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. :eek:

[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/documents/IP%20Documents/25x25ActionPlan.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

[email protected]

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]

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

[email protected]

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]

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]

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' :hihi: ). 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 *** 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]

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' :shrug: ). 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 *** 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]

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?

[RBlack]

To all,

 

In addressing one of the challenges of Terra Preta some questions that need to be addressed:

1. How do we get people (gardeners, small plot farmers, others), to use Terra Preta?

2. What can we do to show the benefits of Terra Preta?

3. How can we generate talk and excitement about Terra Preta that warrants its use?

 

I feel that until we get people, and I mean a lot of people, wanting to use Terra Preta we will just be a fringe movement. Also if we want to promote the carbon sequestration benefit we need a good reason for that and the main reason should be to grow more food in a better sustainable way.

 

One idea might be to have a Growers Database of Terra Preta techniques and results for specific areas and for specific crops. Right now we have lots of anecdotal evidence of its benefits and most of the scientific papers involve tropical soils with little information on Terra Preta for temperate crops and soils. This may be difficult because all of us are scattered around the world and have a wide variety of climates, crops, and soils but maybe we can identify Terra Preta concepts that apply to all crops and conditions. I feel that is what we are currently doing. How and where to put all this information together is a question that I have no answer for but it would be nice to have a database that if a person had a question on Terra Preta and tomatoes they could get solid information.

 

Here is something I have wanted to say for awhile and may be somewhat controversial. I don't believe in our modern society we have the political will to really do anything about global warming. I think we will gnash our teeth and wring our hands and come up with numerous band aids but never really do anything major. One reason is that in our capitalistic systems the political process is to beholden to special interests and that includes the people as a whole. I don't see any of us here in America that would approve of $5 gas with the extra money going to research or programs to mitigate global warming and no politician has the will (or would last in office), to do that. So I feel that we may need to find ways to live with global warming and one would be to make sure we maximize our potential to grow food while we minimize the resources needed to do that. That’s where Terra Preta comes in with greater crop yields and reduced fertilization and water costs. I also feel that Terra Preta may work as a soil amendment that could bring into agricultural production marginal lands by modifying the soil texture and structure.

 

If you have not read Jarod Diamonds book "Collapse" do!! He addresses lots of issues about how societies chose to fail or succeed. One basic idea I got of the book is that as long as we have food we have society and civilization. But without food we have nada. That's the reason I work with Terra Preta.

 

RB

[Michaelangelica]

To all,

 

In addressing one of the challenges of Terra Preta some questions that need to be addressed:

1. How do we get people (gardeners, small plot farmers, others), to use Terra Preta?

2. What can we do to show the benefits of Terra Preta?

3. How can we generate talk and excitement about Terra Preta that warrants its use?

. . .

One idea might be to have a Growers Database of Terra Preta techniques and results for specific areas and for specific crops. Right now we have lots of anecdotal evidence of its benefits and most of the scientific papers involve tropical soils with little information on Terra Preta for temperate crops and soils.

. . .

Here is something I have wanted to say for awhile and may be somewhat controversial. I don't believe in our modern society we have the political will to really do anything about global warming.

. . .

If you have not read Jarod Diamonds book "Collapse" do!! He addresses lots of issues about how societies chose to fail or succeed.

RB

I know where you are coming from RBlack it is a sad, disappointed and frustrating place.

Let me see if I can cheer you.

I have a lot of research reports on my computer that might interest you.

I would be happy to send them to you (or anyone else) if you give me your email address (private message). I can't post them because of copyright. (I shouldn't even send them to you! but heck knowledge should be free to all)

The Japanese have been doing 'charcoal in soil' experiments for so long that they often start by saying "It is well known that charcoal. . ." very frustrating also when you don't read Japanese. Most bonsai soils (potting mixes ) I see seem to be packed with fine charcoal. Have you ever wondered how they can get plants to survive in a tea-spoonful of soil?

 

The whole TP thing is VERY new. You can tell your grandchildren you were in at the beginning. Isn't it good that we have such an interesting, involving, empowering, useful, possible solution to GW? Isn't is better than nothing? What a great gift we have been given by a civilisation we killed.

 

Forty years ago I was involved with HDRA an organic garden movement. People thought I was nuts. The people we got to meetings looked like escapees from a mental hospital crossed with High Anglicans,- if that makes sense to you. Now Organic farming in a billion dollar industry. It just takes a while for ideas to peculate though society. Even the idea of GW has taken some time to hit public awareness. Fortunately gardeners and farmers talk a lot especially about something that makes their plants grow.

