Opinion: What are the challenges of Terra Preta

[InfiniteNow]

It's pretty straight forward. In your opinion, what are the most significant challenges of Terra Preta? This can be social, political, chemical, engineering, anything you want...

What challenges are there? Once we've identified them, we can begin taking steps to surmount them... but we must first identify them, hence this thread.

[erich]

From Ron Larson to the TP list;

Hi all:

1. Today, the organization 25x25 (see 25x'25 - Home) released its (first-ever, 55-page )"Action Plan" ; see http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/d...ActionPlan.pdf

On page 31, as one of four foci for recommended RD&D, the plan lists: "The development of biochar, animal agriculture residues and other non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, toward the end of integrating energy production with enhanced soil quality and carbon sequestration."
and on p 32, recommended as part of an expanded database aspect of infrastructure: "Information on the application of carbon as fertilizer and existing carbon credit trading systems."

2. I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of RE -but way out in front on biomass topics. Terra Preta list members in the US will probably find that their elected representatives will respond well to recommendations coming from 25x25 - and we can probably expect our DoE and DoAg will pay attention as well. I don't know of any more powerful ally than 25x25 to have on our side - so I suggest using these two quotes liberally as you talk to policy people.

3. I'm not sure exactly who to thank, but TP-list member Mike Bowman (Colorado farmer and 25x25 Board member) probably gets some credit. At the recent AAAS meeting in San Francisco, I also heard Reid Detchon (one of the Plan's editors and Executive Director of the prime funding group behind 25x25) use the terms "charcoal" and "sequestration" in the same sentence. Thanks to Mike and Reid.

4. I think I may have been the only other person to mention TP at this important AAAS meeting that focussed on sustainability (but I talked to half a dozen other people who seemed to know TP). My opportunity had to do with organizing a session focusing on a recent ASES report that mentions TP on p 117 (free download of this biomass section http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf).

5. Obviously TP has a long way to go in RE science and policy circles, but we are making some progress!

Ron





_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta@bioenergylists.org
Terrapreta Info Page

[erich]

Great news , thanks Ron,

This statement in the ASES down load is contrary to the potential that char has as a soil carbon sink:

"Because char residue from pyrolysis
processes would contain about 10% of the
original carbon, the carbon storage component
that would arise from the incorporation
of the char into soils would likely be about 1
tC/ha/yr, compared with offset rates from
Table 1 for power systems on the order of 4
to 6 tC/ha/yr."


I must not understand these numbers,

? how does any combustion or IGCC system store carbon in soil?
? Are they just talking here about "Offsets"?

? The range of Tons of Charcoal per hector I have read has been from 1 to 16 ton/Ha?


Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
E-mail: shengar at aol.com
(540) 289-9750

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by erich

Great news , thanks Ron,

This statement in the ASES down load is contrary to the potential that char has as a soil carbon sink:

"Because char residue from pyrolysis
processes would contain about 10% of the

Pyrolysis should give 70-90%+ charcoal depending on what you start with.

Where does 10% come from????

[erich]

Here is an updated post from Ron Larson concerning my concerns'

Stumbling my way towards Babylon,
Erich


"Hi to T-P list members

1. Erich Knight ("Shengar") wrote to me off line about the ASES report (http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf ) (that I sent information about on Feb. 28) that mentioned Terra Preta. Erich said: "This statement [below as #2, last sentence of p117] is contrary to the potential that char has as a soil carbon sink." RWL response: I can see why Erich thinks the sentence to be a negative one, but I believe it is really positive - as discussed next.

2. The sentence (emphasis added) in question reads "Because char residue from pyrolysis processes would contain about 10% of the original carbon, the carbon storage component that would arise from the incorporation of the char into soils would likely be about 1 tC/ha/yr, compared with offset rates from Table 1 for power systems on the order of 4 to 6 tC/ha/yr."

3. First, we must understand that the top entries of Table 1 (p 116) gives growth rates in terms of CO2 potential avoidance (14 to 23 tCO2/ha/yr) that are higher than the 4-6 tC/ha/yr (stated above) by the CO2/C ratio of 44/12= 3.67.

4. The charcoal production value of 1 tC/ha/yr is not explained anywhere, but seems to be consistent with central - high estimates (9 to 20+ tC/ha/yr) in Table 2 of annual biomass production in the US and the 10% charcoal estimate in the first part of the item #2 sentence. The 10% estimate is consistent with present-day gasification conversion processes, but I think we should place more emphasis on the unexplained 1 tC/ha/yr –which can be increased considerably.

5. One can change sentence #2, without changing the meaning, to read: "Because char residue from pyrolysis processes would contain about 10% of the original carbon, the carbon storage component that would arise from the incorporation of the char into soils would likely be about 1 tC/ha/yr, which can be added to offset rates from Table 1 for power systems on the order of 4 to 6 tC/ha/yr, giving a first year total offset of 5 to 6 tC/ha/yr."

