[Turtle]

Originally Posted by erich

Europe's Product Oriented Environmental Management System -- "Poems" for short

If only the US would share these TRUE costs with the public than we could discern their True value or determent.

http://energypriorities.com/entries/...ironmental.php

Very nice; sounds reasonable. If only you had answered the question about what kind of wood the Missouri company is using and where it comes from and whether or not it is contributing to deforestion. What is the true cost of the Missouri operation in your assessment?

[Turtle]

How 'bout some tidbits to clarify my position on terra preta? I think using charcoal and other additives found in Amazonian dark soils to improve plant production is worthwhile. I do not think it is practicle to attempt to ameleorate global warming by sequestering carbon in soils ala terra preta. I think the best way to produce horticultural charcoal is by using a distributed system of solar trough ovens to produce charcoal from the excessive wood that centuries of fire suppression have allowed to build up in our forests.
Link:
http://hypography.com/forums/science...coal-oven.html

[Terra Preta Nova]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I'll let the fellas here promoting charcoal sequestering as a glob
al warming "cure" toot their own horns.

They have been bringing up links and references. You have been saying they are incorrect.

So back up your claim that such a position is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Did you already know I gardened with charcoal soils this year? I didn't think so.

Do you often exhibit a shrug when you are wrong? Because in this 20 or so page thread, you mentioned the use of charcoal in your garden more than once. Which I had read before I signed up.


Given no one seems to have referenced Duane Johnson redrok dot com, you might wish to visit his web site on Heilostats and consider joining his mailing list on the topic rather than taking wild design stabs at making a device to drive off water.

[Terra Preta Nova]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

The problem with biomes such as tropical rain forests and tropical reefs is that there is such an abundance of life that the nutrients available are all used IN the life and the soil/water is VERY nutrient poor.

This position does not reflect the 1700-2200 year old Carbon being found in Terra Preta.

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

The standard method in the Amazon is the "slash and burn".

That is the method today, yes.

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

This is when the forresty is cut and burned prior to cultivation (the source of charcoal).

Based on the data I have seen, burning does not get you charcoal. You need heat and lack of oxygen. Burning is the reaction of something with oxygen.

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

This returns all the various nutrients stored in the plant diversity to the soil. The problem is when the crops are harvested, the nutients are then removed with the crop and reasonably infertile soil is left.

And this is a different problem than any other farm operation exactly how?

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

This sounds like a poorly researched and biased show that this came from.

And you have data to refute the work being done on Terra Preta? Please post these links.

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

The only real way to allow for farm land to stay fertile is either through artificial fertilization (not the best) or a cycle of crop rotation and allowing fallow periods upon the field.

Yet the method you are suggesting is exactly what what you say is a problem when you state:

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

This returns all the various nutrients stored in the plant diversity to the soil. The problem is when the crops are harvested, the nutients are then removed with the crop and reasonably infertile soil is left.

Most crop rotations are done to either bring minerals from the sub-soil to the top (trees, alfalfa) or to add some nitrogen to the soil (soybeans)

But feel free to post data showing that adding charcoal to the soil is a placebo effect.

[Terra Preta Nova]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I do not think it is practicle to attempt to ameleorate global warming by sequestering carbon in soils ala terra preta.

Why? The research is showing some of the carbon is staying in the soil for 100s of years.

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think the best way to produce horticultural charcoal is by using a distributed system of solar trough ovens to produce charcoal from the excessive wood that centuries of fire suppression have allowed to build up in our forests.

If you would visit redrok dot com you would see that other design methods exist, and they have been demonstrated to generate higher tempratures.

While 'excessive wood' exists, wood is a limiting factor for CO2 to Carbon char. Using crop wastes as the source of bio-char increases the CO2 to Carbon conversion ratio. Not to mention killing various things that effect plants which might be 'hiding' in the crop waste. Don't discount the use of the outgasing material as a way to generate power via stirling or internal combustion engines. wood gas was used during WWII as a substute for harder to obtain gasoline.

Generation of units with a low enought cost, high enough heat and ease of operation while avoiding the known carcinogen effects of the resulting tars will be the engineering challenge.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Terra Preta Nova

They have been bringing up links and references. You have been saying they are incorrect.

The crux of the debate is whether or not humans are driving global warming and in the threads here on the topic are the ongoing postings of conflicting 'evidence' one way or the other. Because the issue is not settled we only have our opinions as to what the conflicting data means and I am of the opinion global warming is a planetary mechanics phenomenon.

