[Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TPBenefits

[Greg and April]

While very commendable, I highly doubt that ceasing the use of fossil fuels or the use of cement will ever happen.

I say this as even the renewable energy industry requires the large use of fossil fuel to make those wonderful products that make renewable energy industry even possible.    Where does the raw materials come from the make a wind generator or a solar cell - do you see what I'm trying to say?    

This is why I have traditionally asked what the carbon footprint of a MW wind generator or a field of solar cells is - and no one that has advocated such forms of energy over fossil fuels has ever been able to reply with any thing more than " I don't know but it's smaller than traditional energy sources ".    Then when I ask " How do you know? " all I get is silence.

The point I'm trying to make, is that it takes allot of fossil fuel to make solar cells or a wind generator, so you can't just do without it when making such products - just not possible.


Cement is a fact of life, and in many ways can not be done without, indeed even the renewable energy industry needs it almost as much as fossil fuel.    I also do not see the issue with CO2 release with cement making as it is temporary, since while CO2 is driven off to make the lime for the cement, the cement absorbs CO2 as it cures.    Granted it does take more time to absorb it than it did to drive it off, but it does happen - recall the problems with Biosphere 2 and how they had to import O2 during the great experiment - that was because the cement that was used for the construction of the facility, was absorbing it from the air, and they failed to take that into account and make sure that there was enough CO2 available for the plants to use and the cement to absorb.


Greg H.
   
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sean K. Barry 
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 13:49
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TPBenefits


  SNIP

  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 
    To: Kevin Chisholm 
    Cc: Peter Read ; Sean K. Barry ; Miles Tom ; Toch Susan ; Michael Pilarski ; Baur Hans ; Todd Jones ; Terrapreta 
    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,





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080315/d269e7ee/attachment.html