[Terrapreta] Fw: Durability of charcoal as carbon sink?

[Edward Someus]

YES biomass based charcoal in soil is clearly long lived in human terms. 
 


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 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Sean K. Barry
Date: 2007.10.11. 6:46:36
To: edward at terrenum.net;  bhans;  terrapreta
Subject: Fw: [Terrapreta] Durability of charcoal as carbon sink?
 
Hi Edward, Brian, and other 'terrapreta' list members,
 
Edward, below is a POSTING received from you very early on in your
subscription to this list, where you describe the "Durability of charcoal as
a carbon sink?".  It was your interjected response to a discussion I was
having with Duane Pendergast and Dr. Christoph Steiner about poisble ways to
experimentally "measure" the durability of charcoal in soil.   I thanked you
for the information then and I will again now + repost this to the list here
again.  I do not know where you get this information, but I assumed the
source reliable and the research valid and well documented.
 
You suggest that charcoal in soil is clearly long lived (in humand terms,
some several 100s to 10,000 years).
 
Regards,
 
SKB
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Edward Someus 
To: Christoph Steiner ; Sean K. Barry 
Cc: 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  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 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Sean K. Barry
Date: 2007.06.03. 2:44:33
To: Christoph Steiner
Cc: terrapreta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Durability of charcoal as carbon sink?
 
Hi Christoph and All,
 
Would you think something like measured weights of vermiculite, NPK
fertlizer, charcoal, maybe come clean sand? , and water might be the mixture
to test?  Would the control for the experiment work as a growth medium, if
it were the same mixture, sans the charcoal?  Would this experiment be
conducted in a container separate from soil, but in the open air?  
 
My thinking went like this; that you could take a few measurements of any
soil/charcoal mixture and get a baseline of "input carbon from charcoal"
into the system.  The ATSM "proximate analysis" test says it measures
moisture content, %fixed carbon, %VM (volatile matter), and %ash.  The test
can be conducted on soil or charcoal samples.  The weight of the "input
carbon", the to be "sequestered carbon from charcoal", should be measured
separately.
 
With the "proximate analysis" measurement and a weigh scale, measure these
things;
 
    1) get a proximate analysis of a sample of just the charcoal (used in
the mixture), separately, 
 
    3) weigh the charcoal,
 
    3) get a proximate analysis of any sample of the well mixed
soil/charcoal mixture,
 
    4) weigh the soil/charcoal mixture, which is all going into a closed
system container, and
 
    5) compute the weight of the "sequestered carbon from charcoal" as the
the weight
        of the charcoal times ( 100 - %VM(charcoal) - %ash(charcoal) ) / 100

 
If we assume the water is maintained in the soil and control at a certain
moisture content, the greenhouse is ventilated in open air, and with
atmospheric CO2 levels where they are at now (CO2 @ 469 ppm?), then the
control and the test sample would be in the same environment (unless you
separated them a great distance).
 
I don't think the flow of carbon dioxide gas in/out or oxygen out matters in
this experiment.  These relate to the photosynthesis activity of the plants,
the biologic respiration of the soil microbiology, the decomposition rates
of the soil organic matter (and VM), and nutrient uptake by the plants, etc.
 These do not effect the "sequestered carbon from charcoal" (Do they?).  But
 I would expect these might/will change the net carbon and the %C(soil)
versus that of the baseline soil sample.
 
But, there is a simplification I thought of for this experiment.  What we
are only interested in is measuring the carbon level (regardless of source
or in/out flux rate of carbon to/from the soil or the system).  We expect,
by hypothesis, for it to stay at the baseline level (as it was on the 
carbon sequestration incept date").  The amount of carbon in the soil
could/should get larger in the soil, but it also should never drop below the
baseline "sequestered carbon from charcoal" level.  This is a statement the
hypothesis, again.  Just measure the charcoal level in the soil.
 
If the level drops, then the hypothesis was not met, and the experiment is
over.  The result of the experiment would then be "sequestered carbon from
charcoal" is "not resilient", but rather, "decaying".  We might then try to
determine the "rate of decay".  The hypothesis says, we expect the soil
should stay at the baseline level or grow in carbon content continuously
(regardless of other inputs and/or outputs) for a long period of time.
 
In other words, we are determining only if the baseline level of just the 
sequestered carbon" is resilient over time?  We don't care about the flows
of any other carbon.
 
As long as we don't "disturb" the system too much, or take anything in or
out of that closed system, I expect the natural carbon cycle would maintain
that soil "always" at or above the baseline level.  Do you think?  Even
growing plants in that soil and harvesting them continuously is not going to
reduce or change the "carbon from charcoal" content in the soil.
 
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 
To: Sean K. Barry 
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/20071011/f0d56498/attachment.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/20071011/f0d56498/attachment.jpe