[Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kurt,

Was that what Crichton was on about, in your opinion?  I thought he was making the case the the New York Times, the Washingrton Post, and CNN got it all wrong about Chernobyl and about Global Cooling.  So, he figured the story to tell was how the media must also have blown the whole global warming thing out of proportion.  I consider media analysis of scientific theory just about as valuable as fictionauthor analysis of scientific theory.

Embodied CO2 cost only is a problem cost when the CO2 came from fossil fuels.  The ancient Amazonians had no problem with that.  I read an article once (sorry, can't site it) that claimed that building hybrid vehicles consumed more energy and emitted more CO2 than building conventional vehicles.  This I can believe.  But, when the article claimed that because of this buying and driving hybrid vehicles was worse for the environment than driving conventional cars, then I had my doubts.  It turns out the article was funded by car manufacturers who did not have any hybrid vehicles in their product line.  Between media and marketing (opposite sides of the same coin), its hard to buy any of their critical thinking.

I do not believe that more energy goes into the manufacture of any vehicle, than goes into operating that vehicle on the roads.  A hybrid vehicle probably does take more energy to manufacture, as it is a more complex machine.  But a hybrid vehicle can get twice the mileage or better than a vehicle of similar size and power capability.  So, a hybrid vehicle will consume less energy and emit less fossil fuel carbon than a conventional vehicle, when operated on the road.  If hybrid vehicles required twice as much energy to produce than conventional vehicles, then how can car manufacturers afford to build them and sell them at competitive prices?  They do, so maybe the energy and embodied CO2 cost of hybrids is not significantly more than conventional vehicles.  All totaled, a hybrid vehicle will prevent the release of more fossil fuel CO2 than a conventional vehicle.  That is maybe just my hypothesis and it certainly could bear testing (but not by me).

As for pyrolysis of biomass and cradle to grave analysis of the carbon foot print of a pyrolyzer, measured in embodied CO2 and released fossil CO2?  I'm guessing, but if a plant can process 400 tons of biomass into 100 tons of charcoal every day and that charcoal is buried into soil (sequestering 100 tons of carbon for thousands of years), then I think that the carbon balance would soon swing towards the sequestered more side real soon after operation.

Certainly, don't you think that all the steel going into a vehicle which runs on gasoline, if it were steel that went into a kiln, that could cleanly make charcoal-for-soil (and provide some usable energy) would then be stell with a lower fossil carbon footprint?

You will never convince me that pyrolysis of biomass into charcoal-for-soil has any more complexity than burning fossil fuel carbon to make a vehicle go down the road.  You will never convince me that the total outcome "fossil carbon footprint" is less for a fossil fuel powered vehicle than for a biomass-to-charcoal-for-soil "beaut" of a pyrolyzer.  You will never convince me that Michael Crichton has a better handle on all the complexities involved in the analysis of scientific data, than all of the scientists associated with the IPCC.

I'm sorry if you can't accept my position on these.

Regards,

SKB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kurt Treutlein<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au> 
  To: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof



  Hi folkes,
  The critical thing that seems to have been missed in what Crichton said
  was not his take on climate change, but his discussion about complexity.
  To paraphrase an old German saying:

  Firstly things are more complicated and secondly, than we think

  Do a Balance sheet on charcoal production. Instead of using dollars, use
  CO2 produced in the calculations. Each process uses so much CO2 or
  produces so much.

  Take first of all some primitive people, using stone axes and wooden
  implements, making charcoal  in "the traditional" manner. There is
  obviously the CO2 produced in the actual burn, but as well, there is the
  CH4 produced (we need to do a bit of currency conversion here). Stone
  axes? knapped from flint they ought to be pretty well free of CO2 costs.
  A firehardened digging stick? Some cost involved in firehardening it. It
  might be useful for several kilns, but might need maintenance in
  re-hardening the point from time to time. Treat it as a capital item,
  just like any tool. Take into account any use of the heat and smoke for
  cooking, primitive people often smoke meat etc. Allow a CO2 credit if
  appropriate. Work out the credit for the produced charcoal in CO2
  equivalents. Draw up a Balance sheet and profit and loss account--- did
  you come out in the red or in the black. 

  Do the same for a 200l drum based unit, used as a TLUD, while flaring
  off the off gases. The steel in the drum was manufactured from iron ore
  and processed into sheet, formed and welded etc. Every step of that
  involved the use of 'carbon' burning of fuel in mining, transport,
  smelting, manufacturing etc. The drum has an embodied CO2 value as a
  result. It will be useful for a number of burns, take this into account,
  the drum, and ancillary piping, stack etc etc is a capital item,
  apportion the cost appropriately. The biomass you will be using has to
  be harvested, transported prepared,. this will need tools, vehicles,
  machinery., All have embodied CO2, all will be capital items, useful for
  many burns. Don't forget the cost of producing the biomass in the first
  place, this will depend on what it actually is. If "waste" crop residue,
  it isn't really waste, it's part of the crop production, it will have an
  embodied value, dependent on the cost of production (in CO2 units).
  If the off gases can be profitably used, allow credits for that, but
  don't forget the similar analysis you need to do for THAT use. Now do
  the balance sheet etc for this process. Any better than the primitive
  system?

  Now. do it all again for the "you beaut, all singing and dancing
  pyrolysis system" you've dreamed up that is going to cost a couple of
  million dollars to process 100t of biomass per day. Don't forget the
  embodied CO2 costs of the buildings, roads etc that will be involved.
  Concrete needs cement which involves mining, lots of head,
  transportation, energy etc, as well as reo steel, tools used in
  building, all that stuff.

  Are things getting complex enough yet? Consider the impact on humanity
  as a whole, what will be the effect of adding all that charcoal to the
  soil? (we don't really know yet, aside from the Amazonian Jungles). To
  have a real effect on Global Warming, how much land will have to be
  used, will such land be useful for other purposes at the same time etc
  etc etc. Such complexity is likely to be never ending.

  THAT sort of thing was what Crichton was on about.

  Thimk about it.

  Kurt


  _______________________________________________
  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/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080218/bc2ee278/attachment.html