[Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Lou,

I think you are right.  It will be a new paradigm.  I do like the comparison of "living energy" versus "detritus energy" (dead energy).

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> ; terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?


  Plants live finite lives.  Then they decompose.  Decomposers expire CO2.  Decomposition of a living tree occurs at a higher rate than a tree grows. 
  Ergo more outgo.  Get it?


  OK, Sean, I'll bite and make a guess.

  What if significant portions of plants did not decompose but were instead converted into relatively inert forms of carbon? What if those inert forms stimulated more growth (or similar growth with less fertilizer)? What if the growth required less water? What if the non-charred portions of the plants were used as substitutes for fossil fuels -- shifting from mining to growing energy? What if we start to grow many things not grown before (bio-computers, etc) and always charred a portion (previously called waste) back into the earth? Isn't this a shift from detritus energy to living energy?  And isn't this a  "new  paradigm"? 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070921/0c3b4286/attachment.html