[Terrapreta] Growing Trees (Dave Demyan)
Capt.D.C.G.Fox.
cdfox at optusnet.com.au
Mon Jun 9 15:29:26 CDT 2008
Good observation Dave,
Growing, maintaining and culling timber within that forest is excellent; a
good forest would have more than twenty species to the hectare plus
comprehensive floor coverage.
Planting tree deserts (monoculture) for a greed concept could only be
conceived by an academic and therefore alien to nature.
On this planet unless you are using dirt as a medium to force a plant to
stand and grow in under duress of synthetic fertilizers and chemicals you
will be using soil with very high microbial activity.
If you are growing grasses, cereals or shrubs success will be achieved if
your soil is bacterial dominant over fungi, trees and forests require the
reverse. Fungi have the ability to harvest nutrient from miles away to feed
its host. The easiest way to suppress fungi is to plough which will cut the
nutrient supply resulting ill health and eventually disease in plants, hence
old forests beside ploughed or disturbed land are not in optimum health.
Amazon dark earths especially terra preta would be initially highly
bacterial dominant.
Chemicals have had a large impact on soil biology but where arson has been
practiced for thousands of years the impact is devastating. If an unburnt
area is ploughed and planted to a multi variety local and imported
pasture/plant species it will take twenty years before the biology has
rebalanced its self and the pasture can be accessed as mature.
A nice cold academic approved forest floor fire (burn off) will affect
microbial balance for thirty to fifty years and a wildfire in an
unmaintained forest seventy years plus, also constant arson has modified
plants to be "fire reliant fire promotant", and from my point of view their
dominance should be reduced over a hundred and fifty years and replaced with
fire suppressive and deciduous species.
The culled modified plants are excellent for turning into activated
charcoal (part of ADE) for incorporation below the surface of the soil in
spaced deep rip lines, just a small amount on an annual basis, as you
increase the amount microbial residential accommodation the occupants have
to be fed either from plant exudates or supplementary additives, it's all
about balance.
Another missing link between this and terra preta is the batteries, charged
silica as found in the terra cotta partials from their sanitation urns.
Charged silica is part of the ingredients in Biodynamic practices.
Regards,
Douglas.
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2008 6:59 PM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4
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. Growing Trees (Dave Demyan)
2. Re: Farm/compost biochar (Dick Gallien)
3. Re: Growing Trees (Sean K. Barry)
4. Re: 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2 (Biopact)
5. Re: 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2 (Laurens Rademakers)
6. no instantaneousness = no overnight (francoise precy)
7. Re: products of pyrolysis reactions (francoise precy)
8. Re: a good story (francoise precy)
9. Re: no instantaneousness = no overnight ( folke G?nther )
10. Re: no instantaneousness = no overnight (Larry Williams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 19:35:40 -0700
From: "Dave Demyan" <demyan at methownet.com>
Subject: [Terrapreta] Growing Trees
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID: <002701c8c459$59701430$3501a8c0 at forest>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The first four paragraphs provide the gist of my response.
In response to, "Why not just grow trees?", I would like to point out that
it isn't that simple. As the human population continues to grow there is a
corresponding need for potable water, food and shelter. Overall human
socio-political systems, to date, seem to be reactive rather than
pro-active. If it doesn't affect me today it's not really a problem. There
are individuals who work on long term issues, but the majority of humans are
interested in living there lives and getting by.
Today's agri-biz farming isn't sustainable or economically feasible.
Charcoal as a soil amendment may be an alternative that will head off global
famine, ameliorate water issues and sequester carbon. Until I was on the
list I thought that it was pretty clear cut that adding charcoal to soils
was a quick and easy alternative to the petro-chemical dependent, soil
wasting agri-biz system. It appears that as usual it isn't that simple.
Planting trees to make building materials and charcoal in conjunction with
converting waste materials to charcoal will absolutely reduce levels of
atmospheric CO2, if it is done consistently and conscientiously. It must be
done in a way that maintains the integrity of forested ecosystems. Every
forest type is different and will require different management systems.
Tree farms seem like a good idea at first. Stick around for a few hundred
years and observe a tree farm following depletion of nutrients. Human
understanding of forest ecosystem dynamics is at a rudimentary level.
