[Terrapreta] the scope of the problem
Larry Williams
lwilliams at nas.com
Mon Mar 3 03:38:07 CST 2008
Sean-------You have suggested and other members using similar figures
suggest that "In order for TP (Terra Preta) to work at solving these
problems the world needs to cleanly produce ~6 billion tons of
charcoal from ~25 billion tons of dry biomass every year. This
cannot be done with trees alone. We would exhaust all of the
standing wood on the planet in 10 or 20 years doing that. "
This is a mischaracterization, as I see it, of the available biomass
from forests and I would like you to consider the significance of
individual tree harvesting in our evergreen forests. This concept
applies to areas of the world where there are full canopies,
specifically multi-layered canopies. In the Pacific Northwest we have
sustainable farm foresters who practice individual tree harvests on
their forest lands. As a general rule, it was recommended by these
timber harvesters that trees selected for harvest be subordinate
trees within the forest canopy. This practice is on private forest
lands.
In a newly acquired properties they would first remove trees that
were of lesser value, that is, trees with physical or disease damage
so that the dominate trees would have the available light, water and
nutrients that were used by the subordinate trees. The practice was
to remove 5-8% of the canopy every 10 years. This was enough opening
to encourage natural regeneration and at the same time allow for a
significance closure of the canopy before the next harvest.
As it was described to me by different forest owners and consultants
it was important:
1) to downsize the logging equipment,
2) narrow the width of the road to 10 feet,
3) increase the frequency of the road system,
4) have the road layout to be very protective of the existing tree
roots systems, that is, to follow the least damaging routes,
5) to have highly skilled loggers who fell, yarded and loaded logs
with the least damage to the standing timber and
6) that these companies use forest managers who spent decades with
there respective companies and knew every inch, so to speak, of their
land.
The purpose of removing the minimum canopy was so that the sunlight
(photons) would have a limited opportunity to initiate germination of
lower valued trees species and maintain the available light for the
higher valued trees.
With this selection system the subordinate trees were trees in a
biological decline and would lose more value over time than they
currently had at the time of harvest.
I agree that the majority of the forest industry is interested in the
profit and not the impact of current logging practices. Your comment
above is likely true for corporate loggers interests and your
statement that we "would exhaust all of the standing wood on the
planet in 10 or 20 years doing that " needs to be seriously
considered. Exhausting a stand of trees or a forest is not necessary.
Maybe society and the monied interests need to rethink the value of
corporate profits as a long term value rather than a quarterly goal,
especially in terms of global climate change.
I acknowledge that this is not happening at this time but the price
of a barrel of oil is only at $102 dollars and the value of the U.S.
fiat dollar is only down to $0.68 to the Euro. Think about how fast
those values are changing. There are no rats leaving this ship if we
get into a run away CO2 event (refer to the history of Venus'
atmosphere).
Biologically, if we were to manage forest land products with an
individual tree harvests perspective then we could have a sustained
yield for the production of charcoal.
My hands are in the dirt, ah! soil, and it has power if we attend to
the biology even in desert climates. I believe that we can produce
far more biomass than we are currently, in our forests and in our
deserts. See: Geoff Lawton: 1) We Are The Weeds, 2) Greening The
Desert - Permaculture in Action. He did capture the available water
to succeed in his Jordanian project. Did you catch the statement in
"Greening the Desert "where the local farmers were burning the crop
residue. I wonder what the moisture content is for that debris
compared to what we have to deal with with our seasonally wet woods?
Let's make charcoal over there.
Now, why do we have to "exhaust all of the standing wood on the
planet in 10 or 20 years"? Because we don't know how to grow plants?
We can grow plants around the world when be put our minds to it.
I wonder, does Geoff knows about charcoal and Terra Preta nova? If he
can figure out how to grow plants in the desert then can't we figure
out how to do it in the temperate zone? Your friend-------Larry
----------------------------------------
On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I think the scope of the problem is not addressed by any means.
> Whether we uses conservation (turn lights off for an hour), short
> term sequestration (plant trees), or whether we put charcoal-in-
> soil into practice as a CO2 emissions offset and carbon
> sequestration strategy, the total of our effort has to be
> ENORMOUS! Humans put 6 billion tons of new carbon (as CO2 and CH4)
> into the atmosphere every year. That amount is growing. Nitrous
> oxide-N2O (another highly potent GHG) emissions are growing too.
> The population is growing and consuming more fossil fuel than ever
> before, with no stop in sight. Food production is suckled to
> fossil fuel based fertilizer production and it is required to grow
> with the population, lest some will starve.
>
> In order for TP to work at solving these problems the world needs
> to cleanly produce ~6 billion tons of charcoal from ~25 billion
> tons of dry biomass every year. This cannot be done with trees
> alone. We would exhaust all of the standing wood on the planet in
> 10 or 20 years doing that. Handling and processing 25-50 billion
> tons of biomass every year into 6 billion tons of charcoal would be
> the largest industry the world has ever seen!
>
> I believe forming Terra Preta soils to improve agricultural
> productivity on degraded and poor land and to sequester carbon is
> among the best of approachs to solving this atmospheric carbon
> concentration, but it is just simply a very huge undertaking.
> Reduction in fossil fuel emissions would help (by reducing the need
> to produce charcoal for TP carbon sequestration). When charcoal is
> made with a yield of ~25% by weight and ~50% by energy content,
> then there is ~50% of the original chemical energy in the biomass
> which is released in the process. We need to find ways to capture
> and use this energy, as much as possible. This could reduce fossil
> energy consumption by 20-25%.
>
> Fossil fuels will eventually run out, cheap fossil fuel will go
> first, natural gas first, then petroleum, and lastly coal. Some
> arrogant fools believe we will be able to continue to burn fossil
> coal for 300-1000 years more! God help us if we do not see that
> this will choke us all in the heat and starve us or drown us in the
> inundation by the seas and the loss of most of the living species
> (and food) on the planet.
>
> Mitigation work for the Global Climate crisis is only beginning.
> All approaches needs to be looked at and undertaken immediately.
> Action, action, action, on extremely large scale atmospheric CO2
> reduction has to also take place very soon. Forming Terra Preta
> soils needs to begin ON MASSE with many other types of CO2
> emissions reduction and carbon sequestration strategies. This
> needs to be looked at not as a hobby, or research, or studied by a
> few any longer. Everyone (all 6 billion of us) needs to sequester
> 1 ton of charcoal away every year for the rest of our lives. The 1
> ton initiative!
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Bailes
> To: geoff moxham ; Terra Preta
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] methane, cowfarts and charcoal in the
> feedlot
>
>
>
> On 03/03/2008, geoff moxham <teraniageoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd call that a BINGO!
>
> How many win win win win situatuations did we need as a culture to see
> a good thing when it was under our noses? (or our cow's noses) I think
> it's too late to catch the current collapse slide, that will probably
> take high-intensity feedlots with it, but after the dust settles char
> in feed may be a part of dairying.
> Geoff TDH
>
>
> Yes
>
> How many do we need???
>
> It is depressing me a bit at the moment with people with fly-by-
> night tree planting schemes and switching off city lights for an hour
> .What is it about charcoal and basic TP that is hard to understand?
>
> --
> Michael the Archangel
>
> "You can fix all the world's problems in a garden. . . .
> Most people don't know that"
> FROM
> http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080303/caf72f97/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list