[Terrapreta] What TP as carbon sequestration can do?

[Lloyd Helferty]

I have to agree somewhat with Mr. Barry. I don't see much prospect of
humanity stopping the use of Fossil Fuels.  In fact, one of the biggest,
"scariest" issues for humanity at this juncture in history that is being
debated around the world is the issue of "Peak" Fossil Energy, or "Peak
Oil", which simply means that we cannot extract oil (and gas and coal) at
faster rates than we did the year before.  Essentially (around 2007) we
reached a Global peak (or maximum) rate of production of these energy
sources and from here on forward the rate of extraction is expected to
decline indefinitely due to real geological (and technological) constraints.
(The consequences may be primarily felt 'economically'...)
  Yes, it seems true that humans will likely never stop burning fossil
fuels, and it is true that we will very likely burn them for a long, long
time to come, but we will burn them at lower absolute rates as time goes by,
and it will become increasingly expensive to do so ~ although we will (and
are) seeing a re-emergence of the 'dirtier' fuels being used (i.e. Tar
Sands, Shale Oils and Coal) as times goes on -- but eventually there will
come a time when it will become prohibitively expensive to use fossil fuels
at all simply because we've burnt up all of the most easily accessible stuff
and the only 'reserves' that are left require more energy to pull out of the
ground than the energy they provide to us ~ and will be so expensive that it
would be cheaper to use solar cells, batteries and biodiesel.  At that
point, humanity will effectively stop using them (for fuel) except for
specific applications [mostly for flight], but of course by that point we
will likely have developed enough substitutes for what little we need that
we wouldn't even bother trying.  But then, given the much reduced energy
density of biomass (which is nowhere near the energy density of fossil oil),
we can expect to do a lot less energy intensity stuff, like flying, in 50
years. (I.e. Don't expect that the energy intensive lifestyles that we are
currently used to will continue to still exist for very much longer ~
except, perhaps, for the super rich. And with biological systems now at the
brink of collapse and in dire situation across much of the world, a reliance
on Biofuels as a substitute is almost foolish. But, perhaps with the massive
deployment of Biochar 'technology' and massive biological restoration we can
manage... who knows.)
 
Happy days! :-)
 
    Lloyd Helferty
    Thornhill


  _____  

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
Sent: May 25, 2008 3:57 PM
To: terrapreta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What TP as carbon sequestration can do?


Hello TP readers,
 
Some think that we should vastly curtail or even STOP emitting fossil carbon
as CO2.  This idea stems from some rather obvious observations. Humans are
adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a continuous rate, that is both the highest
measured rate from any source and is at a rate that is increasing faster
than from any other source.  Some argue that the oceans and the plants will
absorb this excess CO2.  However, the measurements of increasing atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, in spite of what oceans and plants can absorb, does
not support this view.  In fact, 
recent measured increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration (1970-2000:
atmospheric CO2 concentrations up on average 1.5 ppm yr-1, 2006: up 2.14
ppm, 2007: up 4 ppm) indicate that the oceans and plants are now less able
to "absorb" CO2 than they have been in just the recent past.  Thus, it would
seem that the oceans and plants uptake of CO2 is "at saturation".
 
One must suppose, too, that as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 go up, so
does global average temperature and consequent changes in climate (or the
extent/loss of climate zones, i.e. the spread of desertification, the loss
of Artic and Antarctic ice mass).  Some, too, would argue against this last
assertion.  I don't know why?  It seems fairly obvious if anyone who would
closely examines the history of CO2 and temperature along the mathematical
models of their interaction.  This is, again, one of these very observable
measurements that could be made by those who would disagree.
 
Now, to think that we should vastly curtail or even STOP emitting fossil
carbon as CO2 is not really the same thing as saying we should stop burning
fossil fuels.  Thsat would be the simplest and moist straightofrward
apporach, but many, many people get themselves all bent out of shape,
calling you a Marxist, or a liberal, or all kinds of names if you would
imply that this should be what is done by most to reduce the growth in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
 
Today, I am now going to suggest a different approach.  This will make the
people Greenpeace shudder.  Wallace Broecker suggested it.  I am beginning
to be inclined to agree.  HUMANS WILL NEVER STOP BURNING FOSSIL CARBON
FUELS, so the only real way we can reduce the growth in atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 or reduce actual concentrations of CO2 is to actively
remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  This is where the formation of Terra Preta
comes in.  Forming TP soils requires charcoal.  Making charcoal and putting
it into soil removes CO2 from the atmosphere (indirectly by stabilizing the
carbon from plants that grew in the atmosphere and took in carbon as CO2
when they grew).
 
The change in thinking here is that making charcoal for the formation of
Terra Preta soils CAN ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO BURN FOSSIL CARBON FUELS.  I
used to think this was stupid and immoral.  I know Green peace does.  But,
it now has an appeal to me because it recognizes present and probably future
reailty; HUMANS WILL NEVER STOP BURNING FOSSIL CARBON FUELS.
 
We can't beat them, so we might as well join them.  If we can give the
fossil carbon fuel industry and incentive to make charcoal for Terra Preta
soil formation and the sequestration of carbon, this will allow them to
continue to operate.  They are a better ally than they are a foe.  This will
also makes allies out of the ones who cannot or will not take the sacrifice
of stopping the burning of fossil carbon fuel.
 
What does anyone think about this?
 
Regards,
 
SKB
 
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080526/0a224d29/attachment.html