Unless there is a concerted effort to expand human knowledge on this topic
achieving sustainability is questionable.
A forest's life spans millenniums until climate change (extended drought or
ice age), geologic upheaval (basalt flows, subsidence, etc.), ice age or
human actions that alter the land for other uses. European forestry can be
traced to the Renaissance when, in the late 1500's, fast growing conifers
were planted to replace the mix of hardwood and conifer species of the
native forests. It was a grand success and an example of humans improving
on nature.
However 250 years later trees were succumbing in ever increasing numbers to
pathogens and growth rates slowed. The soil was depleted of nutrients that
had been previously recycled by the interactions of the organisms, micro to
macro, which inhabited the sustainable native forest. By the late 1800's
the scientists of the day developed natural forestry, which returned the
forests to a more natural tree species mix. Yet today the forests are much
less productive due to nutrient depletion and air pollution.
Native Americans altered the landscape with fire as a primary tool to
maximize the productivity of the plant and animal species they utilized.
Following a significant population crash due to European introduced disease
the "natural??" forest returned to be altered again by European settlers.
Vermont was 80% sheep pasture in the early 1800's. It is now 80% forest,
but with different tree species than was described by early settlers.
Settlers moved across the Appalachians and cleared forests to raise corn and
tobacco on the rich black soil, until it was "worn out" A fungus
accidentally introduced from Europe decimated the American Chestnut that was
the dominant tree of Eastern forests. American elm trees met a similar
fate.
The low and mid-elevation forests of the interior west of North America (I
live in north central Washington) have changed over the last century and a
half. Fire suppression and high grade logging have replaced larger diameter
ponderosa pine dominated forests with smaller diameter suppressed stands of
ponderosa pine or in the slightly less arid locations with suppressed
Douglas-fir trees.
Fire, from lightning or Native Americans, maintained more open forests with
larger fire resistant trees and diverse understory vegetation over much of
the landscape.
In a reasonably thoughtful society the suppressed stands of trees would be
thinned and utilized for char, bio-oil production and heat. This would
reduce the intensity of wildfires (Fire fighting costs often exceed $1000
per acre with another $500 per acre spent on "restoration" costs of
questionable value to the forest.) increase the vitality of the remaining
trees, decrease pathogen habitat, increase understory plant communities and
maximize the valuable capture and slow release of precipitation function
that forests provide.
A forest is a dynamic ecosystem composed of a multitude of organisms from
soil biota to macro vertebrates under a canopy of trees. They interact with
each other and the physical environment. It is an ongoing symphony with
musicians taking breaks or sometimes leaving for extended breaks and with
the concert hall in a constant state of renovation.
Humans are a natural part of the system that tinkers with forest elements.
The results of this tinkering affect the forest in overt and subtle ways.
As humans are at a kindergarten level of understanding ecosystem dynamics
only the obvious effects are noted. The only thing that maintains the
forests is the resiliency of the components. Hopefully humans will make
progress and at least make it to a grade school level of understanding
before we lose the multitude of benefits that forests provide.
Thanks for all the stimulating conversation.
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/attachment
s/20080601/bbc8f667/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:04:52 -0500
From: "Dick Gallien" <dickgallien at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Farm/compost biochar
To: MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
Cc: terra pretta group <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID:
<4e0cd09c0806012004o7034dbbcm5d5db71d9549ec14 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thanks for offering suggestions Max. Ten days after dozing a few ft. of
wet biomass over a large blazing brush pile, it is still smoldering. I won't
do that again, so I'm leaning on you out there, to KISS this little tank.
Ask any questions. I'll have my attorney disclose my financial status to
Kevin, but after 2 ex's, 8 kids, over 40 crummy jobs and living it up on a
little SS check, it won't be a long read.
Bought this 175 acre farm 52 yrs. ago, with a wife and 2 kids, while
attending the local college on the GI Bill from the Korean Peace Action.
The evidence that development is the most lucrative crop for farmers,
surrounds every city. Instead of taking 2 million from a developer, I
received $265,000 for a Scenic Easement Grant, by protecting it from
development with a Conservation Easement through the DNR and Mn;. Land
Trust. No sane person, in a society where money is god to most, would have a
compost site 50' from their home, with strangers driving in every day, from
dawn until dark, for 16 years and also recycle tons of food waste, when some
rich sob would gladly pay 1 million plus to have this topographically
diverse piece of land, on which a mile of 2 trout streams join, only 3.5
miles from Winona (pop. 26,000), but protected from town by 600' hills , for
his locked gate show off estate. I'm working on a way to give the farm to a
group that will continue demonstrating by example, the best ways to make use
of organic materials that most cities look on as something to burn, bury or
flush.
