[Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTPBenefits

[Richard Haard]

Edward - Are you comparing 'semi open, "simple" home made to  
industrial appliances or to burning of forest debris/ agricultural  
waste? It seems for the subsistence farmers of the humid tropics slash  
and char offers a reduction in net emissions even with simple methods  
so long as the biomass is carbonized, even partially. In addition, use  
of biomass as compost or letting decompose on ground will result in  
conversion of 100% to atmospheric form. The challenge is to design an  
implement  and distribute the appliance that can be economically used  
on a scale that is significant where biomass either cannot be  
transported or is not economic to do so. In urbanized air quality  
controlled  areas an air quality controlled implement is appropriate,  
but in rural areas where debris is burned anyway then low tech  
pyrolysis would result in a net permanent reduction of emissions.

Further, the use of an appliance that requires an investment and  
maintenance would be incentive to recover cash value of charcoal as  
fuel and at small scale as yet economic return from carbon buyback is  
not significant. This is what has me thinking that a low tech solution  
in or near the farmers field that results in a partial charred/compost- 
able product would yield a higher level of sequestration.

Please critique this viewpoint. For example, can you conclude charcoal  
produced in this manor has lesser value in agriculture than converting  
forest and agricultural debris to ash?

Thank you

Rich H
On Mar 23, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Edward Someus wrote:

> INTERSTING QUESTION:
>
> If TP network is further encourage to use semi open, "simple" home  
> made and none EU/US industrial standard relevant char making  
> technologies which makes more pollution after than before , THAN how  
> the TP environmental protection benefit + NPV/NFV profile will be  
> formulated on international level?
>
>  Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
> TERRA HUMANA Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
> 3R Environmental Technologies Ltd.
> ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
> TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
> TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
> TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
> 3R TERRACARBON:   http://www.terrenum.net
> 3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY:   http://www.vertustechnologies.com
> http://www.nvirocleantech.com
>
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Folke Günther
> Date: 2008.03.23. 16:49:06
> To: 'Sean K. Barry';  'Kevin Chisholm'
> Cc: 'Todd Jones';  'Toch Susan';  'Michael Pilarski';  'Miles Tom';   
> 'Baur Hans'
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value  
> ofTPBenefits
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> A total cessation of the use f fossil fuels would not be possible in  
> the near future (say, 500 years).
> We will probably never be able to sequester he amount we today ae  
> emitting (7 Gt/year)
> 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 for more numbers
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Chisholm
> To: Sean K. Barry
> Cc: Richard Haard ; Peter Read ; Miles Tom ; Toch Susan ; Michael  
> Pilarski ; Baur Hans ; Todd Jones
> 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 idag!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080323/81667029/attachment.html