 

There often seems to me to be an "Apocalypse Complex/theme" running though American (USA) culture. Even here on hypography. Surprising seeing you are mainly protestants (The Apocalypse is only in the Catholic bible). It is as if you can't believe your good luck to be in a rich stable democracy (without habeas corpus but don't get me started on that ). It is as if you feel your situation is fragile and likely to collapse at any moment. It is as if you feel guilty about being rich and should be punished. The number of disaster movies Hollywood churns out is amazing. (Even most of the Sci. Fi. is post-Apocalypse ). Get over it, start watching British and Australian movies. ("Miss Potter" made me proud I was the same species as she was)

 

There is a new TP site with lots of research papers

HERE:-

[email protected]

Also check out the Permaculture forums.

Hope that helps.:)

[erich]

Now, if we could just bottle Michael's spiritual essence, sense of reciprocity, general good cheer, and dedication to saving the earth that I have seen over this last year of having had the honor to converse with him and serve it to the American people, we wouldn't even need TP Technology.

[Michaelangelica]

Now, if we could just bottle Michael's spiritual essence, sense of reciprocity, general good cheer, and dedication to saving the earth

:) :lol: :lol:

I blush. You embarrass me!

 

Have you talked the Chinese around to renewables and TP yet?

[RBlack]

To All,

 

MalcolmF said:

I can already see one problem with the new thread structure. My response to this news does not belong in the news thread. (Suggestions please Hypography). But here goes:

 

I mainly agree that it is hard to reply to some part of one thread when the response should be under another. Might be that we just need to get used to the new format but it now is more time consuming to look under multiple threads and hopefully our discussions will not become diluted.

 

This comment was in a post by Michaelangelica under the news thread:

 

Will a Multi-Million Dollar Contest Be the Answer to Global Warming?

 

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted February 22, 2007.

. . .

And here's an unintended consequence I have never heard discussed -- what happens to all of the oxygen in the CO2 molecules that get sequestered? When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere. Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in the Earth?

 

Ultimately, Branson's Earth Challenge prize reflects the same attitude that got us into the climate crisis in the first place. It's a wet dream for engineers who now get to play with a whole planet, acting out their favorite science fiction scenarios. If they want to terraform a planet, I say send them to Mars, but don't experiment with the Earth.

 

In response to the first part: the oxygen that is part of the CO2 comes from the fossil fuels that we have dug up and burned just like the carbon. Otherwise we would have scientists describing "Global Oxygen Depletion".

 

What I find interesting is that if we can put all the carbon from all the fossil fuel use into the soil as "Terra Preta" and reap the agricultural benefits someday in the far future people may look back at this time as a good thing for the world. After all we will have dug up the carbon, used it as energy, and then converted it back to carbon to make our world more productive and supportive of life.

 

One idea I had was as I recently was driving through Wyoming was I saw some small watershed valleys that had more bushes, grass, and trees along the bottom than was up on the plateau parts. I thought what would 2 or 3 hundred tons of carbon sequestered in these watersheds do for plant and wildlife habitat? If each valley held or retained 15% more water and the biomass yield was 100 to 300 percent more (typical Terra Preta results), what benefit would this be to the Earth? What would they look like 5 or 10 years down the road? What would these enhanced areas do for the surrounding ecosystem?

 

This sort of relates to the second part of the above quote: Every since man emerged he has been changing the habitat (terraforming). Just look at what happened to all the large mammals of the Americas when people first got here 12,000 years ago (what large mammals, where did they go?). What we now need to do is engineer the Earth in a productive sustainable way not just for a quick dollar or in a haphazard way. Things right now are out of balance and Terra Preta is a way to rectify that and increase the water retention and productivity of all of our soils.

 

RB

[Buffy]

I mainly agree that it is hard to reply to some part of one thread when the response should be under another. Might be that we just need to get used to the new format but it now is more time consuming to look under multiple threads and hopefully our discussions will not become diluted.

Here's a tip: You can refer to posts in any other thread by using the vBcode:

RBlack said in

his post here

that you should just get used to the new format...

You can find the "post number" in most browsers by placing the cursor over the little green screen thingy: and the number should show up in your status bar at the bottom of the window looking something like this:

http://hypography.com/forums/reputation.php?p=

164772

The bolded number is what you want to use in the "post" tag.

 

If you have questions about this sort of thing, be sure to ask a Mod or Admin. We'd be glad to help!

 

Cheers, :)

Buffy

[davidgmills]

All of the above posters seem more concerned about the zoology of terra preta. My real concern is to help Al Gore solve (or shut him up depending upon one's view of Al) the global warming crisis.

 

So far Al seems to be unaware of TP.

 

Will TP be the answer to global warming?

 

If so, then the challenge has to be getting the word out and at the same time fighting off the huge lobbies that will undoubtedly be pestering governments everywhere for more dangerous and costly (to most of us but certainly highly profitable to a few) carbon sequestering solutions.