Thanks, Dick
http://community.webshots.com/album/563661895nUjqlO
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:43 AM, MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Dick, I'd love to make some suggestions but can't quite get a mental
> picture of the tank car and the fuel tank but it sounds like you have a
> serious potential retort.
>
>
>
> Any chance of a rough sketch (even in MS Word with the rudimentary drawing
> tools)?
>
>
>
> Max H
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *Dick Gallien
> *Sent:* Sunday, 1 June 2008 1:31 PM
> *To:* terra pretta group
> *Subject:* [Terrapreta] Farm/compost biochar
>
>
>
> Still looking for suggestions. Kevin suggested I use this tank to char
the
> huge piles of brush, which I have refused to torch, as many compost? sites
> do here. It is a 30' X 10' dia. 1" thick, over 36,000 lbs. rail road
tank
> car, which I can top load with the old log truck. A 11' dia. fuel tank is
> hanging from the top of the rr tank, so the 6" can be filled with
insulation
> (any suggestions as to the cheapest, most effective high temp
insulation?).
> The lid would be air tight, I can make a 4' X 4' door at the base, so as
to
> unload with an extended bucket on the Bobcat and planned to funnel from
> about 6' above the base, down to 4' dia.at the base. How would you run
> this as a retort? I could have a removable stove as the 4' X 4' door, but
I
> don't understand how the stove is exhausted and how the wood gas is
returned
> to combust in the stove. At 76, I'm eager to get started, before the
party
> is over. Kevin asked, Why do you REALLY want to do this and I can only
say
> it would be for the inner satisfaction of seeing it work, making good use
of
> this usually wasted tree waste, giving others ideas and improving the soil
> on this little farm. Please forward this to anyone else that might be
> interested. Hope to hear from you. Dick
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Dick Gallien <dickgallien at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Am looking for suggestion. I've had a community service farm compost site,
> open every day, from dawn until dark, for 16 years, operating on an honor
> system. Three times I've hired a 650 hp tub grinder, the last time was 7
> years ago, costing over $10,000 and there is no market for the grindings.
So
> I have 7 years of accumulated brush, trees and stumps. Over 90% of tree
> waste in Mn. is torched and I joke that torching is against my religion.
> Biochar and terra preta allows me to bend, but not break my religion. I'm
> looking for the simplest way to char large quantities of brush and larger
> wood, to use on this farm, as a demonstration, to keep from being buried
in
> it and because I have a hangup about rich, living soil.
>
> Must immediately reduce the volume of brush, so
> a few days ago I dozed old brush against a 15' high bank of wet, packed
> biomass. When it was blazing I dozed (Kamotso, with 11' blade--little
bigger
> than a D-6) the pile from above, completely burying it, except for a few
> wisps of smoke still coming from the pile, 5 days later.
>
> Obviously not the answer. Can stack brush 8' high with the jawed backhoe
> or much higher with an old log truck.
> Leave a pole in the center as a chimney, to be pulled later.
> Cover the pile a few ft. deep with wet biomass and light it down in the
> pole hole. Would appreciate any suggestions
> from your readings or experience.
>
> Once the huge piles of brush are cleaned up am wondering about something
> like the Adam retort, except much larger. My Trojan loader bucket is 8'
> wide, so could make a rectangular trench into a bank 10' to 12' wide, for
> loading and unloading into the 425 bu. spreader. I can get 2'X2'X6',
tongue
> and groove concrete bunker blocks delivered for $35 at . Don't know how they
> would hold up to the heat. I use them double stacked to hold hogs in,
which
> I raise totally on food waste. Same question for pre-cast concrete, self
> supporting bunker silo walls. I can put either one into a bank, 8 or 10'
> high, with dirt flush to the top, so the sides would be airtight. Have
the
> end of a 42' wide building, made into a bank, the bank retained by 16'
high
> precaste bunker silo walls,--- but what to cover a larger Adams retort
> with--, some crude, top loading, movable wood burner as part of an end
> wall???
