[Terrapreta] modified TPI Kiln
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Tue Feb 5 17:40:56 CST 2008
Hi Peter, Duane,
Thanks for those those comments to my posting. I think Duane mentioned this or I saw it in a reference to something related to Computare;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox> ... that took a little while to find it. (Aside, Duane, I am reading your latest paper now).
This economist reasoned, in the late 19th century, that conserving on the use of coal in England would not reduce the consumption of coal, nor abate the emissions problem they were having. The argument was conservation reduces the cost of supply and prices. At lower prices, demand goes up. The volume of purchases not made then, in the name of conservation and reduced consumption, will be made up for in volume increases. Total consumption will not reduce as a result of promoting conservation. This is, I think, why all in the fossil fuel energy industry promote conservation.
Now, consider the consumer and their expenditures? Conservation is a good bet for them, too (paradoxically). Economically, in the short term anyways. This reality of the way market forces of supply and demand will force this situation makes me think that the incentives to conserve on fossil fuel consumption in the early 21st century are really misguided.
The market for fossil fuel in the 21st century has a pollution problem in it, too, like the coal fire emissions of Jevons's time. The market forces prevailed in that situation, anyway? The only way for us to keep the market forces at bay with fossil fuel is to put another market force into play (join in, if you will). I think incentives to produce carbon-for-soil and get energy from biomass sources (locally) is one real way to make the market of 6 billion people reduce fossil carbon consumption in search of energy. We need to incentivize the use of bio-energy and the production of charcoal-for-soil to be the less expensive way to obtain energy for all 6 billion people. We need to do this now.
The Kyoto Protocol kind of has the same problem solution structure as the "acid rain solution" and the "chloro-fluoro-carbon" problem solutions. It puts the burden squarely on the producers to prevent emissions and/or to pay up until they do. Plus, it brings remediatory effects from the changes in practices of the least wanting of people in the world to the neediest people in the world, sooner rather than later.
Carbon credits are only bought by industrialized large emissions producing countries and a paid only to developing countries. If there is any business model or any plan to make Kyoto Protocol do anything at all, then it involves the people in third world countries.
Any biomass based carbon-in-soil (biosphere carbon stock) has greater value to this world than all of the fossil carbon stocks do right now. But, that "biased" opinion is probably not held by head executives of oil companies, is it? It would be great if the head executive of any oil company could see this and become a carbon-in-soil company head executive. But, that too, is an unlikely.
So, change the world from another direction? Oil company executives won't do it (they ride on the luxury of the having the reality of Jevons's Paradox to provide for themselves). Maybe consumers and peasants could change the direction of things in this world energy market, though. I think, that if 100 people in the industrialized world would invest 100 dollars each year, then they would collectively reduce atmospheric carbon levels directly every year, they could benefit the lives of many 100s of people on the other side of the world almost immediately and sustainably, and they could improve their own lives eventually, too. This won't happen any other way, I almost think.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>
To: 'Peter Read'<mailto:peter at read.org.nz> ; 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
Cc: 'terrapreta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] modified TPI Kiln
Re your last point on Japan, Peter, I think Europe is maintaining a stable population too or decreasing to some degree. I've read over the years there is a tendency for population growth to slow or reverse in rich societies. I guess people must get so busy playing with toys we don't have time for reproduction. So maybe there is a need for nuclear energy to power toys for the overpopulated parts of the world.
Duane
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Read [mailto:peter at read.org.nz]
Sent: February 5, 2008 1:19 PM
To: still.thinking at computare.org; Sean K. Barry
Cc: 'terrapreta'
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] modified TPI Kiln
Hi Sean, Duane
That is a very exciting concept Sean. Something like it has been exciting me for nearly 20 years. The end point at the moment is my essay in Climatic Change "Biosphere Carbon Stock Management" [visit http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/fulltext.pdf<http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/fulltext.pdf> ] where I argue that reducing emissions is not enough to meet the increasingly threatening news from the climate science community. The need is for carbon removals - getting C out nof the atmosphere and stocking it somewhere safer.
Which is what biochar does, as well as producing bio-oil that can be used for burning fuel or processed into transportation fuels. All of that after first separating out the high value food or fibre component of the crop. Trees = timber + biooil + soil improvement + carbon removal = win-win-win-win. Or corn = grain + cellulosic ethanol + ligneous residue for soil improvement and carbon removal.
Your concept, like mine, also raises up some of the most impoverished people in the world and addresses peak oil, substituting biofuels for gasoline avgas and diesel.
