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

[Larry Williams]

To all-------When I decided to include Susan Toch on an e-mail  
posting to this list I expected that she would get a few posting and  
that would give her a sample of this list's discussions. This thread  
has been carried far beyond my expectations and her need to know. She  
works on water issues and has a mailbox loaded with postings. I  
consider water an essential element of the Terra Preta process.

She has requested that her name be remove. It would be appreciated  
that her e-mail address is not included in future postings. Thank  
you-------Larry


--------------------------------
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Date: March 23, 2008 12:59:27 AM PDT
> To: Barry Sean <sean.barry at juno.com>, "Kevin Chisholm"  
> <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Fwd: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value  
> of TP Benefits
>
> Sean, Kevin-------Susan Toch has asked to have her name removed  
> from this series of postings. If you would not include her in  
> future postings it would be appreciated. Thanks-------Larry
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
>> Date: March 17, 2008 9:27:29 PM PDT
>> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>> Cc: Miles Tom <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, Todd Jones  
>> <tjones at nas.com>, Michael Pilarski <friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com>,  
>> Toch Susan <anaturalresource at gmail.com>, Baur Hans <hans at riseup.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value  
>> of TP Benefits
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080323/905e905c/attachment.html