[Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TP Benefits
John G. Flottvik
jovick at shaw.ca
Mon Mar 24 10:23:32 CDT 2008
List.
If we are not allowed to pollute the air here in developed countries using low tec systems, we cant feel its OK to do it here at home. To apply for, and go through the air emissions testing here in BC for the pyrolysis system is tough and there is no short cuts or forgiveness.
To make 45 gallon drum back yard, or other second rate pyrolysis systems do nothing but pollute and cant possibly meet the goal we at TP are trying to achieve. Even as a hobby to make charcoal, the emissions are extremely problematic.
Tom is right in that we need systems that can produce charcoal in large amounts, and the reason for this is that to make the process economical, more product needs to be made while keeping your overhead expenses down. Sean has rightly mentioned that your biogas cannot be expelled and has to be flared or used.
A properly designed system will use all the methane (gas) as [a] fuel for the pyrolysis process and [b] fuel for a secondary need such as a boiler for steam production or a power turbine. The charcoal stream will be divided into several arms such as JF BioCarbon (TP) some can be activated while the rest can be used as fuel pellets or BB briquettes. Low value heat can be harvested through internal heat exchangers for sale to nearby greenhouses or other needs. And then you have the bio-oil.
By utilizing everything the reactor does and making all the above mentioned products a sellable product, your economics will fall into place. Terra Preta can be achieved but not at the rate or speed some on the list would like to see but we need to start somewhere.
Regards
John Flottvik
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. Barry
To: Edward Someus ; Richard Haard
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; tjones at nas.com ; friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com ; anaturalresource at gmail.com ; hans at riseup.net
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value of TP Benefits
Hi Edward,
ES:
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: It is understandable that in the developing countries rural areas where debris is burned anyway then low tech pyrolysis would result in a net permanent reduction of emissions, so if there are 2 bad methods, than the less bad is still better than the worse bad one.
This may seem like a plausible argument at first - "less of BAD is better". But only at first. That slash and char (less burning more charcoal) is better than slash and burn ONLY applies if all of the quantities/qualities of bad and good are weighed/measured correctly.
What is BAD vs. GOOD regarding to GHGs in the atmosphere and resulting GW/GCC effects, releases of ALL of the carbon in/as CO2 (from complete combustion, burning) vs. LESS carbon in Methane-CH4 (an emission from BADLY done pyrolysis for GOOD charcoal) DO have different, not-so-obvious BAD vs. GOOD weights. Just a little (~2-3%) Methane-CH4 released to the atmosphere from lots of BADLY done (not so GOOD?!) pyrolysis-for-(GOOD for soil?) charcoal IS WORSE (more BAD!) for the environment than if all that biomass were just burned. The BAD vs. GOOD scale is tipped oddly, so that BADLY done charcoal-from-biomass is worse for the environment than burning it all.
The scale is tipped so that even burying all of the BADLY done charcoal, it is still worse for the environment!
I've discussed this issue before. It does need to be clearly understood, I think.
The best point to take from this is that we cannot make GIGTAONS of charcoal willy-nilly, however we can, or not so cleanly (releasing some Methane-CH4 anyway) and make charcoal sequestration in Terra Preta even work to correct the atmospheric problem. We cannot go headlong into this problem with all methods possible to make charcoal.
The implements and the methods must take as much CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in charcoal-in-soil and there must be NO releases (extremely minimal) of Methane-CH4. Effectively doing this and more simply would be better too.
We can go headlong and put it into the soil in many possible ways to try and develop methods improve the agricultural performance of that soil.
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Someus
To: Richard Haard
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; tjones at nas.com ; friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com ; anaturalresource at gmail.com ; hans at riseup.net ; sean.barry at juno.com ; kchisholm at ca.inter.net ; Folke Günther - Lund
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTPBenefits
RE 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?
RICH
Thank you for your notes.
I did not made any comparison, just made a straight and brainstorming question, with basic TP policy concept importance and directly related to the TP environmental protection benefit + NPV/NFV profile. Time to time the TP list is circulating information how to make char by low tech solution and cheap way, which cheap char making technical methods are obviously not supporting the improvement of the sustainable char production environment and does not meet any standards in the EU/USA. YES "The damage from CH4 emissions can wipe out the advantage from sequestering the highest yield of charcoal (~30-40%) by weight".
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: It is understandable that in the developing countries rural areas where debris is burned anyway then low tech pyrolysis would result in a net permanent reduction of emissions, so if there are 2 bad methods, than the less bad is still better than the worse bad one.
EU/USA: The low tech solution way to make char in many cases, are not including the costs of the environment and makes more environmental pollution after than before, therefore, there is a high risk that low tech solution char production may make more policy harm in the EU/USA to the TP international programme than support. We have to be aware of that, from Authority permit application point of view the low tech solution "cheap char makings" are forbidden activities in the EU/USA, even if they are "home made" or on site local farming activities. The low tech solution is certainly not supporting TP's legal and general pubic acceptance in the industrialized countries.
By setting up this straight question in the discussion of the NPV/NFV profiles, I wish to support the PRO-TP development activities in the EU/USA, which in wider scale should certainly be based on the EU/US industrial standard and environmental acceptance of the char production, which basic material sustainable production scenario is the key element to the TP, and certainly is one of the prime element of the TP legal/public acceptance in Europe and North Americas.
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: Richard Haard
Date: 2008.03.23. 21:16:04
To: Edward Someus
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; tjones at nas.com; friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com; anaturalresource at gmail.com; hans at riseup.net
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Net Present Value and Net Future Value ofTPBenefits
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:
INTERESTING 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.
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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20080324/b2cde453/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /attachments/20080324/b2cde453/attachment.jpe
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list