[Terrapreta] A New Theory of Climate Change

[MMBTUPR at aol.com]

          to   Terrrapreta List                    from   Lewis L Smith

Many thanks to Ron Larson for his support of my post on global warming.

Following are my responses to the specific items in his post   >

[1]     I have absolutely no expertise as regards ice caps but Ron's concern 
sounds very logical. After all, the greatest "locked up" supply of water is in 
the polar ice caps. So if the current loss of ice becomes permanent, not just 
the polar bears but all humanity is in for big trouble. 

My wakeup call on this matter of sea levels came some 20 years ago, as an 
invited speaker on PV energy at an international conference on energy and the 
environment in Miami FL. My words were soon forgotten, but I did not forget those 
of a rep of the FL state govt. He warned us, "If the seas rise one foot, we 
will lose a lot of beaches. If they rise two feet, we will have water in some 
of our hotel dining rooms. And if they rise four feet, everyone south of 
Orlando will have to buy a rowboat !" Somehow I cant visual a polar bear in a 
rowboat.

[2]     I heartily agree   that terra preta supporters should collaborate, 
regardless of the reasons why they have "come into the fold". The important goal 
is to develop cost-effective methods of using this material to reduce the 
carbon in the atmosphere and to increase the production of energy crops and food 
crops. "Theological disputes" over the "purity" of peoples motives will only 
turn off potential supporters and sympathizers and slow adoption of the 
relevant technologies. 

In this regard, I am reminded of those hydrogen people who insist that "the 
true believers" characterize hydrogen as a carrier, not a   source of energy. 
Most non-technical people interested in learning more about H2 or renewable 
energy don't give a hoot and don't see the significance of the distinction.

[3, 4]          As to the pricing of carbon credits, I must plead 
insufficient expertise. We have only one coal-fired electric generation station in Puerto 
Rico, an AES plant with a fluidized-bed boiler using limestone to remove 
contaminants from the coal. Its cooling tower uses the effluent from a plant which 
processes industrial wastes.
The generating station works fine, but we will probably not have any more. It 
compensates for its emissions by planting trees elsewhere. 

There are several critical unknowns here in addition to the the issues which 
Ron has raised. 

[a]          What processes will come to be used to remove carbon and 
carbon-containing compounds from plant emissions ?   

[b]     What will be done with the carbon and with what technologies will be 
used for such purposes ? 

I don't think we know, except to say that the traditional methods used to 
extract CO2 for soft drinks are not appropriate for establishments with large 
smoke stacks. 

In particular, the value of carbon used to make terra preta would seem to be 
sensitive not only to the process used but to the types of crop and soil 
conditions where the terra preta is used as a soil amendment. 

Under the circumstances, I would be leary of attempting to answer the C2 vs 
CO2 question raised in Ron's item [3].

In general, there doesn't seem to be a "silver bullet" in the future of 
carbon sequestration. Instead it looks like we will have to develop a variety of 
destinations, including many niche ones sensitive to local conditions.

Coridally.   ###




 


**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070908/8897c007/attachment.html