[Terrapreta] Present and Future Benefits of TP

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Lou,

This is a fantastic site you've referred me to.  I don't mean to imply that considerations for Methane-CH4 emissions should prevent "slash-and-char" as opposed to wider scale "slash-and-burn".  From that site http://biocharfund.com<http://biocharfund.com/> site ...

What is more, the production of biochar in village-scale pyrolysis plants is coupled to the generation of carbon-negative electricity, making renewable, low-carbon and decentralised energy services available to rural communities currently without access to modern energy.

The site speaks of the kind of pyrolysis plants, that I think are needed to make charcoal cleanly (sans Methane-CH4 emissions).  The site mentions many of the things I have been talking about.  There are several technical hurdles to implement these types of systems.  It has to be realized, too, that even biomass is finite and we can harvest only so much charcoal and/or energy from it.  Without significant amounts of biomass, there will be neither charcoal, nor energy to be had.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: Richard Haard<mailto:richrd at nas.com> ; terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Present and Future Benefits of TP


  Hi Sean,

  I'm jumping into this in the middle without carefully following the thread. Apologies if I am missing your point.

  The emphasis on "slash and char" is in the context of replacing the "slash and burn" techniques used by millions of subsistence farmers who live along the frontiers of tropical deforestation and in other poverty-stricken and soil-depleted  areas. I don't know how appropriate a term this would be in the modern industrial farming scene. With regard to the frontiers of tropical deforestation it could have a HUGE impact. 

  This is why http://biocharfund.com//index.php<http://biocharfund.com//index.php> was created.

  Again, apologies if I've missed your meanings.

  lou


  On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> wrote:

    Hi Richard,

    Perhaps I have not mentioned "slash-and-char" directly in those terms.  My concept of "in-situ" pyrolysis is the closest I would be to that, I think.  Open field "slash-and-char" is not exactly what is needed to combat the atmospheric problems.  Emissions from open field "slash-and-char" are the problem.

    There were some things I wanted to ask you about.  How does charcoal (+ pottery?) help soil hold nutrients better?  To see how TP soils work, shouldn't we be looking at that more?  If anyone makes charcoal on and applies it on one site, then this is "in-situ".  If instead anyone makes charcoal on one and more sites, all applied to another site, then the latter site receives the concentration of nutrients (in-the-charcoal) from the other sites.  Might  concentrating it on another site might be the important part of what the Amazonians did when making their Terra Preta?  

    Importing and concentrating nutrients from a large area onto a smaller one must clearly bring more nutrients into that soil bank?  Does/would the build up of microorganisms and the increase in nutrient holding/delivering capacity (CEC) take time to develop in the soil?  Does/would it involve certain crop rotations or a continued annual series of inputs?  There is a real kind of "investment" quality to attempting to form Terra Preta soils, I think.  It also seems like it requires continued investments to really work.  We're trying to bank the stores of carbon, nutrients, and microorganisms (containing carbon).  All of this, to build on the kinds of agricultural productivity we can get out of these TP plots/banks (our interests and dividends).

    Lastly, the problem of rising GHG in the atmosphere means being very careful about GHG emissions.  We DO NEED to pyrolize GIGATONS biomass, making charcoal, and put it into the ground, ASAP.  We cannot let ~3-10% of the original carbon in that biomass escape into the atmosphere as Methane-CH4 and sequester less than 50% of the carbon when we pyrolyze the biomass (as happens in an open pit).  That will not work in the grand scale, to fix the problems in the atmosphere, even if we buried all of the GIGATONS of charcoal we made.

    I know I am beating the crap out of this point.  But it is critical to any plan that uses Terra Preta for climate amelioration needs to take it into account.  Others methods just don't hunt.  The slash-and-char concept seems strictly "in-situ" to me.  Does or will transport of charcoal from site to site become important in the formation of Terra Preta soils?

    Regards,

    SKB
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Richard Haard<mailto:richrd at nas.com> 
      To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
      Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:06 AM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Present and Future Benefits of TP


      ...

      Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?




    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
    http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>




  -- 
  http://lougold.blogspot.com<http://lougold.blogspot.com/>
  http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets<http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080326/962bc829/attachment-0001.html