Originally Posted by terraP

So back up your claim that such a position is incorrect.

I have done so in the multitude of threads I have alluded to.

Originally Posted by terra

Given no one seems to have referenced Duane Johnson redrok dot com, you might wish to visit his web site on Heilostats and consider joining his mailing list on the topic rather than taking wild design stabs at making a device to drive off water.

Oh my! Forgive me for conducting a scientific experiment on my own.
Until - and if - you reach the prerequisite posts to list a link, here is the site you recommended:
http://www.redrok.com/main.htm

[erich]

Turtle: I think they use hardwood slabs, and other logging waste, but when the next time they call I will question about it.


Here's a new TP page I found yesterday:

http://www.bidstrup.com/carbon.htm

[Michaelangelica]

For people in Queensland here is a source.(Too expensive for me to ship it down).

I have found it very hard to buy cheap charcoal in Australia.
Any help would be appreciated I am presently paying $7 for 3.5 K of crummy coco husk charcoal. I would like real wood (I think???)

Arthur STAFFORD
'CharCol'
Eskdale District
P.O. Box 166
Toogoolawah
QLD Australia 4313
Mobile: 0427607275

..............................................

Last night there was a TV programme extolling the virtues of underground CO2 sequestration. Very expensive Very unproven technology.
Most scientists seem to believe we need to reduce our global CO2 levels regardless of wether the CO2 increase is caused by Planety Mechanics or Human Activity

.................................................. ....

From memory, I think this link has some info on sequestration (A big document and no broadband!)
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/dday.pdf

[redgreenblue]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I do not think it is practicle to attempt to ameleorate global warming by sequestering carbon in soils ala terra preta.

Interesting comment... and I think the answer is that we really don't know yet. In an article on "Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems – a review"
(www)css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/MitAdaptStratGlobChange%2011,%20403-427,%20Lehmann,%202006.pdf
Lehmann & others makes the case that bio-char production could be a significant tool to ameleorate global warming. While there's tons of articles (and 2 books) focusing mostly on the soil science of terra preta, there hasn't been that much research into what large-scale bio-char production would look like. Some of the current research underway is trying to gain a systems-level perspective of how this could fit into (or modify) existing agricultural/energy/etc systems.

Two other articles on "Bio-char and global carbon cycles" can be found here:
(www)css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_references.htm

There's a bit of uncertaintly on a global scale. For instance... charcoal has a very high energy content, and people in developing countries may be economically motivated to burn it for fuel instead of returning it to the soil. There's a lot of interesting questions, like how would we compare benefits/costs of charcoal as fuel vs. charcoal as soil amendment?

So it's really a question of how can we get this system to fit into larger existing techno-economic-social systems (also, how large could it become? what are the limits to spreading this technology). If you look through Eprida's presentations, you can see they're thinking about this in their slides on biorefineries. Biomass gasification is a bit of a swiss army knife for chemical production, and there may be opportunities for this technology to become economically sustainable by being a key process in numerous types of industries.

This systems level view is also important for projects such as Turtle's solar parabolic reflector. When the biomass is heated, it gives off syngas (CO, CO2, Methane). As some of you are probably aware, methane has 21x the global warming potential of CO2. So would this process be beneficial or harmful from a global warming perspective? Would some of the char absorb these gases and prevent their release into the atmosphere? I haven't run the numbers on the material balances, but my point is that before we can answer if bio-char is really the answer, we need to be aware of 2nd and 3rd order effects that may shape the success of the solutions we propose.

Cheers,

redgreenblue

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by redgreenblue

I

This systems level view is also important for projects such as Turtle's solar parabolic reflector. When the biomass is heated, it gives off syngas (CO, CO2, Methane). As some of you are probably aware, methane has 21x the global warming potential of CO2. So would this process be beneficial or harmful from a global warming perspective?
Would some of the char absorb these gases and prevent their release into the atmosphere?
I haven't run the numbers on the material balances, but my point is that before we can answer if bio-char is really the answer, we need to be aware of 2nd and 3rd order effects that may shape the success of the solutions we propose.

Cheers,

redgreenblue

Very interesting, sane, and considered response Thank you
What is the answer?

Methane is mainly produced by landfill and swamps.
So. . .?