[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 13, Issue 28

[Allan Yeomans]

Our PRIORITY ONE environmental policy must be to stop climate change.



                                                                    February 
24, 2008

      CUBAN  EMBARGO.

    BIG- OIL  and GLOBAL WARMING



The United States trades with Communist China, so why not Cuba? There is a 
sick but logical answer. Sherlock Holmes said "first look for he who will 
benefit", or "Cui Bono" which is another way of saying the same thing.



Cuba's main business is growing sugarcane. Using sugar is the cheapest and 
most practical way to produce ethanol. Every year from an acre of sugarcane 
you can produce 750 gallons of ready-to-use ethanol. (And it can be done 
organically.)



If Cuba was allowed to trade freely with the US it could supply ethanol to 
US motorists at half the price you now pay for gasoline.



When you look at the figures for Cuba you find that 75% of Cuba is sugar 
cane country. That's like a paddock one hundred and seventy miles square. It 
would produce enough to continuously run 30 million cars on straight 
ethanol. Or 35 million cars on E85, which a lot of modern American cars are 
designed for.



It is thus very logical for the oil conglomerates and the Middle East oil 
states to insist, and demand, and to connive, to insure that the Cuban 
Embargo continues indefinitely.



Other things have also been "arranged" that suit the oil companies. There is 
a 2.5% duty on imported oil and imported ethanol into the US. So on face 
value that seems fair but, (and it's a big "but") if you import ethanol you 
pay an additional 54 cents duty on every gallon imported.



Corn farmers and the oil conglomerates in the US are now subsidized to 
produce and blend ethanol from corn. The costs have been astronomical and 
the impact is that a just a tiny 1.5% of US fuel is derived from corn 
farming. Coincidently, the oil industries' corn ethanol subsidies appear 
more than sufficient to offset the 1.5% loss in oil sales revenues.



WHAT TO DO ?    First eliminate the 54 cents penalty on imported ethanol 
from anywhere in the World. Secondly, eliminate the trade embargo on Cuba - 
at least on sugar and ethanol. And lastly, because it would be political 
impossible to cancel, maintain the corn subsidies to American farmers.

              Allan Yeomans

      (Author of PRIORITY ONE Together We Can Beat Global Warming
                             See also Allexperts.com  for other Yeomans 
comments)



                   If you agree, then email this to a dozen friends.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org>
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:00 AM
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 13, Issue 28


> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: TP and Global Warming (William Carr)
>   2. Re: TP and Global Warming (Michael Bailes)
>   3. Re: torrified wood vs. charcoal (Robert Flanagan)
>      (Robert Flanagan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:59:44 -0500
> From: William Carr <Jkirk3279 at qtm.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] TP and Global Warming
> To: Terra Preta <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <62270131-17E9-43BC-B411-C0042E9BF823 at qtm.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Kurt Treutlein wrote:
>
>> In order for TP to get rid of global warming every ton (and there
>> are a
>> multitude) of carbon from fossil fuel that is dug out of the earth
>> EACH
>> DAY would have to be buried back in the soil as charcoal EVERY DAY.
>
>
> Terra Preta won't get rid of global warming all by itself, no.
>
>
> Not without a mad push to REALLY go at it hammer and tongs,
> fertilizing seawater in ponds, harvesting the algae and carbonizing it
> while desalinating the seawater to pay for the operation.
>
>
> But then, in the future there probably won't BE any more one-shot
> fixes like petroleum.
>
>
> We're used to cheap oil, and easy money.   Energy, plastics, asphalt,
> all in one package !
>
>
>  We will have to get smarter, fast, to keep things going.
>
> Multiple approaches seem the way to go.
>
>
>
> The oil from algae process can capture the CO2 directly from a fossil
> fueled power plant and make a useful product from it.
>
>
> Net:  no carbon emissions.
>
>
>
> The oil from algae technology is actually taking off, as well as a
> trial Jatrophra nut plantation for biodiesel.
>
> And after these technologies ramp up to the 300 million barrel mark,
> they're going to produce QUITE a bit of waste biomass while displacing
> fossil fuel use.
>
>
> If the Terra Preta technology is READY when that happens,  all that
> biomass can become 'free' biochar, and the heat energy/steam/
> electricity  plus the collected pyrolysis oil will pay for the process.
>
>
> Now add in the carbon sequestration involved in multiple jatrophra nut
> plantations.
>
> Ever look up how many tons of roots are in a field of alfalfa ?
>
>
> Megatonnage of roots under ground while the bushes live, and when they
> die, carbonize them too with the trench method.   Plow and plant again.
>
>
> Meanwhile other sources of energy can be phased in, Tidal power for
> example.
>
>
>
> One thing is for certain:  if we DO nothing, nothing will be done.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:00:10 +1100
> From: "Michael Bailes" <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] TP and Global Warming
> To: "Kurt Treutlein" <rukurt at westnet.com.au>, "Terra Preta"
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <7dcba7be0802222300o4ec3ac69nd0ba862db26adb4e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 20/02/2008, Kurt Treutlein <rukurt at westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> In order for TP to get rid of global warming every ton (and there are a
>> multitude) of carbon from fossil fuel that is dug out of the earth EACH
>> DAY would have to be buried back in the soil as charcoal EVERY DAY.
>>
>> Think about it.
>
>
> Look at the amount of oil we are using
> HERE:-
> http://dalesdesigns.net/world_clock.htm
>
> Also the population
> How much does each new life cost in planetary terms?
>
> The only good thing about this clock is we are producing more bicycles 
> than
> cars.
>
> These artworks are food for thought too
> http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php
>
> Especially if you  add the same consumption for Europe and shortly for 
> China
> and  India
> .................................
>
> TP can help slow global warming if it is taken up by every gardener and
> farmer on the planet. Especially to if local, non-polluting, energy
> producing, pyrolysis is used to produce the char.
>
> TP/char could seriously slow or stop GW .
> It is a very much more real and effective way of sequestering GGs than the
> popular grass roots, dumb-arsed, turning off city lights for an hour.
> When will TP catch people's imagination like that?
> The first no-lights day was a mere 12 months ago.
> Now it is a world wide movement and a useless "feel-good" gesture at that.
> So how do you make it a world wide grass roots cult of TP?
> We don't even seem to be able to convince 10,000 people let alone 6 
> billion.
>
> Probably the species Homo sapiens (sic) is just too stupid to survive and
> should go, Hopefully leaving a little of the Planet left for the next
> dominant life form.
>
> Michael
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> /attachments/20080223/152d6a55/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:24:35 +0700
> From: "Robert Flanagan" <saffechina at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrified wood vs. charcoal (Robert
> Flanagan)
> To: "info at biorealis.com" <info at biorealis.com>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <37828f110802230324n3b857d52m725ec098c835fe1b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> I'm really sorry for the delay in my response but I had to go overseas
> during the week and I'm running a little behind.
>
> To try and answer the first question, you could certainly use your excess
> heat to take the moisture content down to around 20% then gasifiy your
> biomass to insure you get all the energy from your biomass plus the extra
> energy from the cracked water. You could also preheat your primary and
> secondary combustion air to give your gasifier better over all combustion.
> There is a company in India that sell different gasifiers for heat or
> electricity called http://www.ankurscientific.com/ and I'm sure they could