>
> Thanks for listening, Dick
>
> --
> Dick Gallien
> 22501 East Burns Valley Road
> Winona MN 55987
> dickgallien at gmail.com [507]454-3126
> www.thewinonafarm.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dick Gallien
> 22501 East Burns Valley Road
> Winona MN 55987
> dickgallien at gmail.com [507]454-3126
> www.thewinonafarm.com
>
--
Dick Gallien
22501 East Burns Valley Road
Winona MN 55987
dickgallien at gmail.com [507]454-3126
www.thewinonafarm.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/attachment
s/20080601/1ad8e4f8/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 22:28:47 -0500
From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Growing Trees
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, "Dave Demyan"
<demyan at methownet.com>
Message-ID: <AABEEG4HUAUHNJ2S at smtpout04.dca.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Dave,
This is a greatly informative post. You seem to be an individual with a
deeper understanding of forest ecosystems than most. Lou Gold and Larry
Williams, on this 'terraptreta' list, also have experience and understanding
of this sort, I think. Please continue to talk with us. I think that it
might be worth noting that forest sources (woody biomass) are not the only
possible feedstock (nor necessarily the best) for making charcoal.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Demyan<mailto:demyan at methownet.com>
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] Growing Trees
The first four paragraphs provide the gist of my response.
In response to, "Why not just grow trees?", I would like to point out that
it isn't that simple. As the human population continues to grow there is a
corresponding need for potable water, food and shelter. Overall human
socio-political systems, to date, seem to be reactive rather than
pro-active. If it doesn't affect me today it's not really a problem. There
are individuals who work on long term issues, but the majority of humans are
interested in living there lives and getting by.
Today's agri-biz farming isn't sustainable or economically feasible.
Charcoal as a soil amendment may be an alternative that will head off global
famine, ameliorate water issues and sequester carbon. Until I was on the
list I thought that it was pretty clear cut that adding charcoal to soils
was a quick and easy alternative to the petro-chemical dependent, soil
wasting agri-biz system. It appears that as usual it isn't that simple.
Planting trees to make building materials and charcoal in conjunction with
converting waste materials to charcoal will absolutely reduce levels of
atmospheric CO2, if it is done consistently and conscientiously. It must be
done in a way that maintains the integrity of forested ecosystems. Every
forest type is different and will require different management systems.
Tree farms seem like a good idea at first. Stick around for a few hundred
years and observe a tree farm following depletion of nutrients. Human
understanding of forest ecosystem dynamics is at a rudimentary level.
Unless there is a concerted effort to expand human knowledge on this topic
achieving sustainability is questionable.
A forest's life spans millenniums until climate change (extended drought
or ice age), geologic upheaval (basalt flows, subsidence, etc.), ice age or
human actions that alter the land for other uses. European forestry can be
traced to the Renaissance when, in the late 1500's, fast growing conifers
were planted to replace the mix of hardwood and conifer species of the
native forests. It was a grand success and an example of humans improving
on nature.
However 250 years later trees were succumbing in ever increasing numbers
to pathogens and growth rates slowed. The soil was depleted of nutrients
that had been previously recycled by the interactions of the organisms,
micro to macro, which inhabited the sustainable native forest. By the late
1800's the scientists of the day developed natural forestry, which returned
the forests to a more natural tree species mix. Yet today the forests are
much less productive due to nutrient depletion and air pollution.
Native Americans altered the landscape with fire as a primary tool to
maximize the productivity of the plant and animal species they utilized.
Following a significant population crash due to European introduced disease
the "natural??" forest returned to be altered again by European settlers.
Vermont was 80% sheep pasture in the early 1800's. It is now 80% forest,
but with different tree species than was described by early settlers.
Settlers moved across the Appalachians and cleared forests to raise corn and
tobacco on the rich black soil, until it was "worn out" A fungus
accidentally introduced from Europe decimated the American Chestnut that was
the dominant tree of Eastern forests. American elm trees met a similar
fate.
The low and mid-elevation forests of the interior west of North America (I
live in north central Washington) have changed over the last century and a
half. Fire suppression and high grade logging have replaced larger diameter
ponderosa pine dominated forests with smaller diameter suppressed stands of
ponderosa pine or in the slightly less arid locations with suppressed
Douglas-fir trees.
