[Terrapreta] Terra Preta simply as carbon sequestration

[Sean K. Barry]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
To: Robert Niederman<mailto:rniederman at cegworldwide.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta]http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf


Bob,

I think you are right on point again.  There needs to be a beneficial incentive to sequester carbon by putting charcoal in soil.
If (When!) it improves soil quality or reduces the cost of effective husbandry over the land, in a measurable way, then great!  Farmers will eat that up.  Add to this the possibility that ANYONE (not necessarily just farmers) could receive a CASH benefit in the form of a sold carbon credit in a carbon trading market, if they sequester carbon by putting charcoal into the soil, then there will be an enormous incentive for ANYONE to practice this.  Somewhere out there, one or more of the 6 going to 10 billion of us will see a way that the charcoal can benefit agriculture.  We (the ancient Amazonian people) have already done it.  We also have a penchant for making history repeat itself.  So be it.  Let's grease the skids on this one, because the world needs to be carbon negative much sooner than later.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Niederman<mailto:rniederman at cegworldwide.com> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:38 PM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta]http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf


  Sean,

   

  I agree with you about carbon sequestration.  The real trick is to make the practice of placing carbon into soil sustainable.  People won't practice this for long unless they see some benefit to themselves or others outside the benefit of burying carbon.  If they see that it dramatically increases crop production, this would be a great motivator to continue the practice and make it self sustaining.  Those who do it receive a tangible benefit.  Those who don't do it, don't receive a benefit.  This difference should lead more people toward the practice.  I believe in self interest as a great motivator!

   

  Bob

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
  Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:40 AM
  To: Ron Larson; thomas.beer at clorox.com
  Cc: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; tharaka pilapitiya
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta]http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf

   

  Hi All,

   

  Rhisiart and Tharkara speak to a interesting point on source biomass for charcoal, I think.  Tharkara is wishing to make charcoal from rice husk, because he has a great abundance of it available.  Rhisiart speaks to local sources in his most recent post.

   

  ...

   

  1) That it is made with cheap, simple, techniques that anyone can learn and apply at home, on any patch of ground to which they can have access.

   

  2) That it produces almost miraculously rich, long-persisting fertility in the soil, even starting from pretty barren substrates.

   

  3) And that it sequesters very substantial amounts of  atmospheric carbon, in inert form, into the soil for - as far as anyone can discover - thousands of years, at least.

   

  Long-term, massive atmospheric carbon sequestration AND spectacular soil fertility enhancement are clearly both eminently practical, using nothing more than simple 'peasant' techniques and equipment, whenever we start copying the ancient pioneers of the Terra Preta black soil of the Amazon in our gardening and farming. Potentially, hundreds of millions of practical, small-scale food-growers everywhere could be doing this any time that we want to start.

   

  ...

   

  It seems to me that simple local methods and local raw material biomass sources are an important practical reality, if putting charcoal into the soil is a goal.  The qualities of a soil, once amended with charcoal, may be changed and improved upon with further amendments of natural or industrial fertilizer, compost, microbial inoculants, or even just time to "stew".  The greater value of charcoal in soil today, in 2007, is its potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

   

  The world average temperature is increasing exponentially due to human activity burning fossil fuels, which now releases 6 gigatons of CARBON in the form of CO2 annually and increases the global warming blanket by 6 gigatons of CARBON every year.  With third world expansion in the use of fossil fuels an glbal population expansion, this 6 gigaton number is growing fast.  The whole world needs to do something fast too, and with a big thrust towards going carbon negative activity.

   

  I want to make this very important point yet again ...

  Whether "Terra Preta" can actually improve soil quality or not, it can very effectively sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

  So, as long as the charcoal made and put into agricultural soil does not poison the soil and make it unable to grow crops, then I think it can be used to attempt to make "Terra Preta".  I think putting any charcoal into any non-agricultural soils is just plain obviously a good carbon sequestration practice.  We can call it "UN-MINING" of carbon and it really ought to receive carbon credits in a world-wide carbon trading market.

