[Terrapreta] Discussion about CO2 very important to this list

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Laurens

Laurens Rademakers wrote:
> Duane, Kevin and some others,
>
> I strongly disagree with your idea that discussions about climate 
> change solutions are irrelevant to this list.  I don't even understand 
> why you can think so.

My objection arises when the tail wags the dog. Preaching climate change 
on the TP list is preaching to the choir. It distracts from the core 
interests and core competencies of the List. The TP List has a powerful 
collection of World Class people, in regard to TP, charcoal, and 
agriculture .They do real science, not consensus science. In my opinion 
it is a shame to diffuse effort and focus by chatting about climate 
change stuff, when this List has such potential to advance the state of 
biochar usage in agriculture.
>
> Terra preta or biochar is strictly tied to its capacity to reduce 
> atmospheric CO2 levels. 

No. Terra Preta was invented by the Indians to make things grow better. 
Modern Man has discovered that it now has an additional useful benefit. 
HOWEVER, we must figure out how to make TP work in Agriculture to get 
the full benefits. Otherwise, it would be cheaper to simply dump the 
biochar into a hole in the ground. As coal is taken out of the ground, 
we could simply backfill with biochar.
> That's precisely what makes biochar of actual and immediate 
> importance. Biochar is more about storing C into soils as a way to 
> mitigate climate change, than about improving crop yields. Even 
> improving crop yields is part of the broader discussion about the 
> carbon cycle (as increased crop productivity leads to more potential 
> char production).

Mere storing of biochar in the ground, or as backfill in a coal mine, 
could be a costly way to waste of a valuable resource. If it can enhance 
growth, then it can provide a "double bang for the buck"
>
> What's more, to make biochar even a remotely competitive way to use 
> biomass, you need to look at participating in carbon markets which may 
> offer money for us storing C in soils. 

How do you know that? Can  tell us how much charcoal is required, and 
how much extra yield will it give, and what other changes the Grower 
have to make? Then it would be relatively easy, knowing costs and 
revenues , to determine if TP is economic in its own right, OR if it 
must have Carbon Credit Support to come into general usage. The last 
time I checked Chanterelle Mushrooms were selling in London at Harrod's 
for $C40 per pound. If I could double my yield of Chanterelles using 
charcoal, I wouldn't care about Carbon Credits. Orchid Growers don't 
care about charcoal cost.
> Without these credits, biochar is not a commercial pathway for using 
> biomass - except perhaps in very poor tropical soils, where the 
> positive effects on plant growth are so big.

I would suggest you need more data to support the above statement. It is 
my personal feeling that if we spent more time on TP and less time on 
Climate change, we could hopefully get the answers to prove you wrong.
>
> The processes used to make biochar are all about energy production and 
> bioconversion, so here too you are directly confronted with 
> discussions about climate change (are the conversion pathways to make 
> char climate friendly? How can we design pyrolysis and gasification 
> concepts that yield both char and energy in optimal ways?, etc...).

If we digress and discuss Climate Change, then that leaves less time to 
address your very pertinenet and relevant question: "How can we design 
pyrolysis and gasification concepts that yield both char and energy in 
optimal ways?, etc.... "

>
> Finally, if we ever want to make serious progress in biochar/soil 
> research we would want to get money from governments. Governments will 
> obviously be far more interested in spending money on this research if 
> they know that biochar can reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, than if they 
> merely get to hear that biochar has an effect on plant growth.

Discussing climate change on the TP List is not likely go get an ounce 
of money for the necessary research on "New TP". There is absolutely no 
need to get research money to confirm whether or not biochar stores 
carbon. Anyone can understand that "biochar is Carbon removed from the 
air." The research money is necessary to understand the operating 
mechanisms involved, and how to maximize the economic benefit of adding 
biochar to the soil.
>
> Biochar is all about tapping simultaneous benefits:

Yes

> the capacity to sequester carbon in a very cost-effective way while 
> generating renewable energy,
Yes, already known.
> potential improvements in plant growth, and a more sustainable use of 
> soils.

That is where there is a need for focused research.
>
> In short, I call for more discussions about climate change solutions, 
> carbon markets, alternative carbon sequestration options (such as 
> synthetic trees, burying whole trees, reforestation, avoided 
> deforestation and REDD, etc...) and bioenergy in order to understand 
> biochar's place in this list of alternatives.

We have on this list some World Class Terra Preta Experts, some World 
Class Charring Experts, and some World Class Farmers. As far as I know 
we have not one World Class Climatologist on the List. What we do have 
is a lot of citizens interested in climate change.

Why should the TP list play to its weakness? Isn't it more sensible to 
play to its strengths?
>
> Limiting this list to discussions about biochar's effects in soils 
> only, would be a sign of a lack of understanding of the many 
> dimensions of the topic.

Doesn't it make more sense to tap into the competencies of the World 
Class people on the TP List to first understand how TP works? Lots of 
other good people are working on in-depth understanding of other aspects 
of climate change and potential ways to mitigate it.

Wouldn't it be better to promote New Terra Preta on the Climate Change 
Lists?

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duane Pendergast" 
> <still.thinking at computare.org>
> To: "'Kevin Chisholm'" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Cc: "'Terra Preta'" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] History on the climate aspects of the 
> terrapretalist
>
>
>> Good points Kevin!
>>
>> The soil improvement aspects of TP need long term research - likely long
>> before commercial feasibility will be demonstrated. The agricultural
>> research stations in Canada have the general mandate to do that.
>>
>> I had an article published in Alberta Oil where I introduced the TP 
>> concept
>> and sang in praise of this TP list. My - so far probably forlorn - 
>> hope was
>> that Alberta industry and agricultural  interests might catch on to the
>> concept and initiate some long term R&D to evaluate potential 
>> application to
>> remediation of lands adversely impacted by production of oil from the 
>> tar
>> sands.
>>
>> http://www.computare.org/publications.htm
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Soil%20from%20Oil/ 
>>
>> Soil%20From%20Oil0001.pdf
>>
>> I, I think like you, would like to see more focus on the soil 
>> improvement
>> aspect of TP on the list. If anyone actually read my article and 
>> tuned into
>> the list, they would likely be turned off by all the rhetoric on CO2 
>> induced
>> warming. There is plenty of inane promotional oratory in the daily 
>> media on
>> CO2 induced GW and potential solutions. I think it is counter 
>> productive to
>> pay a lot of attention to it here.
>>
>> Duane
>>
>>