[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 13, Issue 27
Allan Yeomans
aj at yeomansplow.com.au
Sun Feb 24 02:22:13 CST 2008
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: Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:00 AM
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 13, Issue 27
> 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: Critical thinking or lack thereof (Greg and April)
> 2. Re: The Pyrolysis Challenge: Request for Expressions of
> Interest (Shengar at aol.com)
> 3. Re: torrified wood vs. charcoal (Robert Flanagan) (Greg and April)
> 4. Re: National Biomass Producers Association Demenstrationof
> Thermochemical Biochar (Greg and April)
> 5. Restoring soil carbon can reverse global warming (Shengar at aol.com)
> 6. Re: National Biomass Producers Association Demenstrationof
> Thermochemical Biochar (Gerald Van Koeverden)
> 7. Re: National Biomass Producers Association Demenstrationof
> Thermochemical Biochar (Greg and April)
> 8. Rice University Colloquium with J. Lehmann - carbon
> sequestration (Shengar at aol.com)
> 9. Re: Critical thinking or lack thereof (William Carr)
> 10. Re: Critical thinking or lack thereof (Frank Teuton)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:54:05 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof
> To: "Terra Preta" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <00d401c874bb$22b1c080$2101a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Sorry for getting into this late, been having migraine issues.
>
> While you don't need perfect understanding, you do need a reasonably good
> understanding of how the various major factors interrelate, in order to
> keep from making things worse ( or even more undesirable throwing away a
> limited amount of resources in something you can't control in the first
> place ).
>
> When the IPCC, flat out states that there is no need to factor in known
> variables ( because they don't know how to factor them in or that they
> don't think that it is as big enough variable to matter ), then there is a
> serious problem with the model, long before it even starts trying to
> crunch numbers to figure out what the end result *** might *** be.
>
>
> Yes, we can talk about retreating glaciers, but, let's also talk about the
> human artifacts that are being found after the glaciers have left the
> area.
>
> Yes, we can talk about water level changes by looking at the water stains
> from previous years on the rocks and islanders displaced, but lets also
> talk about the natural geologic forces that can cause that.
>
> Yes, we can talk about how we have years of official temperature
> recordings that appear to show a general increase in temperature, but
> let's also talk about how the local environments and locations of where
> the official readings have changed thus giving poor on going data ( does
> anyone here really believe that thermometers were just as accurate 150 yrs
> ago as the are today or that people were/are meticulous in taking the
> temps ? I don't think so - in fact I have absolute proof that Denver CO
> should be in the middle of a glacial event - after all the average
> official temperature reading dropped by 5* F in less than 3 years.
>
> There are still to many unknows that are affecting the weather, to just
> sit down and say this is the main cause, and this is what will fix it.
> For all we know, what may look to be a fix, could actualy make things
> worse.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080221/f504b4b3/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:17:32 EST
> From: Shengar at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] The Pyrolysis Challenge: Request for
> Expressions of Interest
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <d1f.1bef3d55.34ef365c at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Spot ON David!!,,,,,
>
> I sure hope Dynomotive, BestEnergy and eGenesis JUMP on this Challenge!!
>
> A year ago I sent several emails concerning TP to the principles I could
> find addresses for at the Carbon Trust, no replies, so they have been
> informed,
> but no confirmation.
>
>
> The Pyrolysis Challenge: Request for Expressions of Interest
>
> The Carbon Trust is seeking Expressions of Interest in developing a
> commercially viable pyrolysis oil upgrading process, through applied
> research and
> development. The Trust is planning to make a ?5-6m investment to support
> this
> project. Full details of the process for submission of an Expression of
> Interest can be found on the Carbon Trust website. Please contact Dr
> Robert Trezona
> on _pipeline at carbontrust.co.uk_ (mailto:pipeline at carbontrust.co.uk) if
> you
> have any queries. The deadline for applications is 7 April 2008.
>
> _Carbon Trust issues 2nd generation biofuel challenge | Carbon Trust_
> (http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/about/presscentre/080218_Biofuels_Challenge.htm)
>
>
>
>
>
> Erich J. Knight
> 1047 Dave Berry Rd.
