[Terrapreta] the source of charcaol should REMOVE CARBON from the atmosphere

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Gerrit,

One would think that naturally occurring charcoal ought to have similar properties to manufactured charcoal, maybe?  Peat bogs to lignite and then to bituminous coal, I think, is a progression of soil and plant material, like that which you describe.  Comparing the charred contents of a "smoking bog" versus manufactured charcoal will tell whether it is usable for a soil amendment that enhances fertility.  If you say this land is farmed while "smoking", then there might be some research on "agronomy in peat bogs".

An important benefit of sourcing charcoal from annually renewed biomass, though, is that living plant biomass absorbs CO2 while growing. The literally plants "mine" carbon directly from the atmosphere, as inspired CO2 while they grow.  Peat bogs that are releasing emissions are not inspiring any carbon from the atmosphere.  Instead they are releasing CO2 and carbon soot (the "smoke") and probably some Methane-CH4 back into the atmosphere (at least to some degree).

It would be better to use a source of charcoal that REMOVES CARBON from the atmosphere.  Here's why I think so ...

Taking carbon from the atmosphere is a very important advantage when using manufactured charcoal versus found "natural" charcoal.  Using carbon waste management is the key to benefiting the environment.  Everything tells me that fossil fuel carbon will be mined and burned until it is gone.  Unless we find a way to manage that carbon waste to the environment, then the "green house" effect of rising atmospheric carbon levels and the consequent problems of Global Warming and Global Climate Change, will continue to mount.  The only way possible to reverse the effects of this coming tide of carbon flux to the atmosphere or reduce the current atmospheric carbon levels is to simply to REMOVE CARBON from the atmosphere.

The secondary changes to higher temperatures, drier conditions, and/or more radical climate extremes resulting from GCC also affect crop productivity.  Dealing with these issues requires (again) addressing the carbon levels in the atmosphere.  To help agronomic productivity we must combat GW and GCC, with a worldwide effort to REMOVE CARBON from the atmosphere.  Given the evidence of the trends, I think there is no other reasonable course.  We have to build the technology to enable use to do this and we have to do it "on masse" right now.

We can't just push carbon around on the ground or dig it out of the ground anymore.  We have to get carbon from only "out of the atmosphere".  Charring annual growth (renewable) plants and burying that charcoal into the soil will do that faster than any other method.
Amending agricultural use soils with charcoal made from agricultural waste residues will help those soils become more fertile.  Forming Terra Preta soils this way really can do both things.

I think this really is just changing perception about "waste management".  There is more energy and more use in our waste materials then we currently take advantage of.  I think the Pre-Columbian people in the ancient Amazon river basin recognized this.  They also saw that improperly managed wastes could be a problem.  Perhaps they too were just dealing with a waste management problem of a sort.  Everyone had to deal with their wastes.  It was a problem not to for them, like our big carbon "foot prints" are a problem for us.

They all dealt with their "waste problem" the same way.  They charred their waste and buried it to deal with that problem and manufactured soil productivity as a result.   We can all learn this from them and repeat it.  We can do what they did on a larger scale (more people = more waste) for the same reasons perhaps.  If 6 billion people have 6 billion tons of "extra" fossil carbon going into the atmosphere (our waste), then we all need to remove one ton of atmospheric carbon and bury it into the ground every year to deal with it properly.  This is for the good of everyone and the Earth's environment, which we all have to live in.

Regards,

SKB
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gerald Van Koeverden<mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> 
  To: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:05 AM
  Subject: [Terrapreta] cheap source of char?


  A neighbour of mine has a swampy area that "smoked" for years, even  
  though it was being farmed.  I wonder if such naturally-charred  
  products would be useful for soil amending?   He has noticed that  
  yields are poor at the center of If, but that plants do better at its  
  edges, where charred plant material makes up only part of the soil  
  mixture.

  If such areas have sufficient potential - by being dug up and spread  
  around,  it would open up a whole new source of locally available  
  materials for use in improving soil fertility.  Though some muck bogs  
  have been extremely productive agriculturally for high-end  
  horticultural crops, many are useless after being drained, because of  
  the extremely high acidity.

  Gerald 

  _______________________________________________
  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/20080107/f222e981/attachment.html