Terra Preta - The parent thread which started it all

[erich]

BillyT , who is from Brazil, has vociferously contradicted the carbon negative aspects of Terra preta soil technology.

sciforums.com - Name your favourite BioFuel Technology
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....84#post1152384

I have replied with quotes from the research I have seen, and am forming up a rebuttal to his latest reply:


Billy T
is at DarkVisitor.com (3,261 posts) Yesterday, 07:40 PM
report | reply
To Erich_knight
Thanks for links. I have now looked at http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/dday.pdf

Its 54 pages are mainly two parts: bio fuel & & terra preta.

The bio-fuels section is OK, but is mainly hopes and dreams and ignores alcohol which is real, economic, and enviromentally friendly.

On terra preta section:

Page 45 gives the relative carbon release by many fuels, showing all, even solar photovotatics, make some release (and they are correct when producing them and set up in field is included) and only terra preta as carbon negative. For reasons I detailed, in earlier post they are not entirely honest here. Yes, terra preta stores for reasonably long times (less than C02 injection into aquifer or raising clams etc as I mentioned in prior post) but each pass thru the char plant sends less than half of the carbon input into char for terra preta. Thus, if instead of using methane producing land dump to process 200 tons of bio-waste and by avoiding oil use, removes and /or store more than 200 tons in about one year, the char plant will put more than 100 tons of CO2 into the air for every 100 tons it stores, and part of that dumped into the air may be posionous CO initially. Their terra preat enthusasm is causing dishonesty.

Probably the same reason they failed to even include alcohol (of any type) in their page 45 chart -it is better, cheaper and much quicker than char at least as world converts and stores carbon in growing cane and alcohol storage tanks. After 1000 years or so, char can store more carbon than cane and alcohol.

You have quick and strong enthusiasm for many new technology but IMHO are not critical enough in your examination of them. Let me respectively suggest that you compare the results of processing 100 tons of wood chips and old news paper by two different processes. (methane land fill plant vs. Terra preta production and storage plant) in terms of how much (include oil displacement) the CO2 in air is changed by both and which removes more carbon form the carbon cycle for 100 years. I think you will find that the terra preta plant does not reduce oil consumption (adds slightly to it) and removes less than 50 tons of carbon from the carbon cycle and is not economically feasible without tax payer support. I.e. loses on all counts compared to the methane producing land fill.

Later by edit: I have visited the other two links now - not much new or different from first and I again not the almost activie ingnoring of ethanol and methane land fill alternatives. Also I know little about it, but is it not possible that Brazil's terra preta is natural, not man made? Obvious nature can make coincentrated carbon deposits (we call hem coal). Obviously vegitation in some areas, like Brazil, grows so fast and dies that it burries earlier half rotten vegitation. etc. Fact that some brokne potteryis found in it etc is not proof that it ws intentional made made soild addative. Perhaps tribal man's only role was to agee to sue one location as the dump. Back then it would not have old TV, tires, bottles and batteries, just vegitation and some pottery chards. The vegitation would generate heat (have you ever opened a big compost pile?) and with inadequate oxygen be largely reduced to carbon and oils (call that char) I like this natural carbon deposit theory alternative as I know peat is good for making scotch

Last edited by Billy T : Yesterday at 10:05 PM.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by erich

http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/dday.pdf


On terra preta section:

Page 45 gives the relative carbon release by many fuels, showing all, even solar photovotatics, make some release (and they are correct when producing them and set up in field is included) and only terra preta as carbon negative. For reasons I detailed, in earlier post they are not entirely honest here. Yes, terra preta stores for reasonably long times (less than C02 injection into aquifer or raising clams etc as I mentioned in prior post)

C02 injection into aquifer is not yet a viable solution for sequestering CO2 and there are many doubts that it ever will be.
.

Originally Posted by erich

but each pass thru the char plant sends less than half of the carbon input into char for terra preta.

the optimum pass is at 400C once. Solar or even copicing would probably be the best system for the environment. Highly refined carbon or activated, does not fit CO2 or Terra preta bill.
You have not taken account of the CO2 sequestered by the many living organisms in Terra preta

Probably the same reason they failed to even include alcohol (of any type) in their page 45 chart -it is better, cheaper and much quicker than char at least as world converts and stores carbon in growing cane and alcohol storage tanks. After 1000 years or so, char can store more carbon than cane and alcohol.

Are you sure it is cheaper? Usually alcohol is extracted from expensive crops such as sugar-cane and corn; not waste as terra preta could be.

Originally Posted by erich

Let me respectively suggest that you compare the results of processing 100 tons of wood chips and old news paper by two different processes. (methane land fill plant vs. Terra preta production and storage plant) in terms of how much (include oil displacement) the CO2 in air is changed by both and which removes more carbon form the carbon cycle for 100 years.