> McGaheysville, VA. 22840
> 540-289-9750
> shengar at aol.com
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080221/3a6c6ff3/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:06:17 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrified wood vs. charcoal (Robert
> Flanagan)
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <009c01c874cd$9adc5db0$2101a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Good questions - all of them.
>
> I'm certainly interested in hearing the answers.
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <info at biorealis.com>
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>; <saffechina at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 18:12
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrified wood vs. charcoal (Robert Flanagan)
>
>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:28:14 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
> To: <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <003c01c874d9$0d22f860$2101a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I'm still not fond of ethanol and think that while it may be a fair short
> term solution, I believe that it will be a dead end fuel - I think that
> butanol is going to be the long term solution.
>
> Greg H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Erich Knight
> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 18:03
> Subject: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
>
>
> NBPA to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol production
> From the March 2008 Issue
>
>
> "The thermochemical process also produces a byproduct called biochar,
> which serves as a viable soil amendment with important fertilizer
> properties that could offset farmers' high fertilizer costs. Due to the
> mobility of on-site production, logistical issues associated with
> feedstock collection and transportation would also be eliminated. "It's
> what's going to work best for everyone involved, including the wildlife,"
> Cahoj said. "It brings a lot of variables into the picture that people
> need to be thinking about, and the time to act is now."
>
> http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1468
>
>
> Cheers ,
> Erich
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080221/a931cf7a/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:45:55 EST
> From: Shengar at aol.com
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Restoring soil carbon can reverse global warming
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <cac.294b9e11.34ef7543 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi TP Listers,
>
> Here is a strait forward conversion of the impact of building soil
> organic
> material (SOM) on ppm of GHGs using just marginal land.
>
> _http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0221-soil_carbon_lovell_interview.html_
> (http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0221-soil_carbon_lovell_interview.html)
>
>
> Tony Lovell of _Soil Carbon P/L_ (http://www.soilcarbon.com.au/) in
> Australia estimates that by actively supporting regrowth of vegetation in
> damaged
> ecosystems, billions of tons of carbon dioxide can be sequestered from
> the
> atmosphere.
>
>
> "Determining how much carbon dioxide (CO2) can physically be consumed
> from
> the atmosphere?
>
>
>
> As the planet has 7.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in circulation for
> each 1 ppm of atmospheric CO2, and there are 5 billion hectares of
> inappropriately managed or unmanaged, desertifying savannahs on the Earth
> (which on
> empirical evidence we contend to be the case), the question that should
> sensibly
> be asked is: How much carbon dioxide would be absorbed if policies were
> put in
> place (in Australia and elsewhere) that caused the focus of on-ground
> management to be deliberately directed towards the widespread consumption
> of
> cyclical GHGs within the currently under-utilised savannah lands?
>
> Consumption of CO2 per hectare
> * One hectare is 10,000 sq. metres. If a hectare of soil 33.5 cm
> deep,
> with a bulk density of 1.4 tonnes per cubic metre is considered, there is
> a
> soil mass per hectare of about 4,700 tonnes.
> * If appropriate management practices were adopted and these
> practices
> achieved and sustained a 1% increase in soil organic matter (SOM)6, then
> 47
> tonnes of SOM per hectare will be added to organic matter stocks held
> below
> the soil surface
> * This 47 tonnes of SOM will contain approximately 27 tonnes of Soil
> Carbon (ie 47 tonnes at 58% Carbon) per hectare
> * In the absence of other inputs this Carbon may only be derived from
> the atmosphere via the natural function known as the photo-synthetic
> process.
