[Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TP Benefits

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Richard, Kevin, Folke, et. al.

I can appreciate the Net Present Value as a measure of the benefits of making Terra Preta formations.  The "Net Future Value" (NFV) is in my mind possibly more or at least as important.  From the article you cited the other day, Richard, and Folke repeated it, what we do now in terms of CO2 in the atmosphere has far long range implications, circa thousands of years.

Let me put it this way, I think that if we try to exhaust the world's supply of fossil carbon reserves and DO NOT DO anything about climate remediation, except burn slowly all of the fossil carbon and hope for the best, then we will likely fail to keep the population alive for 100-200 more years.  Climate change can wreak havoc on food production and cause the dislocation of hundreds of millions potentially.  If we see much larger than a 2º C increase in the annual global temperature average in the next 50 years, I wouldn't be surprised.  I think if it's worse, all best are off, because it could be a runaway heat up.  Why is Venus, without people, at 280º C in an atmosphere choked with CO2, right next door to us?  I wonder if we are displaced Venetians, even the men?

This means that ACTION now must begin on work to keep the climate habitable and climate + soils agriculturally productive and do it by eliminating fossil fuel energy use, mining, and production, and finally by directly removing GHG from the atmosphere with biochar-into-soil.  This we will all need to do for the next some thousands of years.  Many, if not all of the fossil carbon energy reserves could be exhausted or economically out of reach for most before thousands of years could be up, anyway.  Using much more of what fossil carbon reserves there are, WITHOUT addressing GHG emissions reductions AND direct atmospheric mining of CO2 and sequestration into soil, will likely again, make the climate uninhabitable for many people in the world, starting now and into the future for thousands of years.  WITHOUT addressing removal of GHGs, these effects will commence immediately, however, and allow us to only last 100-200 years more.

We have to come to grips with this sea change in our behavior about energy.  Where energy comes from MUST change.  We cannot harvest energy from fossil carbon reserves anymore! We must only get it from the sun, wind, nuclear, and the thermal radiation of Earth, anymore.  Using "carbon-less" and "non-fossil carbon" energy resources must supercede the use of fossil carbon fuels right away, as much as we can.  Getting energy from fossil carbon reserves is POLLUTING the atmosphere and in a way that doesn't go away for thousands of years by itself.  

We can either clean up our act in the atmosphere or we might die trying to live in it.  Here is part of a plank, Richard: "Cleaning the atmosphere is the issue of our times."  Humans have effected a change on the environment leading to a change in the climate and we must see the way to reverse the effect very soon.  Climate conditions are an integral part of our way of life.  That's pretty obvious to most (except maybe some Republicans who can go anywhere they want and only worry about themselves).

Terra Preta formation can address the multiple purposes; climate mitigation, food production, and a viable energy resource.  I think this model works for how to behave in the future with respect to energy and the environment.  The immediate problem of high GHG concentrations in the atmosphere can be dealt with by sequestering charcoal-in-soil and ceasing the production and use of industrial fertilizers, burning of fossil fuels, and maybe of limestone cement.  Charcoal-in-soil can lead to long term agricultural benefits, lasting thousands of years (similar to the Amazonian TP formations, which are found circa 4500 after formation began on them).  The process of making charcoal from biomass can be a co-product with harvesting usable heat and chemical energy in gaseous fuels from biomass.  The gaseous and liquid chemicals extracted from pyrolysis of biomass can also or otherwise be refined and used to produce even, again, industrial fertilizers and other chemical products like those from petro-chemicals.


Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Haard<mailto:richrd at nas.com> 
  To: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  Cc: Peter Read<mailto:peter at read.org.nz> ; Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; Miles Tom<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; Toch Susan<mailto:anaturalresource at gmail.com> ; Michael Pilarski<mailto:friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com> ; Baur Hans<mailto:hans at riseup.net> ; Todd Jones<mailto:tjones at nas.com> ; Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:12 AM
  Subject: Re:-----and Net Present Value of TP Benefits



  On Mar 14, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

  > Peter Read wrote:


  Hello Kevin  - drifting a bit from the thread but an interesting topic  
  to me.

  by NPV you mean direct value to farmer such as added CEC  or OM  
  equivalent? The real value to farmer - not discounted carbon credit is  
  what will make this all happen as general practice in agriculture.

  What is the real economic benefit to the farmer per ton applied to  
  land will depend on  soil type, climate and needs for fertilizer  
  supplements to maintain fertility levels and as yet unquantified  
  benefits of charcoal additive in soil. This figure of NPV $50  could  
  be quite higher.

  Most important in soils where organic matter needs to be monitored  
  carefully to maintain productive capacity (not all do), what needs to  
  be calculated is the cost of raising soil organic matter an equivalent  
  amount permanently.  Ie the cost in lost production of fallow periods  
  and the cost of reestablishing farming if the land has gone back to  
  forest during fallow.

  I am hoping the block research currently underway at our farm  
  comparing compost to charcoal to fertilizer and permutations will  
  answer this question for us at 4CN.

  In our farming we are holding organic matter at 4 % minimum with  
  biannual applications of 1 cubic yard of compost made from sewage  
  solids and sawmill wood waste per 1000 sq. feet. In addition, we are  
  adding summer and winter cover cropping when a particular section is  
  fallow. So far as a OM supplement sawdust alone will do the job when  
  balanced with garden fertilizer to compensate for binding of N and P  
  by the decomposing wood. But this OM benefit in tilled soil is gone in  
  a few years whereas the charcoal lasts as I am trying to quantify at  
  our soil.

  Buying charcoal at $ 200/ton will not happen for us in the short term  
  anyway because of these economic factors. I do not know what a cubic  
  yard of dry sawdust weighs but cost is  most likely 5 % or less and we  
  use about 250 yards or more  annually. What might happen though in the  
  near term is our on farm waste wood summer dried and converted to  
  charcoal by some sort of smothered combustion. In our climate dry  
  weather July through September will allow us to do this by windrowing  
  with farm machinery.

  We will have significant quantities available, probably each year 300  
  cubic yards of loose twigs, roots and reject plant trimmings. Right  
  now we either burn this stuff or use the soil/weed and reject plants  
  as fill. Labor and use of equipment on farm does not equate to  
  purchases outside of normal operations hence costs we incur on such a  
  project are more easily absorbed as I suppose they are elsewhere. I am  
  thinking some sort of buried pyrolysis with movable scrap sheet metal  
  and wet spoiled hay in a top lit bottom draft system similar to our  
  project 2 years ago.

  If the value of farm waste worked into soil, say corn or wheat  is  
  higher when converted to charcoal then the most efficient method for  
  doing this onsite will rule in the end.


  On Mar 14, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
  >  If we assume that Charcoal in TP gives a return with aNet Present  
  > Value  equivalent to $50 per tonne of Charcoal applied,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080315/7511bbf5/attachment.html