Yes this would be a good idea. Biogas and cellulose alcohol production too.

Originally Posted by erich

I think you will find that the Terra preta plant does not reduce oil consumption (adds slightly to it) and removes less than 50 tons of carbon from the carbon cycle and is not economically feasible without tax payer support. I.e. loses on all counts compared to the methane producing land fill.

How can you know this without doing the research?

Originally Posted by erich

is it not possible that Brazil's Terra preta is natural, not man made? Obvious nature can make coincentrated carbon deposits (we call hem coal). Obviously vegitation in some areas, like Brazil, grows so fast and dies that it burries earlier half rotten vegitation.

No this is not possible. It has been shown that it is definitely a man-made artifact.
It would be nice to know that replication of Tera preta is definitely carbon negative before we all start doing it.
If you "search this thread" with "carbon negative" you will find many articles supporting the view that it is carbon negative. (It would be nice to read Lehmann's book on this.)
The people from Cornell uni are telling us that terra preta is carbon negative.
They have set up and run pilot plants to prove this.
You haven't convinced me that they are wrong.

[Michaelangelica]

Here is a good summary
You could start your study of terra preta here
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/l...20strategy.pdf


On sequestration:-

BIOENERGY PRODUCTION
Agricultural wastes as well as bioenergy crops can be used
to produce energy by burning them in specialized power
plants and yield black carbon as a by-product. The
majority of the energy is converted into hydrogen. Due to
favorable energetic processes, the efficiency of the energy
production is very large while carbon retention is high
due to additional stripping of emissions in the flue gas.
This is a revolutionary process by which energy
production can become a net sink of atmospheric carbon
dioxide and provide organic matter to enrich our soils.

I may have mentioned this site before
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/l...20strategy.pdf

[erich]

"Begetting a virtuous cycle" , I particularly like these quotes in this 14 Aug article:

Published on 14 Aug 2006 by WorldChanging. Archived on 14 Aug 2006.
Terra Preta: black is the new green by David Zaks and Chad Monfreda

This piece was originally published on Worldchanging.com, "the world's leading sustainability blog."

http://www.energybulletin.net/19281.html

"Claims for biochar's capacity to capture carbon sound almost audacious. Johannes Lehmann, soil scientist and author of Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, believes that a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "

And:

"Terra preta's full beauty appears in this closed loop. Unlike traditional sequestration rates that follow diminishing marginal returns-aquifers fill up, forests mature-practices based on terra preta see increasing returns. Terra preta doubles or even triples crop yields. More growth means more terra preta, begetting a virtuous cycle. While a global rollout of terra preta is still a ways away, it heralds yet another transformation of waste into resources. "


Erich J. Knight

[Michaelangelica]

It is audacious.
It took me some time to get my head around this aspect of Terra preta, at first I was just interested because it might make my plants grow better
Lets hope Lehman et al are right.

Time may be an important factor in the Terra preta scheme of things. This was an interesting comment

Due to its polycyclic aromatic structure, black carbon is chemically and microbially stable and persists in the environment over centuries.

Oxidation during this time produces carboxylic groups on the edges of the aromatic backbone, which increases its nutrient-holding capacity.

We conclude that black carbon can act as a significant carbon sink and is a key factor for sustainable and fertile soils, especially in the humid tropics.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ch88m96jtrfrj4gk/

This article is a bit more obtuse.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=55a...=e4xgkj-23sf15
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...516eacbaee4b6d
I think the guy has invented a way of modelling carbon action in the soil?? Any clarification would be appreciated. I wasn't prepared to spend $30 on the full text

The stability analysis of some 1,564,080 cases suggests that soil carbon dynamics should not amplify the direct forcing of climatic perturbations

[erich]

This is an interesting "FLash Carbonization" process: http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp#flashcarb

And the home page:

http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/biocarbon.asp

Biocarbons (charcoal)
Consider the following riddle:

I am renewable;
I am a chemical element;
as a fuel I am often less expensive ($/GJ) than natural gas;
my energy density (GJ/m3) can exceed that of ethanol or LPG;
and my combustion does not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere;
I am easily stored and safe to transport;
I clean the water you drink and the air you breathe;
Plants grow best in soils that are enriched with me;
I am a key ingredient in the production of semiconductors;
When eaten I settle an upset stomach and clean the intestines; and
No one is afraid of me!
What am I?


(if you don't know, please find the answer at the bottom of this page).