> To place approximately 27 tonnes of Soil Carbon per hectare into the
> soil,
> approximately 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide must be consumed out of the
> atmosphere by photosynthesis
> * A 1% change in soil organic matter across 5 billion hectares will
> sequester 500 billion tonnes of physical CO2
> Converting global Soil Carbon capacity to ppm of atmospheric GHGs
> 1. Every 1% increase in retained SOM within the topmost 33.5 cm of the
> soil must capture and hold approximately 100 tonnes per hectare of
> atmospheric
> carbon dioxide (the variability in the equation being due only to the soil
> bulk density). We submit that under determined, appropriate management,
> that
> this is readily achievable within a very few years
> 2. For each 1% increase in SOM achieved on the 5 billion hectares
> there
> will be removed 64 ppm of carbon dioxide from atmospheric circulation
> (500,000,000,000 tonnes CO2 / 7,800,000,000 tonnes per ppm = 64 ppm).
> 3. Soil Organic Matter is the plant material released into the soil
> during the natural phases of plant growth. It includes root material
> sloughed off
> below the soil surface and plant litter carried into the soil by microbes,
> insects and rainfall
> 4. Soil Carbon is the elemental carbon contained within Soil Organic
> Matter (SOM).
> 5. One tonne of CO2 contains 12/44 units of carbon (ie 0.27 tonnes of
> carbon per tonne of CO2.). Therefore 27 tonnes of carbon sequesters
> 27/0.27 =
> 100 tonnes CO2 (rounded). NB Carbon atomic weight 12, oxygen atomic
> weight 16
> ie CO2 = 12+(16+16) = 44
> The global opportunity and numbers
>
>
>
> It appears that the pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was
> 280ppm, and that globally we are now at 455ppm, and heading towards
> 550ppm. To
> get from 550ppm back to 280ppm, 270ppm must be removed. Globally, a 4.2%
> increase in SOM would potentially reverse the expected situation. In any
> case,
> any form of determined management will substantially reduce the now
> crippling
> legacy loadings in the atmosphere.
>
>
> Erich J. Knight
> 1047 Dave Berry Rd.
> McGaheysville, VA. 22840
> 540-289-9750
> shengar at aol.com
>
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080221/eda0c027/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:57:27 -0500
> From: Gerald Van Koeverden <vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
> To: Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <74ABDE4D-0B24-4128-89EF-D67ECE95D853 at yahoo.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I thought that cellulosic ethanol was just in its early stages of
> development? But these people already have a working portable model
> for farm use??
>
> Gerrit
>
>
> On 21-Feb-08, at 5:28 PM, Greg and April wrote:
>
>> I'm still not fond of ethanol and think that while it may be a fair
>> short term solution, I believe that it will be a dead end fuel - I
>> think that butanol is going to be the long term solution.
>>
>> Greg H.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Erich Knight
>> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 18:03
>> Subject: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
>> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
>>
>> NBPA to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol production
>> From the March 2008 Issue
>>
>>
>> "The thermochemical process also produces a byproduct called
>> biochar, which serves as a viable soil amendment with important
>> fertilizer properties that could offset farmers' high fertilizer
>> costs. Due to the mobility of on-site production, logistical issues
>> associated with feedstock collection and transportation would also
>> be eliminated. "It's what's going to work best for everyone
>> involved, including the wildlife," Cahoj said. "It brings a lot of
>> variables into the picture that people need to be thinking about,
>> and the time to act is now."
>>
>> http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1468
>>
>>
>> Cheers ,
>> Erich
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080221/08113ece/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:05:25 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
> To: "Gerald Van Koeverden" <vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
> Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <003501c874ff$c662b7e0$2101a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> That's not what I'm getting from the article.
>
> The way I understand it they are just making a trailer demonstration unit
> to show it can be done - no word as to the amount of fuel return, let
> alone enough that would fuel a farm ( big or small ) or what such a unit
> would cost.
>
> Would be fairly dumb and useless if it requires a large farm income to
> make, large farm cellulose output but only returned a small farm fuel
> supply.
>
> I would be more interested in finding out if it was adaptable to produce
> butanol instead of ethanol.
>
> Greg H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerald Van Koeverden
> To: Greg and April
> Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 18:57
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
>
>
> I thought that cellulosic ethanol was just in its early stages of
> development? But these people already have a working portable model for
> farm use??