6. But we can also think of maximizing, rather than minimizing, charcoal production – to say 50% - or 5 tC/ha/yr. then the same sentence could read: "Because char residue from pyrolysis processes can contain as much as 50% of the original carbon, the carbon storage component that would arise from the incorporation of the char into soils would likely be about 5 tC/ha/yr, which can be added to half the offset rates from Table 1 for power systems on the order of 2 to 3 tC/ha/yr, giving a first-year total offset of 7 to 8 tC/ha/yr".

7. Caution – the above large offset improvement is probably not real. However, I believe that there is no change in meaning from the original #2 – and shows that the authors of this chapter were not downplaying the TP approach. Note my inclusion of "first-year".

8. Thus, I hope Erich (and all) will agree that the above sentence #2 is in fact NOT a contrary statement.

9. In a second follow-up off-line message, Erich also asked three more questions:

"? how does any combustion or IGCC system store carbon in soil?" RWL answer: I agree that they can’t –but gasification/pyrolysis schemes of course can.
b."? Are they just talking here about "Offsets"?" RWL answer: Yes and no. I think I have rewritten their sentence appropriately to show that they are talking of FIRST-YEAR offset reductions. The important point is that, unlike the direct offset, carbon in the soil has a MULTI-YEAR impact. If the overall impact is a C-doubling for 10 years, the soil carbon (charcoal) should be interpreted as having the huge offset value of 2*10 = 20 times the C-amount placed in the ground. This is the area where we need lots of help from soil science economists. I will try to explain this more ASAP in a separate message. Hopefully, we will see lots of discussion of this at the Terrigal conference.

c. "?The range of Tons of Charcoal per hectare I have read has been from 1 to 16 ton/ha?" RWL answer: I have seen similar - with your "ton" (in English units: 2000 lb = short ton) generally being interpreted to mean in metric units: "tonne" = 1000 kg = 2200 lb = long ton. Note that 10 t/ha = 10^4 kg/10^4 sqm = 1kg/sqm. If we assume the soil has a density of 1 (meaning = 1g/cm^3 = 1 kg in 1 liter (10cm on a side) = 1000 kg (1 tonne) /cubic meter), then 1 kg/sqm is equivalent to a 1 % loading over the top 10 cm or a 10% loading over the top 1 cm (i.e. - 1 kg uniformly distributed over 0.1 or 0.01 cubic meter). It appears that the ancient Amazonians added perhaps 100 times more than 10 tonnes/ha (but took many centuries or a few millenia to accomplish this). Anyone have alternative numerical analyses?

d. (in a third message) "I still don't understand why any offsetting technology, which does not place carbon in the soil, would be characterized by a tons per hectare per year designation, I find this confusing. Wouldn't it be clearer if offsets were described as just tons per year?

RWL answer: I agree with Erich that these units can confusing. We in this Terra Preta discussion group need to and can learn much from this Biomass chapter about present and future biomass growth rates - the likelihood of increasing biomass metrics in units such as tC/ha/yr. [And we on the "terrapreta" list especially should note that there will always be confusion with these units between growth and sequestration rates!!] The authors of this ASES report chapter (who have an interest in both topics) report that we have in the US a present national growth capability of one gigaton per year of biomass. This large number apparently is roughly the same as 10 tC/ha/yr (on average, with a wide range). Can the terra preta sequestration rate concept double that growth rate number?

My friend Ron West, ChE Professor-Emeritus, has noted in helping me answer Erich that carbon is only about 40% of bone dry biomass – so we need also to be clear in whether tonnes are of carbon or total biomass.

Main RWL conclusion: It is time to add a major terra preta research category to our world (and especially US) energy RD&D efforts to answer these coupled sequestration and growth rate questions – much as we have been supporting some limited research on the growth rate question. Note the frustration of several other recent messages on the falure to get US Federal funding in these areas.

Thanks to Erich for asking for these clarifications.

Ron





_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta@bioenergylists.org
Terrapreta Info Page

[maikeru]

I think one of the serious challenges of terra preta will be to fully understand the changes in soil ecosystems and microbiology that result with the addition of biochar, and how these may impact plant growth for a wide variety of species. For example, from what I've read and others here have discussed, it seems that terra preta has a high retention of nitrogen, which encourages the growth of leafy plants but it may not benefit the growth of fruit-bearing or root-vegetable plants.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by maikeru

I think one of the serious challenges of terra preta will be to fully understand the changes in soil ecosystems and microbiology that result with the addition of biochar, and how these may impact plant growth for a wide variety of species. For example, from what I've read and others here have discussed, it seems that terra preta has a high retention of nitrogen, which encourages the growth of leafy plants but it may not benefit the growth of fruit-bearing or root-vegetable plants.

Good point on the chemistry maikeru!

My concern would lie with the soil biology. How would diiferent fungi/bacteria react with TP with regards to any particular biome/ecosystem? I suppose this can be fixed fairly easy, but at what cost and at what reduction of return?

edit: I'm a newcomer to this idea btw...