Fire, from lightning or Native Americans, maintained more open forests
with larger fire resistant trees and diverse understory vegetation over much
of the landscape.
In a reasonably thoughtful society the suppressed stands of trees would be
thinned and utilized for char, bio-oil production and heat. This would
reduce the intensity of wildfires (Fire fighting costs often exceed $1000
per acre with another $500 per acre spent on "restoration" costs of
questionable value to the forest.) increase the vitality of the remaining
trees, decrease pathogen habitat, increase understory plant communities and
maximize the valuable capture and slow release of precipitation function
that forests provide.
A forest is a dynamic ecosystem composed of a multitude of organisms from
soil biota to macro vertebrates under a canopy of trees. They interact with
each other and the physical environment. It is an ongoing symphony with
musicians taking breaks or sometimes leaving for extended breaks and with
the concert hall in a constant state of renovation.
Humans are a natural part of the system that tinkers with forest elements.
The results of this tinkering affect the forest in overt and subtle ways.
As humans are at a kindergarten level of understanding ecosystem dynamics
only the obvious effects are noted. The only thing that maintains the
forests is the resiliency of the components. Hopefully humans will make
progress and at least make it to a grade school level of understanding
before we lose the multitude of benefits that forests provide.
Thanks for all the stimulating conversation.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
____________________________________________________________
Internet Security Software - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mEWrjiOBV3XUadyR9vV1kXLx3
s7qtuW1PhKLpT7cz7Thpa0/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/attachment
s/20080601/ce96c25f/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:54:43 +0200
From: "Biopact" <biopact at biopact.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2
To: "Peter Read" <peter at read.org.nz>
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <3B1D56F921C645E39B2A1E65A6AB18D4 at PCvanLaurens>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Spot on, Peter.
What's more, with real trees and the biochar system, you can generate energy
and sequester C at the same time. Let's not forget that the world is going
to need 50% more energy by 2030. Where are we going to get that? Not coal I
hope?
So let's plant trees, use a fraction of those to cover our growing energy
needs, in the biochar system.
Artificial trees don't generate energy, they don't yield ecosystem services
beyond scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere. The biochar system does.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Read
To: Laurens Rademakers
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2
Why not just grow ordinary trees ?
'civilization' has destroyed 2 b Ha of forest
why not restore half of that,. operate it commercially, build wooden
houses with the timber, and pyrolyse the trash for soil improvement and
bio-oil ?
1 b Ha in warm climate absorbs ~10Gt (billion tons) p.a.
there's plenty of land (esp as trees don't need arable quality land)
the shortage is not of land but of investment in land
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurens Rademakers
To: terra Preta
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:36 AM
Subject: [Terrapreta] 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2
Here, an idea that directly competes with terra preta; the artificial
tree idea.
I find this a stupid idea, because it doesn't offer any benefits besides
capturing CO2. What's more, you would capture the CO2 and geosequester it,
which is an untested method.
It's also hugely expensive ($600 billion).
So why does this fella make the BBC headlines, and why not Lehmann or
Steiner?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7429562.stm
Giant trees 'to clear excess CO2'
The scientist who coined the term "global warming" in the 1970s has
proposed a radical solution to the problem of climate change.
Wallace Broecker advocated millions of "carbon scrubbers" - giant
artificial trees to pull CO2 from the air.
Dr Broecker told the Hay literary festival in Powys: "We've got an
extremely serious problem.
He added: "It's a race against time and we are just sort of crawling
along at a slow pace."
He said some 20 million of the scrubbing devices would be required to
capture all the CO2 currently produced in the US.
But he told the festival: "Okay, you say that's enormous, but we make 55
million cars a year, so if we really wanted to we could. Over 30 or 40 years
we could easily make that number."
After addressing the festival, Dr Broecker told the BBC News website
that 60 million of the devices would be needed worldwide at an estimated
cost of $600bn (?303bn) a year.
The towers would be about 50ft high and 8ft in diameter, and use a
special type of plastic to absorb the CO2.
The gas would then be either liquefied under pressure and pumped
underground or turned into a mineral.
Political will
Dr Broecker said the most likely location for the towers would be desert
areas of the planet.