> make the modification to produce biochar if requested.
>
> The stove you describe in the last part is just an open fire from what I 
> can
> make out. If you start a fire and add fuel to the top and have air flow 
> from
> the bottom you just doing complete combustion (Reduction to ash) and you
> will always have lost energy as the moisture will make your gas very wet.
> When all the moisture is driven off and you start burning the off gases 
> have
> finished burning then you could in theory quench the char but it sound
> dangerous!
>
> Hope this answers your questions,
>
> Regards,
> Rob.
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 8:12 AM, info at biorealis.com <info at biorealis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Thanks for the great explanation of pyrolysis v gasification.  You
>> wrote "why waste all the energy taking biomass to just under it's
>> exothermic curve just so you can burn it for heat?"  -- which
>> prompted a further question:  What if I already have a source of
>> readily available heat that is presently being wasted? How would that
>> change the equation? Or would it?
>>
>> I have a source of "waste" energy available, with temperatures
>> ranging between 370C and 400C.  Could these temperatures be used for
>> pyrolysis (or gasification? or torrification?) of biomass?  If
>> feasible at all, what type of biomass (or moisture content) should I
>> be considering?  Ideally, I'd like to be able to extract usable fuel
>> gas (H2 and CO) plus biochar.
>>
>> You also wrote:
>>
>> "Now with gasification, the lowest possible jump is from around 280C
>> to 600C (Depending on air flow), due to primary air (Fresh oxygen)
>> flowing through the reactor the whole time (enough to strip the gases
>> off, but not enough to reduce the carbon to ash). So with
>> gasification stoves we exploit this law and use the excess energy to
>> crack the gases and water as they pass through this hot carbon zone."
>>
>> What if it is *not* a gasification stove, but a completely closed
>> (except for a vent to release the gases generated within) vessel
>> filled with biomass and heated to 400 degC? What could I expect to
>> get out of such a reactor?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bob Crosby
>>
>>
>> >So to answer your question, or ask the question "What happens to the
>> >pollutants while it's been turned from wood to torrified wood?" Again I
>> say
>> >why waste all the energy taking biomass to just under it's exothermic
>> curve
>> >just so you can burn it for heat?
>> >
>> >A little back ground on pyrolysis "V" gasification,
>> >
>> >In pyrolysis your feedstock is typically high in moisture (50%, called
>> green
>> >waste) and little or no oxygen is added during the process (depending on
>> the
>> >process time and desired charcoal) so typically you have a very wet off
>> gas.
>> >There is a direct relationship between temperature, duration, carbon
>> content
>> >and charcoal yield. With slow low temperature pyrolysis (400C) it's
>> possible
>> >to have charcoal yields of around 33% but not much higher with a low
>> carbon
>> >content. When you reach higher temperatures, your charcoal yield can 
>> >drop
>> to
>> >10-15% (the typical yield for traditional charcoal kilns used in Brazil
>> is
>> >about 15%). The highest possible charcoal conversion obtainable today is
>> via
>> >flash carbonization (http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/flash_carb_biomass.pdf).
>> >
>> >Gasification on the other hand uses biomass with much lower moisture
>> content
>> >(Optimum 20%). The biggest difference between the two is the natural
>> >exothermic jump in the flaming pyrolysis zone. These figures change a 
>> >bit
>> >for different biomass streams but to avoid confusion, I will keep it
>> simple
>> >and not get too bogged down with the finer details. When you heat up
>> biomass
>> >to around 280C it goes into an exothermic reaction (begins to give off
>> heat)
>> >and the temperature jumps to around 400C. Now this energy jump causes 
>> >the
>> >next layer of biomass to heat up and also go into the exothermic zone 
>> >and
>> so
>> >on and so on, until you're left with a pile of char. Now with
>> gasification,
>> >the lowest possible jump is from around 280C to 600C (Depending on air
>> >flow), due to primary air (Fresh oxygen) flowing through the reactor the
>> >whole time (enough to strip the gases off, but not enough to reduce the
>> >carbon to ash). So with gasification stoves we exploit this law and use
>> the
>> >excess energy to crack the gases and water as they pass through this hot
>> >carbon zone. This then provides fuel that we can burn directly whilst
>> also
>> >producing charcoal (wood gas (CH4) + water + high temperature carbon,
>> reacts
>> >as follows H20+C=H2+CO; end gas= (CH4+H2+CO))
>> >
>> >  Where gasification is concerned, a 20% charcoal yield is considered
>> high
>> >but you have to remember the higher the temperature of the charcoal the
>> >higher the carbon content, so although you might have less charcoal, 
>> >your
>> >overall fixed carbon yield might be very close.
>> >Better to get all the energy from the biomass plus the energy from the
>> >hydrogen in the water using a Top Lit Up Draft (TLUD) stove!
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Flanagan
> Chairman & President
> Hangzhou Sustainable Agricultural Food & Fuel Enterprise Co., Ltd.
>
> Skype "saffechina"
> Tel:   86-571-881-850-67
> Cell:  86-130-189-959-57
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> /attachments/20080223/b05181ea/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 13, Issue 28
> ******************************************
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 2/22/2008 
> 6:39 PM
>
>