Opinion: What are the challenges of Terra Preta

[Michaelangelica]

Here is a potential Challenger

 

The chemists among you can tell me if you think its feasible (and will last) or is he is 'talking through his hat'.

 

Apparently there are numerous chemicals that bind with carbon dioxide and therefore can be captured and sequestered.

Lackner is proposing the use of calcium hydroxide— also called portlandite because of its frequent use in portland cement.

This “slaked lime” apparently is available in ample quantities from limestone. However, Lackner is not committed to this particular chemical and says that probably other substances would work equally well or even better.

 

The point of his paper is to show mathematically that the carbon dioxide capture from natural airflow is technically feasible at a rate far above the rate at which trees capture it.

 

Removing CO2 from one cubic meter of air and disposing of it will offset the effects of generating 10,000 joules of heat from gasoline anywhere in the world. Is this economically viable? Lackner says yes.

Metta Spencer's weblog: Two New Anti-Global Warming Inventions

[erich]

Hi Michael,

 

Metta Spencer's weblog got me looking around the government labs more, Here are some new finds:

 

CSiTE -- A Distributed Consortium

Consortium research will address four broad management strategies that have potential for C sequestration at a particular location. These are (1) fertilization of managed forests; (2) conversion of cropland to native grassland (restoration); (3) conversion of conventional crop management to cropping systems based on legumes, reduced tillage, and/or cover crops; and (4) introduction of agroforestry to croplands. The overall net C storage, including externalities involving C fluxes associated with management activities per se are considered in part 5 of this proposal.

 

CSiTE Research -- A Distributed Consortium

 

 

 

Session 3C. Terrestrial Sequestration I - Ecosystem Behavior

 

Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Status Report on R&D Progress [PDF-41KB]

Gary K. Jacobs, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

 

Fertilization Increases Below-Ground Carbon Sequestration of Loblolly Pine Plantations [PDF-185KB]

Kurt H. Johnsen, USDA Forest Service

 

Assessing Carbon Dynamics in Semiarid Ecosystems: Balancing Potential Gains with Potential Large Rapid Losses[PDF-29KB]

David D. Breshears, Los Alamos National Laboratory

 

Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics for Different Land Uses and Soil Management Practices at the North Appalachian Experimental Watersheds in Ohio [PDF-79KB]

R. Cesar Izaurralde, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

 

NETL: First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration

 

 

 

At first glance Lacker's work looks like a lot of infrastructure costs, like 250,000 of these giant units for worldwide CO2emissions, I wonder what each one cost to build and run?

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/03/cs-symposia/Lackner.pdf

 

Erich

[Taildragerdriver]

Michaelangelica:

 

Interesting post from Metta Spencer but the first one SOLAREK is not really what you would call a competing technology to Terra Preta it is infact on the other side of the equation. That is a carbon neuteral source of energy. That would be great but we still need to get rid of the carbon we have. (by the way the vast majority of the research that goes on at Los Alamos has nothing to do with bombs or nuclear technology.)

 

His second example "Luckner" as he refernces may easily be able to grab a lot of carbon. That is part of the equation alright but as near as I can tell the sequestered carbon still has to be disposed of in some way. In other words the results are to get the carbon sequested into a waist product that needs to be disposed of. We have seen lots of energy schemes that produce alright but waist is always the problem.

 

The great thing about Terra Preta as near as I can tell is that the sequestration is a useful product and the entire system produces positive economics at every stage.

 

erich:

 

The interesting thing about the CSiTE references you make is that I have worked closely with some of the people involved with a couple of these methods. They do infact sequester small amounts of carbon per acre. All 5 of them are on the order of 200 to 400 pounds per acre. They all take useful land and take it out of production or at least in to a low production state in a time when the world needs to keep our productive land in production.