However, he admitted that such a project faced an uphill struggle.
"If I were a betting man I would bet against it because I don't know if
we have the political will to do it," he said.
"But looking at countries like Germany and here in the UK the will is
developing."
He said the challenge was to get rapidly developing countries such
China, India and Brazil behind the idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date:
31/05/2008 12:25
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/attachment
s/20080602/979d2c2f/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:55:08 +0200
From: "Laurens Rademakers" <lrademakers at biopact.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2
To: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
Cc: terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID: <48A517B09A8146118E8A1AF4EB6D4422 at PCvanLaurens>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Oh, but I don't think he's a crackpot at all, on the contrary. He's just
taking prof Lackner's idea and reviving it.
I do think the artificial trees are not our most interesting bet, compared
with terra preta.
-TP offers: renewable energy, food, ecosystem services and carbon
sequestration; all this possibly even while turning a profit instead of
costing us
-Artificial trees offer: only carbon sequestration and in the most difficult
way possible (geosequestration); all this at a huge cost
It's just that I'm growing impatient; many costly or risky geoengineering
ideas are getting a lot of media attention, while biochar/TP is not (yet).
Of course one could argue that we need more research on biochar and that the
technology is not as spectacular as synthetic trees, but still, I'm getting
impatient!
If governments decide to back the artificial tree idea, the technology might
begin to receive subsidies that could have gone to TP research and projects!
We need to do more lobbying.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. Barry
To: Laurens Rademakers
Cc: terrapreta
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2
Hi Lorenzo,
I've read about Dr. Wallace Broecker recently again (I think it was on the
TED Talks site) and for sometime now. He is not a crackpot. His ideas
could in all likelihood work. Building these devices, whose technology is
based on that used in submarines to "recycle" CO2 out of the air and make
the air breathable again in those enclosed spaces, is entirely workable.
The operating costs of these devices may be even more costly than building
the cost of the capital equipment to do it. Compressing CO2 into liquid and
pumping it into geo-sinks would be very energy intensive, even if you could
find enough of those geo-sinks. Making CO2 into minerals is like making
limestone or bicarbonate of soda from CO2 and calcium or CO2 and sodium.
This, too, is possible, yes, but sourcing the raw calcium or raw sodium
would also be costly and energy intensive, not to mention that the sources
for these are from the minerals (after the CO2 is released) that we would
want to be putting the CO2 into to make!
Making portland cement released from limestone releases enormous amounts
of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The most important point that Dr. Broeker makes I think, is pointing out
the seriousness of the problem; that is the increasing rate of increasing
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He is, I think, absolutely right in
his assessment that CO2 concentrations are currently at dangerous levels and
are rising precipitously. The other point I think he is correct about is
that political will to even see or deal with this problem is practically
non-existent. But, his plan could be a good "stop-gap" mitigation strategy.
Why he gets air on BBC ... I know he has a money-bags investor who is
backing the development of the types of systems he is proposing.
Dr. Wallace Broeker would be a great ally for those of us who are trying
to promote Terra Preta Nova. We should try to contact him about this.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurens Rademakers
To: terra Preta
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:36 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] 20 million artificial trees to scrub CO2
Here, an idea that directly competes with terra preta; the artificial
tree idea ...
____________________________________________________________
Take a break - you deserve it. Click here to find a great vacation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date:
31/05/2008 12:25
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/attachment
s/20080602/bf07532b/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:11:46 +0100
From: francoise precy <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: [Terrapreta] no instantaneousness = no overnight
To: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>, Terra Preta
<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, Michael Bailes
<michaelangelica at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU109-W548DDD5D4C62727EC19666A7BB0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello Sean
"I'm quite sure I never said putting charcoal into soil "instantaneously"
makes it into Terra Preta soil. If you think so, then show me the post where
I said that.":
Soil-wise, "overnight" = "instantaneous" =unbalanced approach.
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:43:24 -0500
From: "Sean K. Barry"
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Old native earth ovens.
To: "'Kurt Treutlein'" , "'terra pretta group'"
, "MFH"
Hi Max,
...
I suspect making Amazon style TP soils would take quite a long time. Its
just a thought though. Maybe the effect could be made to happen overnight or
in a single growing season with one application of the "right stuff", too.
Who knows?