The Table below lists the current prices of conventional fossil fuels and their renewable alternatives. Observe that at its current price, without any tax incentives or other government subsidies, charcoal is cost-competitive with alternative fossil fuels. In fact, charcoal is the only renewable fuel that is now cost competitive with fossil fuels. Remarkably, at its current price (equal to oil at about $7/GJ) the production of charcoal is very profitable. This fact is well-known to charcoal producers, but not to the general public.

FUEL PRICES Fossil Renewable
Coal See note 1 Charcoal $3-8/GJ
Oil $3-11/GJ Ethanol $14/GJ
Natural gas $2-12/GJ Hydrogen $18-24/GJ

Note 1: because of its high content of mercury, sulfur, and other noxious elements and compounds, the price of coal is not comparable to the other (relatively clean) fuels listed. To be comparable, the price of coal should include the necessary cleanup of these noxious materials (especially mercury) at the outlet of the powerplant. Unfortunately, reliable data on the cleanup costs are not easily available.

In addition to the fact that charcoal is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, the markets for charcoal are more diverse (and potentially larger) than those open to any other fuel. What other fuel enjoys markets as a potting soil, health food, water purifier, soil amendment, air purifier, metallurgical reductant, and cooking fuel?

Furthermore, landfills in the State of Hawaii are overburdened. The Table below illustrates the amount of charcoal ("black gold") that can be manufactured annually by the Flash Carbonization™ process from each county's waste stream. Note that the current wholesale price of charcoal ($246 per ton) imported to the USA is equivalent to oil at $46/bbl on an energy basis. The production of "black gold" from Hawaii's green wastes could become a $50 million per year (or more) business for a visionary entrepreneur.


For these reasons, biocarbons (i.e., charcoals) are an important element of HNEI's overall R&D programs. The ancient technology of charcoal manufacture has seen dramatic recent improvements in HNEI's Renewable Resources Research Laboratory (R3Lab). Work continues on optimizing reaction conditions for using the Flash Carbonization™ process with biomass. UH Flash Carbonization™ process patents are being actively licensed. Research efforts are also continuing on biocarbon fuel cell concepts.

(Answer to riddle: charcoal!)

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by erich

This is an interesting "Flash Canonization" process: http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp#flashcarb

Great link and riddle thanks
What interested me most was the canonisation of tires. This is a major waste problem I wonder if this type of carbon can be used in Terra preta?
I wonder if flash carbonation is CO2 neutral?

After we satisfy all emissions regulations, the University will team with its licensee for the State of Hawaii (Carbon Diversion Corporation) and use the equipment to convert green wastes into charcoal. Large, dense, green waste feedstocks (e.g., tree logs, coconut shells) will be marketed as barbeque charcoal. Lighter material (e.g., tree trimmings and macshells) will be marketed as orchid potting soil (see below). Some charcoal may also be marketed as an ultra-clean coal. Synthetic materials (e.g., shredded automobile tires and other shredded synthetics) may also be carbonized

And now for something completely different :-. . .

A friend gave me a Bonsai plant for my birthday.
I was hoping to avoid this type of gardening before I die
I went to the local nursery and had a look at Bonsai Potting Mixes.
If they weren't 40-50% carbon (finely ground) I would be surprised.
What are the Japanese not telling us?

[Michaelangelica]

erich
You keep popping up in my TP Google Alert all over the Internet!!!!
The latest
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=840407
Have you thought we could start a Tax-free Terra Preta Church?
As chief preachers we would get all the pro . .I mean, Donations Of The Faithful.

I had a thought about methane (a greenhouse gas second only to CO2.)
Orchid growers put charcoal in their potting mixes to keep air circulating around the orchid roots. (Bonsai growers do the same but with very fine charcoal)
Do you think charcoal would stop/eliminate/effect? anaerobic decomposition in the soil by aerating it?
Anaerobic decomposition of organic matter is a major source of methane.

Just a stray thought caused by a random photon passing though the grey matter.

Keep up the good preaching

--
Michael

[erich]

Our Carbon who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name,
By kingdom come, thy will be done, IN the Earth to make it Heaven.
It will give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our atmospheric
trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against the Kyoto protocols,
And lead us not into fossil fuel temptation, but diliver us from it's evil
low as we walk through the valley of the shadow of Global Warming,
I will feel no evil, your Bio-fuels and fertile microbes will comfort me,
For thine is the fungal kingdom,
and the microbe power,
and the Sequestration Glory,
For ever and ever (well at least 2000 years)
AMEN


Erich J. Knight

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by erich

Our Carbon who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name,
Erich J. Knight

Fantastic, now we just need a few catchy hymns and a breakfast-food company and the money should just roll in
PS
How many wives are allowed by the Kyoto protocol ? or must we be gay?