>
>
> Gerrit
>
>
>
>
> On 21-Feb-08, at 5:28 PM, Greg and April wrote:
>
>
> I'm still not fond of ethanol and think that while it may be a fair
> short term solution, I believe that it will be a dead end fuel - I think
> that butanol is going to be the long term solution.
>
> Greg H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Erich Knight
> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 18:03
> Subject: [Terrapreta] National Biomass Producers Association
> Demenstrationof Thermochemical Biochar
>
>
> NBPA to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol production
> From the March 2008 Issue
>
>
> "The thermochemical process also produces a byproduct called biochar,
> which serves as a viable soil amendment with important fertilizer
> properties that could offset farmers' high fertilizer costs. Due to the
> mobility of on-site production, logistical issues associated with
> feedstock collection and transportation would also be eliminated. "It's
> what's going to work best for everyone involved, including the wildlife,"
> Cahoj said. "It brings a lot of variables into the picture that people
> need to be thinking about, and the time to act is now."
>
> http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1468
>
>
> Cheers ,
> Erich
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.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/20080221/d7f342f8/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:44:08 EST
> From: Shengar at aol.com
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Rice University Colloquium with J. Lehmann -
> carbon sequestration
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <c38.260470e5.34efad18 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Colloquium _Center for the Study of Environment and Society_
> (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~cses/)
> CSES Lunchtime Colloquium with Johannes Lehmann - carbon sequestration
> Friday, February 29, 2008
> 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM Farnsworth Pavilion RMC/Ley Student Center
> Rice University
> 6100 Main St
> Houston, Texas, USA
> Abstract:
> The CSES (Center for the Study of the Environment & Society) at Rice is
> hosting a lunchtime colloquium on Friday, February 29th in the Farnsworth
> Pavilion at 12:00 noon. The colloquium will feature Johannes Lehmann, an
> associate
> professor of soil fertility management and soil biogeochemistry at
> Cornell
> University. He will give a short talk on carbon sequestration through
> soil
> biochar amendment followed by questions from the audience. You can read
> more
> about Johannes Lehmann here:
> http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann.html The
> whole Rice community is invited, and lunch will be provided by CSES.
> Everyone should feel free to show up, listen, and bring any questions
> they might
> have. Please be sure to RSVP to cses at rice.edu so we can provide enough
> lunches.
> A flyer can be viewed here:
> http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~cses/CSES%20colloquium%20-%20Johannes%20Lehmann.pdf
> Open to the Public / Registration Required
> _http://cohesion.rice.edu/services/events/index.cfm?EventRecord=9409_
> (http://cohesion.rice.edu/services/events/index.cfm?EventRecord=9409)
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080221/fcab1c23/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:45:54 -0500
> From: William Carr <Jkirk3279 at qtm.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof
> To: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <76A50071-C483-4081-83D0-7E95709403DC at qtm.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
>> "According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute,
>> industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources
>> for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward
>> hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases
>> as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4)"
>
> Did anybody catch this part?
>
> An invalid comparison if there ever was one.
>
> Crichton is cherry-picking his citations, trying to prove we don't
> need to DO anything about carbon by going all the way back to HAY !
>
> As if there was some magic guiding force moving our society away from
> carbon, mysteriously operating in the background !
>
>
>
> It's an invalid comparison, if you're actually concerned about carbon
> dioxide as a Global Warming gas.
>
> Wood and hay are carbon neutral fuels. Coal, oil, and gas are not.
>
> Burning biomass has never added a gram of Carbon to the atmosphere
> that didn't COME from the atmosphere in the first place.
>
>
>
>
> ************
>
>
>
> This reminds me of what a cousin of mine tried to tell me once.
>
> We were at a family picnic, and out of the blue he said: " did you
> know that if you dump raw sewage into a river, 100 yards down the
> river that water will be safe to drink"?
>
>
> I looked at him in astonishment. Several things went through my mind.
>
> 1) This was obviously something he'd been told. What today we call a
> "talking point", particular to his political party.
>
> 2) This guy is actually supposed to be intelligent.
