[Terrapreta] Biomass sources

[Richard Haard]

Hello Kurt

There are answers to all your questions. There is quite a substantial  
body of literature to review in the postings at <http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/ 
 >

I see your address is Australia. Mine is coastal cool moist climate of  
Pacific NW of US. Comments are in my climatic and resource context.

On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kurt Treutlein wrote:

> Where is all that biomass to come from? Cut down existing forests??  
> Not
> good.

Timber harvest here is typically clear cut production on 50 to 80 year  
rotation. Slash and waste are typically piled and burned resulting in  
1 to 2 % conversion to charcoal where pyrolysis would yield 30 to 40%  
charcoal Room for a lot of carbon sequestration here , and also  
sawmill, urban wood waste.

> Grow it on agricultural land? Also not good, we're short of food
> now and certain activities to produce bio fuels are exacerbating that.

Nowadays farmers pump their land with fertilizer and crop back to  
back. Sensible farming utilizes fallow periods and cover cropping to  
restore natural fertility. Growing short rotation woody crops or even  
industrial hemp as annual cellulose source for charcoal will return as  
much as 6 metric tons charcoal per hectare and in Sweden with their  
carbon tax US equivalent of $3,460 to enrich their soils and to  
utilize energy value for offset of processing costs. If such a  
rotation was done every 3-4 years fertility and organic matter content  
of soils would increase every cycle.

>
> Use all the "waste" crop residues (eg corn stover)? Also not good. If
> you remove that and turn it into char, where is the Soil Organic
> Material going to come from?
> We're short of that virtually everywhere

Agreed that soil organic matter is its lifeblood. Charcoal in the form  
of properly prepared bio-char emulates organic matter in form and  
function. Ordinary organic matter on the other hand is substrate  
(food) for soil microbes and is eventually oxidized to CO2 disappear  
into the atmosphere. Charcoal and its positive effects last thousands  
of years in the soil. To have immediate benefit in soil charcoal must  
be preconditioned with urea, urine or compost before incorporation.

The question to me is just how do we go about accomplishing this  
biomass conversion. With purchased appliances or with appropriate  
technology.?
>
> now, are we going to end up with sterile soils that need artificial
> fertilizers to produce anything at all? I mean we've basically got  
> that
> now, in many places. Will the improved productivity of the created
> Terrapreta Nova make up for it?
> We don't know, and personally, I doubt
> it.

Good questions worthy of a great discussion and/or a literature  
reading project. I do not agree with your conclusion. If you are  
curious spend some time in the files section. A partial answer would  
be that there are climates and soils where the benefits, or the  
reasons for using charcoal will differ and results will be either  
subtile or dramatic but they will be always positive. In all cases  
converting forest; agricultural waste to biochar before incorporation  
in the soil will result in long lasting effects of stabilized organic  
matter improved soil conditions and biological function that would  
otherwise disappear in a few months to years with ordinary organic  
matter additions.

> We still have to find out if this works anywhere but in tropical
> soils like the Amazon.

The bottom line is that we need to promote and adopt wide-scale use of  
direct carbon sequestration by burying charcoal in soil.

This quote from NASA climate scientist, James Hansen et al , article  
summary, Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? , gives us  
our mission if we are to survive

  If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which  
civilization developed, paleoclimate evidence and
ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from  
its current 385 ppm
to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from  
possible changes of
non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by  
phasing out coal
use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and  
forestry practices that
sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not  
brief, there is a
possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080317/017e0bb5/attachment.html