that you have quite a big external impact. Soil and charcoal came from
        external sources. Maybe it would be possible to plant in inorganic
        substrate (like it is done in hydroponics). The only organic carbon source
        is the charcoal. This might make it easier to distinguish between the
        different carbon sources.

        Best,
        Christoph


        > Of course those designing an accounting system will want proof that
        > charcoal does keep the sink out of the atmosphere with no significant
        > return through decay or conversion back to greenhouse gases in any way in
        > a time period for which the future value remains significant.
        >
        >
        > Duane
        >
        >
        >
        >



       
               
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070603/0972816e/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070603/0972816e/attachment-0001.jpe