>
> 3) My cousin is SO convinced of the rightness of his Party's policies
> he didn't even analyze this anecdote before repeating it.
>
> 4) Apparently he'd never heard the "solution to pollution is dilution".
>
> Dilute raw sewage ENOUGH, and the amount of live Fecal Coliform
> Bacteria per liter will be low enough that your likelihood of
> infection from it is also low.
>
> But the water ISN'T clean. The bacteria will find a haven in a
> backwater somewhere, and given a food source may reproduce until it
> reaches toxic levels. That's why municipalities have Sewage
> Treatment plants.
>
> 5) Also apparently, the conclusion the listener is supposed to draw is
> this: that God has such a complex plan for the world, that he
> designed Nature to automatically clean up after us !
>
> This anecdote isn't a fluke.
>
> I've heard other talking points like this, with similar flawed
> logic: I occasionally get them in group emails and it's a
> distressing sign of "group think".
>
>
>
> *************
>
>
>
> I looked at my cousin in disgust, and told him "YOU can drink it, not
> me !". He was taken aback. Apparently not the result he was
> expecting.
>
>
> And so we come full circle. Both Crichton and my cousin seem to
> believe there's no need to worry over the problems global civilization
> causes.
>
> Both of them want to dissuade the rest of us from the effort of
> thinking, and possibly doing something about these problems that might
> cost them money in taxes.
>
>
> I think the "lack of critical thinking" is just what Crichton is
> hoping for.
>
>
>
> William Carr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:42:44 -0500
> From: Frank Teuton <fteuton at videotron.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof
> To: William Carr <Jkirk3279 at qtm.net>, Terra Preta
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <05DE96AD72B248958EF2704C64C4F49A at FrankPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
> While I have to agree that Crichton's 'complexity' stuff is 'analysis for
> the sake of paralysis' and largely worthless except that we need to keep
> an
> open mind, I cannot agree with William Carr's following assertion:
>
> Wood and hay are carbon neutral fuels. Coal, oil, and gas are not.
>>
>> Burning biomass has never added a gram of Carbon to the atmosphere
>> that didn't COME from the atmosphere in the first place.
>
> Wood and hay are not carbon neutral fuels unless the forest and haylands
> are
> managed sustainably on an equilibrium basis. Fossil fuel carbon ALSO came
> from the atmosphere, once upon a time. If we are degrading and emptying
> natural biomass reserves such as forests, grasslands and soil organic
> matter
> these must be understood as contributing to anthropogenic atmospheric
> CO2...indeed, our job is to try to figure out ways of refilling them as
> well
> as other methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and
> storing
> it, to allow us to control the quantity of carbon dioxide in the
> atmosphere.
>
> Fossil fuels are absolutely the leading problem now, but land use patterns
> are nonetheless major players both in terms of the causes of the current
> levels and as potential recipients of carbon to be sequestered. This
> includes TP of course, but is not at all limited to it.
>
> In that sense, keeping 'complexity' in mind is never wrong. The devil is
> always hiding out in the details.
>
> My two cents,
>
> Frank Teuton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Carr" <Jkirk3279 at qtm.net>
> To: "Terra Preta" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Critical thinking or lack thereof
>
>
>>
>>> "According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute,
>>> industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources
>>> for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward
>>> hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases
>>> as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4)"
>>
>> Did anybody catch this part?
>>
>> An invalid comparison if there ever was one.
>>
>> Crichton is cherry-picking his citations, trying to prove we don't
>> need to DO anything about carbon by going all the way back to HAY !
>>
>> As if there was some magic guiding force moving our society away from
>> carbon, mysteriously operating in the background !
>>
>>
>>
>> It's an invalid comparison, if you're actually concerned about carbon
>> dioxide as a Global Warming gas.
>>
>> Wood and hay are carbon neutral fuels. Coal, oil, and gas are not.
>>
>> Burning biomass has never added a gram of Carbon to the atmosphere
>> that didn't COME from the atmosphere in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ************
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 13, Issue 27
> ******************************************
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list