_________________________________________________________________
All new Live Search at Live.com
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000006ukm/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:08:57 +0100
From: francoise precy <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] products of pyrolysis reactions
To: <sean.barry at juno.com>, Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID: <BLU109-W5E754DE86E3A678D895AFA7BB0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sorry Sean, my last post to you et al. in the list got the Hello cut in the
copy-paste
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:48:06 +0100
From: francoise precy <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] a good story
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, <michaelangelica at gmail.com>,
<benjaminbof at yahoo.com.ar>, <rukurt at westnet.com.au>
Message-ID: <BLU109-W45DA24C74C0BDC248DFEC8A7BB0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Lou, Kevin et al,
I think it is very fair, just and right that scientists be saved from
pathological obsession :-) by being reminded who and what exactly they're
working for, i.e. precisely the idea of diversity which is present in their
surroundings. But being in people's faces is another story, and making
others paying for it on a regular basis is plain daylight robbery. I find it
shocking that Kurt would signal that he has to pay for any of it, and that
the lack of attention to lengths of msgs keeps happening with some. Plus as
from those who ain't left kindergarten yet there's no excuse forthcoming,
it's just taking the piss and having one's nappies changed for free. I've
had personally *** enough feeling like I have to apologize to Kurt, Michael
et al for every occurrence of it. Benjamin you are in first line of that,
sorry to say but you don't say anything and it's irresponsible. I hope you
do apologize.
Meanwhile, Thank you Lou, Sean and most others for your good manners saving
the rest of us from feeling associated with that. And thank you for your
understanding and letting me vent my anger about it.
So if it's not directly TP-related and it's too long nearing one full screen
or more, I would not put it here in full: just 3 or 4 lines saying what it
is about, and a link to somewhere else with the full story.
Best regards to all
FP
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000007ukm/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:45:03 +0200
From: " folke G?nther " <folkeg at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] no instantaneousness = no overnight
To: "francoise precy" <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>
Cc: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID:
<7ae7181b0806020045r3b8859efn7801bd122e3288fa at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The Terra Preta soils are more than 500 years old. Thinking of creating them
overnight is as futile as thinking of getting a wine similar to a Pemier
Crus Bourgogne from a three-week wine making kit.
However, certain effects can be found rather immediately. Among those are:
- *(0-2 weeks)*Collecting urine in a bucket of charcoal will not lead to
any foul smell, which may otherwise be experienced.However, when the
charcoal is saturated with the nutrients that will be experienced. Then,
it
is time for the compost.
- *(1 month +) *If charcoal is added to the compost, the decomposition
rate will increase. (This is what Wardle observed)
- *(0-2 months)* Application of charcoal directly on top of soil will
deter snails (as *Arion lustanicus*). I will soon show some highly
unscientific pictures of that effect. Could be a very interesting
research
programme.
The charcoal will soon be tilled (or dug) down in the soil. Them, the next
effect can be experienced:
- *(2-3 months)* There will be a very fast increase in the earthworm
population, both in number and size. This is probably an effect of the
increased soil microorganism population.
- *(6 months +) *The effect on plants due to the above is rather dramatic
and well known by the members of this list.
However, just planting trees doesn't give you a forest. You have to be
persistent and patient.
FG
2008/6/2 francoise precy <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>:
>
> Hello Sean
>
> "I'm quite sure I never said putting charcoal into soil "instantaneously"
> makes it into Terra Preta soil. If you think so, then show me the post
where
> I said that.":
> Soil-wise, "overnight" = "instantaneous" =unbalanced approach.
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:43:24 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry"
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Old native earth ovens.
> To: "'Kurt Treutlein'" , "'terra pretta group'"
> , "MFH"
>
> Hi Max,
>
> ...
> I suspect making Amazon style TP soils would take quite a long time. Its
> just a thought though. Maybe the effect could be made to happen overnight
or
> in a single growing season with one application of the "right stuff", too.