There's plenty of land in the world to meet all the needs of the human race so long as we start investing in soil quality rather than the 'field hydroponics' that ruins it. So I don't think there is any need for nuclear unless population grows too much. A day or so ago a news program here was talking about the problems the Japanese have with young women choosing careers over babies and the population shrinking towards 40m from present 120. Would that that were everyone's problem - then there would be more hope for the planet
Cheers
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
To: still.thinking at computare.org<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>
Cc: 'terrapreta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] modified TPI Kiln
Hi Duane,
I think nuclear energy is fine for the industrialized world to serve its voracious need for energy, but it will not remediate the climate or soil damage inflicted on the world by western societies. Its in the third world, where electricity isn't really common, that making charcoal-in-soil and harvest bio-energy from biomass can make the biggest difference, I think.
I had a thought last night. Using two of the (FAO/TPI) kilns, two people can make about ~20 tons of charcoal in a 5 day week. If carbon is traded on the Carbon Exchange at, say, only, $10/ton, then two men, under the Kyoto Protocol could make $10,000 per year, if they made charcoal for use in soil, and were paid the $10/ton to do this. They also could harvest the energy from about two thousand tons of biomass and sell that too. This decentralized power and charcoal production by many would benefit the third world economically, by giving them jobs (important climate and soil remediation collier jobs), it would help them feed themselves better, and it would help the industrialized economies get rid of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Even if the average carbon footprint of a industrialized western world citizen is 10 tons a year, let's say, or even 20, paying $100-$200 per year would be all that would be required to rid the air of one's personally attributable CO2 emissions and 100 industrialized people could promote the economy of a village in the third world.
I believe the vast numbers of people in the world can be marshalled to the cause (with economic incentives and the chance for improved livelihoods for them and their families) and we could all participate in the finance of or the work of worldwide soil and atmospheric remediation.
Like I said last nice to Gerrit. This is a grand plan.
Regards,
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Pendergast<mailto:still.thinking at computare.org>
To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
Cc: 'terrapreta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] modified TPI Kiln
Morning Sean,
That's why we need nuclear energy.
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/pendergastcarbon<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/pendergastcarbon>
Duane
To be sure, 'tis better to burn charcoal-as-fuel, than coal, oil, gasoline, diesel, or any other carbonated fossil fuel. But, in the race to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce atmospheric GHG levels, though, renewable biomass energy sources alone isn't up to that task. Using these versus fossil fuels will only slow our demise. Then, this charcoal-in-soil Terra Preta thing also just simply needs the charcoal.
We can't do both charcoal-as-fuel and charcoal-in-soil. I pick the latter, with charcoal made in simple kilns, by lots and lots of people, simple people, who do it because they need energy. They will see that they can use the kiln to provide the energy source and will leave the charcoal for the soil. If it all works out right, this improves the soil around their homes (not degrades the air quality) and it will make growing and getting food easier for them, too.
Who can see this grand plan?
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Van Koeverden<mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:47 PM
Subject: modified TPI Kiln
Sean,
I was curious about the modifications you envision to make the TPI Kiln. (I have visited the website for it)
I see that Radke is using "six-inch diameter disc-shaped catalytic converters...available from many heating supply dealers"
http://iron.wlu.edu/reports/Radtke_Charcoal_Kiln.htm<http://iron.wlu.edu/reports/Radtke_Charcoal_Kiln.htm>
"The next phase of the project will complete the design and build up of the transportable reactor, the "Clean Charcoal Kiln" (CCK). It is a modification of a design from a United Nations, Food & Agriculture Organization / Tropical Products Institute (UN FAO/TPI) transportable metal kiln. The kiln design is retrofitted with an external manifold, which is used to capture the energetic "producer gas" and prevent the release of the potent GHG, Methane-CH4."
On 3-Feb-08, at 10:34 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:
Dear 'terrapreta' list members,
Back in December 2007, Erich Knight cited to this list a funding opportunity with a US Government Grant Program, that is managed by the Wood Education and Resource Center, a division of the US Forest Service. Applications for this grant opportunity are due tomorrow, Monday, February 4, 2008. I have attached a copy of their "Request for Proposals" document and a copy of a near final draft of my application.
Part of the grant application process asks applicants to show support for their project proposals from industry, academia, and other interested organizations. I know this is very short notice (the application is due tomorrow!). If any of you would review these materials I've attached and if you think you could write a "letter of support" for my project, sent to me, then I could attach some "letters of support" with my grant application submission tomorrow. I would be very grateful for any help from the members here. I would also enjoy fielding any comments from anyone about this.
Always Best Regards,
Sean K. Barry
Principal Engineer/Owner
Troposphere Energy, LLC
11170 142nd St. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082-4797
(651)-285-0904 (Work/Cell)
(651)-351-0711 (Home/Fax)
sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Appendix A - Technical Project Description.doc
fy08_werc_pro_app.doc
WERC App.doc
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
<Appendix A - Technical Project Description.doc><fy08_werc_pro_app.doc><WERC App.doc>_______________________________________________
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/>
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080205/9bfc1136/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list