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

[Folke Günther]

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

Folke Günther

Kollegievägen 19

224 73 Lund, Sweden

home/office: +46 46 14 14 29

cell:               0709 710306  skype:  folkegun

Homepage:     http://www.holon.se/folke  
blog: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/

 

  _____  

Från: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] För Sean K. Barry
Skickat: den 18 mars 2008 05:27
Till: Kevin Chisholm
Kopia: Miles Tom; Todd Jones; Michael Pilarski; Toch Susan; Baur Hans
Ämne: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TPBenefits

 

Hi Kevin,

 

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.

 

This is an interesting comment.  It think it could possibly happen that the
oceans and permafrost release more carbon and more potent GHGs into the
atmosphere as methane gas and methyl calthrates (solid, frozen methane) thaw
during Global Warming in the next couple of centuries, than all of the CO2
and CH4 that humans released from fossil fuel burning since the beginning of
the industrial revolution.  This may happen before would could make enough
Terra Preta charcoal-in-soil carbon sequestration to help stabilize GW or
make a difference.

 

I think this is also anthropogenic effect, because humans caused the heat up
so far since the beginning of the industrial revolution and for at least the
next few centuries from just what we've done already.  Further inaction will
exacerbate the problem and assure the heat up will continue to accelerate.
I think this will definitely happen if we do not make enough Terra Preta and
do a whole lot of other hard things.  It's kind of like seeing down from the
top of Niagara Falls from just upstream a bit.  Wait and see or paddle?

 

So, what should we do, regarding trying out ideas on Tera Preta, or
replacing and stopping burning fossil fuels?

[FG:] It is not the question of this or that, but of both. 

1.	A total cessation of the use f fossil fuels would not be possible in
the near future (say, 500 years).
2.	We will probably never be able to sequester he amount we today ae
emitting (7 Gt/year)
3.	But if we decrease emissions with 85% (to1 Gt/yr) and increase
sequestration to 2 Gt/yr, that would mean a net decrease of the atmospheric
carbon dioxide with 3.77 Gt/yr, or a decrease of about 1.8 ppm/yr

See my blog <http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/>  for more numbers

 

Regards,

 

SKB

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

From: Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>  

To: Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  

Cc: Richard <mailto:richrd at nas.com>  Haard ; Peter
<mailto:peter at read.org.nz>  Read ; 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>  

Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:40 AM

Subject: Re: Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TP Benefits

 

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
>  






  _____  

Jag använder en gratisversion av SPAMfighter för privata användare.
16187 spam har blivit blockerade hittills.
Betalande användare har inte detta meddelande i sin e-post.
Hämta gratis SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/lsv>  idag! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080323/ada51190/attachment.html