[Terrapreta] Terra Preta and the Global Carbon Cycle
joe ferguson
jferguson at nc.rr.com
Thu May 31 20:10:10 CDT 2007
Even should the farmer reduce crop area for this hypothetical crop,
increasing yields per unit area is a net advantage. Less of other
inputs (labor, fertilizer, etc.) will be required. For a given level of
industriousness of the farmer, he could devote the balance of the inputs
to other crops, soil improvements, etc. He might even make more char in
his spare time!
Joe
adkarve wrote:
>
> Increasing the yield per acre of an economically important plant
> species may not necessarily mean that the total yield of that
> commodity in the world would be increased. Because agriculture is
> linked to the price of the concerned commodity, there is a tendency
> among farmers to reduce the cropped area to avoid overproduction and
> crashing of prices. In fact, the U.S. Government used to pay farmers
> money for not planting a part of their field. There is even a joke
> about it. A farmer wanted to know from the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture the name of the breed of hogs for which he would get the
> maximum amount of money by not raising them.
>
> Yours
>
> A.D.Karve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
> *To:* still.thinking at computare.org
> <mailto:still.thinking at computare.org> ;
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; 'joe ferguson'
> <mailto:jferguson at nc.rr.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] 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 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 0.46 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/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070531/35922807/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list