[Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTP Benefits

[Mark Ludlow]

Thank you Sean, for the thoughtful response.

 

In my mind , a sustainable future is composed of a variety of notions, each
staged in time. Terra Preta is akin to carbon banking that occurred millions
of years ago, at the same time calcium carbonate was deposited in great
masses. But now it seems like a determinate way to affect atmospheric carbon
excess, in much the way that solvation of CO2 by the water masses of the
earth were eons ago. At any rate, it seems superior to high-tech solutions
such as carbon injection into the earth’s mantle.

 

Plus, evidence of Terra Preta’s positive effect on agronomy makes this a
no-brainer, it seems.

 

I look forward to expanding our dialog!

 

Best regards,

Mark Ludlow

 

 

From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:18 PM
To: mark at ludlow.com; 'Jim Joyner'
Cc: 'terrapreta'
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTP
Benefits

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for these comments.  It seems that you recognize the lameness of
testing the work of doing Terra Preta formation in soil with "present value"
and "future value" estimates.  I can assure you, these hoop tests put up by
"the want-to-be willing" won't stop me trying things or speaking in support
of making Terra Preta a bigger reality in more peoples minds than it is now.

 

I think the formation of Terra Preta -like soils (and carbon sinks) can be a
great solution (the greatest even) to many of the worlds current problems.
I'd put most of its value into the future, too.  But, that might be just me.
I have a son and daughter and wish for them to have a better life than mine
and for them to try to make the world better for their children (my
grandchildren someday).  Pay it forward.  The past rarely ever returns or
makes payments.  Well, until I was born.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Mark Ludlow <mailto:mark at ludlow.com>  

To: 'Sean K. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  Barry' ; 'Jim Joyner'
<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>  

Cc: 'terrapreta' <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>  

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:57 PM

Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTP
Benefits

 

Hi,

 

I'm a recent joiner of this list but the concept of Terra Preta has
fascinated me for several years, particularly as it affects our strategy for
biomass utilization.

 

As long as the sun shines we can expect photosynthesis to continue. In my
mind, a balance must be struck between short-term needs for fuel from
biomass and the competing need to re-sequester atmospheric CO2 (via Terra
Preta or deep earth injection, etc.). In the short term, realizing the full
immediate energy potential of biomass substrates may be required (utilizing
pyrolysis gases as well as charcoal), even though this amounts to a
carbon-neutral strategy, at best.

 

As we begin to depend on a "hydrogen economy"-which I prefer to think of as
one depending on photosynthesis-building strong soils will be a key element
that will support future biomass production. At some point, returning carbon
to the soil, even though it represents a potential fuel source when gasified
and water-shift reacted, will make sense, given its ameliorating effect on
climate stability.

 

All of this will require investments and result in negative or positive cash
flows over time. Analyzing capital utilization with traditional PV and FV
methods works for widget manufacturers, but has more limited utility in
something as complex as energy policy, where markets are distorted by
government intervention (regulatory and incentive).

 

But all-in-all, Terra Preta seems like the one "can't lose" strategy for the
long term.

 

Best regards,

Mark Ludlow

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Jim Joyner
Cc: terrapreta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTP
Benefits

 

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for that compliment, if it was one.  I'm an engineer.  We sometimes
think that even sounding like a salesman might bring the wrong connotation.
I can appreciate your concerns over the plethora of tough issues in our
world today and those surrounding just global warming.  We are run out of
time with GW/GCC and burning fossil fuels, though, and we must act now.

 

Voltaire said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good".  We might not have it
all figured out and make it the most economically at first.  But, indecision
and not doing anything but chatting is an enemy we can no longer wait for.
Doing something towards trying to build Terra Preta formations and/or
charcoaling technology, and techniques for charcoal-in-soil use in
agriculture really just strikes me as possibly some of the best things we
could try to do now.  With Terra Preta, the solutions to many pressing
problems are all dove-tailed into one globally applicable and culturally
accessible solution.

 

Jim, if you think that my plan has merit, then push for all or part of it
within your local community.  Try outreach to another place in the world,
too.  Dissemination of these ideas and putting some of them into practice
will net us very useful educations about what can work and what won't work,
or how to make things work better, etc.  Really, active involvement by more
people just has to help.  Make a difference and then tell us all about it.
That way we can learn and grow from all of our shared experiences.  Setting
and talking is about run out it usefulness.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Jim Joyner <mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>  

To: Undisclosed-recipients: 

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 5:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTP
Benefits

 

Sean,

You should run for President! You are one helluva salesman.

And I certainly would agree that a habitable planet would be preferable to
one not habitable for whatever time frame, but I have to wonder when you
speak of thousands, hundreds or even tens of years if you are not guilty of
assuming that everything else will remain the same over these periods of
time.

I mean, we could be headed into a world wide, severe economic depression as
I write this. That could unleash a whole set of unknowable variables: world
wide political instability, a drastic reduction in industrial output,
disease, famine, a pull back to the dark ages. And each of these as its own
set of distinct positive and negative possibilities. We certainly have
enough nuclear weapons to turn this planet into a sterile rock and plenty of
crazies who would use them -- some of them have them. We could even have an
ice age -- maybe a little global warming would be appreciated! Look at
technology. It could bring about the increase of population to unbearable
heights; or, it could solve all the problems you are trying to undertake
with TP overnight. Any of the above could dwarf the problems or present
solutions to global warming -- and that still assumes global warming is
something we can or need to address.

You are also, I think, assuming that cooperation will continue, or get
greater than it is now, on a global or even a national scale. And if you
think it's only the Republicans (your sarcasm is acceptable on the
particular brand we have now) represent a unique political obstacle, you
need to go back to history class. You need also to understand that so long
as there are governments, the rule of force rules above all else; that over
and over again, it shoots itself in the foot; That even total annihilation
is better to it than not being in power.

We talk here of carbon credits, e.g., but these are a form of taxation
dressed up as carrots. Whatever positive effects they have they will have
some negative effects too. Maybe we can bear those and maybe we can't. Even
projected use of fossil fuels is not a given. Most estimates of reserves are
not certain.

It all just seems a bit grandiose, especially since we don't know for
certain we can create TP. If we can, we don't know how long it will take to
be useful or last under present conditions. We don't know how economically
viable TP will be even if lives up to the wonderful expectations you have.  

I agree with Lou that we do have think up (visionary, I think he said)
solutions before we can execute them. But to sell solutions before we have
much more than a guess as to how, or even if, they will work, seems a little
over the top.

Jim

Sean K. Barry wrote: 

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



_______________________________________________
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/fbde745a/attachment-0001.html