   

  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: thomas.beer at clorox.com<mailto:thomas.beer at clorox.com> 

    To: Ron Larson<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> 

    Cc: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; tharaka pilapitiya<mailto:tharaka.pilapitiya at gmail.com> 

    Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:01 AM

    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta]http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf

     


    As a guy that has worked with charcoal for many years in Kingsford, I can tell you that different raw materials AND different operating conditions give different characteristics in chars. Hardwood is different than softwood, and even different species (oak, poplar, mesquite, hickory, pine, ash, fir...etc) have different characteristics. We have done work with rice hulls in the past and the characteristics are very different from other chars made from different types of biomass, but this is to be expected. Different biomasses and different operating conditions make different chars. So, it seems that we should be characterizing the properties that we want from the finished char, then working backwards to specify the operating conditions and the species (or mixture of species) that give the characteristics (in the finished char) that you want. 

    It seems that we should start by defining what are the desired finished characteristics of the chars, and put some science to the advocacy. Char is not magic, it is produced like any other chemical reaction... with heat and time and pressure and moisture and reactants. Char can be produced to whatever characteristics that are appropriate, we just have to decide what is the target, then do some science around the effects of the characteristics on crop yields. 

    Thomas Beer
    Manufacturing Technology
    Clorox Services Company
    3900 Kennesaw 75 Parkway, Suite 100
    Kennesaw, GA   30144
    770-426-2419
    770-426-2428- FAX
    770-364-1079- Cell 



          "Ron Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net> 
          Sent by: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org 

          03/27/2007 11:44 AM 
         To
               "tharaka pilapitiya" <tharaka.pilapitiya at gmail.com>, <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
               
                cc
                
               
                Subject
               Re: [Terrapreta]        http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf
               

           

                 
                
               

         




    Tharaka: 
        It was interesting to read the article you provided.  Thanks.  However, I think we still need more proof that rice hull charcoal is better than other types of charcoal - as only one type of charcoal was reported in this article.  I hope you can convince these researchers or others to try various types of charcoal. 
      
        I would be interested in hearing from anyone on whether they believe all the following comments on pages 2 and 3 by the article's authors ring true relative to charcoal advantages re rooting (and an extension to non-rooting situations).  Or are there other different explanations? 
      
          The higher number of visible roots and longer roots 

    of the cuttings grown on carbonized rice husk may be 

    attributed with its better water holding capacity and 

    drainage. Under such favorable condition, the plant 

    was provided sufficient air and oxygen for cell respiration 

    during the rooting process (Frenck and Kim 

    1995). The moisture in smaller pores served not only 

    for metabolic activities but also provided sufficient 

    humidity to avoid excessive transpiration (Karlsen 

    1997) and destructive temperature fluctuation that 

    may happen in the rhizosphere (Klapwijk 1987). 

         Aside from water holding capacity and drainage, the 

    better root initiation and formation seemed to have 

    relation with darker environment provided by carbonized 

    rice husk. Compared to other treatment media, 

    black color of carbonized rice husk may contribute to 

    darker rhizosphere environment. In this situation, the 

    root promoter (e.g. auxin) may be translocated and 

    accumulated at the basal part of cuttings where root 

    initials appear and these induce faster cell division 

    and differentiation for root formation (Moe 1988). 


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: tharaka pilapitiya<mailto:tharaka.pilapitiya at gmail.com> 
    To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
    Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:06 PM 
    Subject: [Terrapreta]http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf 

    Hi SKB, 
      
    Rice husk the EVER BEST charcoal, pls reffer the abstract. 
      
    http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf<http://www.pustaka-deptan.go.id/publication/as072065.pdf> 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    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/


    This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information confidential to The Clorox Company and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately.

    _______________________________________________
    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/20070327/5e3b22cd/attachment-0001.html