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

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

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.

Given that we make investments in the present and that we take action in 
the present, then I would suggest that we seek to determine the present 
value of our various possible investments and actions, so that we can 
choose to implement those that are most advantageous to us.
> 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.

Sure, but the question is: How does this consideration impact un what 
business I want to be in, or what business you want to be in?
>  
> 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.

The $ is a great common denominator. I can hire people to pull a plow, 
or I can use a horse, or I can use a tractor burning diesel fuel. The 
cost of production tells me the best and most sensible way to go. Things 
will change over time, and perhaps sometime, the $ will tell me to use a 
horse fueled with hay.
> Climate change can wreak havoc on food production and cause the 
> dislocation of hundreds of millions potentially.

Yes it can. However, I, and many others, are not convinced that the 
actions of Man can reverse what appears to be a trend toward global 
warming, or perhaps a trend toward toward global cooling, or perhaps a 
trend toward global climate change.
> 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?

Venus is closer to the Sun.
>  
> 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.

I don't think it would be possible to eliminate fossil fuel use unless 
we return to late Stone Age conditions. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere 
using biochar in the soil may simply shift the equilibrium so that more 
CO2 comes out of the ocean to re-establish equilibrium.
> 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.

It is yet to be established that the actions of Man can effectively 
remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to stem the trend toward global 
warming, or perhaps global cooling, or climate change.
>  
> 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.

Based on the past behaviour of the earth, CO2 goes away when Mother 
Nature wants it to go away. It is yet to be demonstrated that Man can do 
what Mother Nature does not want done.
>  
> We can either clean up our act in the atmosphere or we might die 
> trying to live in it.

Can we live in an atmosphere with 760 PPM CO2, twice the present level?
>   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.

Many would disagree with this view. Consensus Science is not science. 
Many lemmings have found that going with the consensus was not the right 
thing for them to do.
>   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.

Terra Preta can remove some carbon from the active biosphere. Even with 
absolute cessation of the consumption of fossil fuels, it is yet to be 
demonstrated that carbon sequestration will actually lower the CO2 in 
the atmosphere. It may simply shift the equilibrium point so that more 
CO2 will be released from the Oceans.
>   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).

It can, in some areas, but in other areas, the agricultural benefit will 
be minimal.
> The process of making charcoal from biomass can be a co-product with 
> harvesting usable heat and chemical energy in gaseous fuels from biomass.

Yes, this is technically possible, but it won't get done until it is 
economically possible.
> 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.

This also can be done, if people can make money from this effort.

So.... what is the Net Present Value of charcoal additions to the soil, 
as a Terra Preta constituent? If the answer is right, then people will 
do it, but if not, then they won't. Lets shift the focus back to showing 
how to make TP profitable. Then the things that want to fall in place 
will fall in place.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>