> Who knows?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> All new Live Search at Live.com
>
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000006ukm/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
--
NB :Send your mails to folkeg at gmail.com, not to holon.se
----------------------------------------
Folke G?nther
Kollegiev?gen 19
224 73 Lund
Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)46 141429
Cell: +46 (0)709 710306
URL: http://www.holon.se/folke
BLOG: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/attachment
s/20080602/c3f100eb/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:58:38 -0700
From: Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] no instantaneousness = no overnight
To: francoise precy <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>
Cc: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, folke G?nther
<folkeg at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <523B9578-3FC0-4B5D-BF88-BB8F26345BF9 at nas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Francoise-------Although, my gardening with charcoal has not been
entirely successful, the word instantaneous does seem to be out of
place. Folkes' comments may hold true with more use of charcoal in
fields and gardens.
His timetable has elements that I accept as "on the mark". I have
used charcoal to reduce the smell of kitchen scrapes including meats
and fats without the local dogs or rats finding these treats. I do
believe that the smell of these kitchen scrapes is absorbed by
freshly made charcoal. Years ago, I buried kitchen scrapes without
using charcoal and the "kitty" holes needed to be deep to prevent
these two critters from digging for the best parts. With the use of
charcoal the "kitty" holes appear to only need to be shallow. I have
no wish to feed rats but do wish to know what deter them. Is that an
instant effect. Yes, but is not biologically active charcoal.
Over time, the functions of charcoal do seem to increase the benefits
to the garden plants. My experience suggests that after eight months
charcoal laying on a fungal substrate with a small amount of urine
added retain a rich organic smell that can only be attributed to
urine. This charcoal, when buried under some vegetables, made a
significance differences in the growth of those veggies. Is that
instant? No. Is it biological active. I believe so.
Why in one situation the charcoal seems absorb smells and in another
it seems to retain a modified smell is interesting. Are you a kid in
the garden? Explore with the curiosity of a young boy-------Larry
-----------------------------
On Jun 2, 2008, at 12:45 AM, folke G?nther wrote:
> The Terra Preta soils are more than 500 years old. Thinking of
> creating them overnight is as futile as thinking of getting a wine
> similar to a Pemier Crus Bourgogne from a three-week wine making kit.
> However, certain effects can be found rather immediately. Among
> those are:
> (0-2 weeks)Collecting urine in a bucket of charcoal will not lead
> to any foul smell, which may otherwise be experienced.However, when
> the charcoal is saturated with the nutrients that will be
> experienced. Then, it is time for the compost.
> (1 month +) If charcoal is added to the compost, the decomposition
> rate will increase. (This is what Wardle observed)
> (0-2 months) Application of charcoal directly on top of soil will
> deter snails (as Arion lustanicus). I will soon show some highly
> unscientific pictures of that effect. Could be a very interesting
> research programme.
> The charcoal will soon be tilled (or dug) down in the soil. Them,
> the next effect can be experienced:
> (2-3 months) There will be a very fast increase in the earthworm
> population, both in number and size. This is probably an effect of
> the increased soil microorganism population.
> (6 months +) The effect on plants due to the above is rather
> dramatic and well known by the members of this list.
> However, just planting trees doesn't give you a forest. You have to
> be persistent and patient.
>
> FG
> ------------------------------
> 2008/6/2 francoise precy <f.precy at hotmail.co.uk>:
>
> Hello Sean
>
> "I'm quite sure I never said putting charcoal into soil
> "instantaneously" makes it into Terra Preta soil. If you think so,
> then show me the post where I said that.":
> Soil-wise, "overnight" = "instantaneous" =unbalanced approach.
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:43:24 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry"
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Old native earth ovens.
> To: "'Kurt Treutlein'" , "'terra pretta group'"
> , "MFH"
>
> Hi Max,
>
> ...
> I suspect making Amazon style TP soils would take quite a long
> time. Its just a thought though. Maybe the effect could be made to
> happen overnight or in a single growing season with one application
> of the "right stuff", too. Who knows?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> All new Live Search at Live.com
>
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000006ukm/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
> --
> NB :Send your mails to folkeg at gmail.com, not to holon.se
> ----------------------------------------
> Folke G?nther
> Kollegiev?gen 19
> 224 73 Lund
> Sweden
> Phone: +46 (0)46 141429
> Cell: +46 (0)709 710306
> URL: http://www.holon.se/folke
> BLOG: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
/attachment
s/20080602/f053db09/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 17, Issue 4
*****************************************
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1477 - Release Date: 1/06/2008
5:28 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1486 - Release Date: 5/06/2008
6:29 PM
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list