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by maikeru

I think one of the serious challenges of terra preta will be to fully understand the changes in soil ecosystems and microbiology that result with the addition of biochar,

Yes agreed, problem is we have only named 10% or so of the "wee beasties" that live in the dirt beneath our feet.
There is a whole universe under there. If we can't name them, what chance have we got to understand their behavior, role, reproduction, favorable unfavorable conditions etc.?
Many countries, it seems, may have unique sets of soil zoology; just as they have different animals. The continent of Australia may have different soil 'critters' to the Americas, or Japan. Then, within countries there may be differences; the deserts of Australia say, may be different to the coast or the littoral rainforests different to the tropical rainforests. These is enough here for a truckload of phDs.
Unfortunately many soil bugs don't want to grow on petri dishes. Even if we archived their growth in a laboratory, it does not help with understanding their complex interrelations with each other, with SOM, char, fertiliser, trace elements,heavy metals, pollution etc.
It is a mammoth task. Perhaps we should do it before we go to Mars?
It may be that the "wee beasties" in Terra preta are unique to the Amazon.


Another coming challenge
Another coming challenge I see for TP is the emerging pyrolysis technology.
This gives us the opportunity to make charcoal out of anything that was once organic (I am hoping to start a TP Funeral Service with the catchy marketing slogan: 'Die, fertilize the earth, and power a big light bulb' ). This means there will be dozens of different charcoals with different properties. Comparative research will thus become difficult if we don't know what we all mean when we say "charcoal".
Even today with wood charcoal there are different woods with different properties. Will what happens in Japan with bamboo charcoal happen in Australia with eucalyptus charcoal? Charcoal can be made at different temperatures and methods resulting in different resin and bio-oil levels. Ash levels may vary; pH may vary, size and shape of char might vary etc.
These problems need to be resolved before charcoal manufacturers (from pyrolysis) can make claims about their product. The problem is, that until these problems are sorted large scale pyrolysis will not be rolled out and pyrolysis will remain a research curiosity. "The energy cum GW solution we nearly had" A classic chicken and egg conundrum. If this happens TP will not be able to claim to be an answer to global warming.

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Yes agreed, problem is we have only named 10% or so of the "wee beasties" that live in the dirt beneath our feet.
There is a whole universe under there. If we can't name them, what chance have we got to understand their behavior, role, reproduction, favorable unfavorable conditions etc.?
Many countries, it seems, may have unique sets of soil zoology; just as they have different animals. The continent of Australia may have different soil 'critters' to the Americas, or Japan. Then, within countries there may be differences; the deserts of Australia say, may be different to the coast or the littoral rainforests different to the tropical rainforests. These is enough here for a truckload of phDs.
Unfortunately many soil bugs don't want to grow on petri dishes. Even if we archived their growth in a laboratory, it does not help with understanding their complex interrelations with each other, with SOM, char, fertiliser, trace elements,heavy metals, pollution etc.
It is a mammoth task. Perhaps we should do it before we go to Mars?
It may be that the "wee beasties" in Terra preta are unique to the Amazon.

Yes that is very true. Unfortunately, at least speaking from my school's program, there's not a huge interest in bacteria or soil microbes any kind unless the "wee beasties" are related to some form of disease or medicine. But at least we have methods of knowing that new and different species of microbes are there by looking at rRNA sequences in samples. Not all microbes grow quickly or numerously, either. A similar problem faces the characterization of microbes that live in aqueous environments like oceans or lakes.

Another coming challenge
Another coming challenge I see for TP is the emerging pyrolysis technology.
This gives us the opportunity to make charcoal out of anything that was once organic (I am hoping to start a TP Funeral Service with the catchy marketing slogan: 'Die, fertilize the earth, and power a big light bulb' ). This means there will be dozens of different charcoals with different properties. Comparative research will thus become difficult if we don't know what we all mean when we say "charcoal".
Even today with wood charcoal there are different woods with different properties. Will what happens in Japan with bamboo charcoal happen in Australia with eucalyptus charcoal? Charcoal can be made at different temperatures and methods resulting in different resin and bio-oil levels. Ash levels may vary; pH may vary, size and shape of char might vary etc.
These problems need to be resolved before charcoal manufacturers (from pyrolysis) can make claims about their product. The problem is, that until these problems are sorted large scale pyrolysis will not be rolled out and pyrolysis will remain a research curiosity. "The energy cum GW solution we nearly had" A classic chicken and egg conundrum. If this happens TP will not be able to claim to be an answer to global warming.

Yes...a lot of things ahead of us. At least let me say that wood charcoal seems to have worked pretty well in my homemade stuff.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by maikeru

Yes that is very true. Unfortunately, at least speaking from my school's program, there's not a huge interest in bacteria or soil microbes any kind unless the "wee beasties" are related to some form of disease or medicine.

Perhaps a bit off topic, perhaps not, Came across this amazing, quirky bit of information in a biology book

"The soil inhabiting fungus Tolypoccladium inflatum is the source of cyclosporin, a medication that suppresses the immune reaction that cause organ transplant rejections.
Cyclosporin does not cause the undesirable side effects that other immune-suppressing medications do.
This remarkable drug became available in 1979, making it possible to resume organ transplants, which essentially had been abandoned.
As a result of cyclosporin, successful organ transplants are almost commonplace today."

FROM "The Handy Biology Answer Book, Bobick et al, Visible Ink Press, 2004.

What else is there for us to discover in dirt?