 

Our Terra Preta ideas on the other hand make farm land more productive, improve marginal lands and may bring unusable lands into production. Also we estimate the sequestration to be on the order of 6 to 10 tons per acre (40 times as much as these other methods). In addition if any of the 5 methods above are plowed up or soil stirred up the majority of the sequestered carbon is lost. Not the case with Terra Preta everything I read seems to indicate the charcoal is vertually perminent in the soil.

 

For me at least I have looked at lots of schemes that are being proposed to solve the carbon problem. In my oppinion many are just crazy. Like pumping Carbon Dioxide into the ground in old oil wells. Isn't it just going to come back out by purculating up through the ground. After reading alot my thought is Terra Preta seems like the best there is. I will be interested to see what else pops up though.

 

Thanks

 

Taildragerdriver

[erich]

Yes Trail, This is not Competition to TP once all costs and consequences are taken into account.

I imagine the maintenance/construction costs of these "CO2 Catchers" ALONE would end up at over $130/Ton of CO2 (or $36/Ton of Carbon)

Here's more on this;

 

Capturing CO2 from ambient air: a feasibility assessment, Thesis by

Joshuah K. Stolaroff

 

Abstract

In order to mitigate climate change, deep reductions in CO2 emissions will be required in the coming

decades. Carbon capture and storage will likely play an important role in these reductions. As a compliment

to capturing CO2 from point sources, CO2 can be captured from ambient air (“air capture”), offsetting

emissions from distributed sources or reducing atmospheric concentrations when emissions have already

been constrained. In this thesis, we show that CO2 capture from air is physically and thermodynamically

feasible, discuss the various routes available, and explain why NaOH solution is a viable sorbent for largescale

capture. An example system using NaOH spray is presented. With experimental data and a variety

of numerical techniques, the use of NaOH spray for air capture is assessed and an example contacting

system developed. The cost and energy requirements of the example contacting system are estimated.

Contactor estimates are combined with estimates from industry and other research to estimate the cost of

a complete air capture system. We find that the cost of capturing CO2 with the complete system would

fall between 80 and 250 $/t-CO2, and improvements are suggested which reduce the upper-bound cost to

130 $/t-CO2. Even at the high calculated cost, air capture has implications for climate policy, however

dedicated engineering and technological innovation have potential to produce much lower-cost systems.

vi

 

http://wpweb2k.gsia.cmu.edu/ceic/theses/Joshuah_Stolaroff_PhD_Thesis_2006.pdf

 

 

Erich

[Taildragerdriver]

I though it might be of interest and some might have suggestions as to what I am doing on the operational test of Terra Preta we are doing in Oregon.

 

I am using my original thread:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/introductions/9477-my-first-post-terra-preta.html

 

to chronicle my work and you can follow it if you like. I will try to put in all the details of what I am doing. The reason for this is partly to have a detailed record of the steps and what worked and what didn't for later use. I though I might at well make it here as just on my own computer.

 

Thanks

 

Taildragerdriver

[erich]

Hi All,

 

April 12th, 2007 :: 12:14 PM

 

 

This week’s announcement by ConocoPhillips of a $22.5 M contract with Iowa State is significicant not only because of the magnitude of the grant, but also because of the company’s statement that it is interested in pursuing pyrolysis as a biomass conversion technology

 

DesMoinesRegister.com Blogs » Blog Archive » ConocoPhillips’ Interest in Pyrolysis

[Philip Small]

Terra preta has some serious political challenges to face. Excerpted from my post, Agrichar future:

 

Charcoal production as a tool to combat global warming can be understandably counterintuitive. Char's mode of action in the soil is only partly understood, the degree of benefit to the soil is not well documented. Claimed char additions may be difficult to monitor.

 

Various blog and forum posts ask: Does the fuel value of charcoal provide a dangerous incentive to divert agrichar to fuel use? To overharvest biomass? Can the reality of terra preta nova be separated from marketing pitches by commercial pyrolysis interests?

 

Excerpted from Back40's post, Mental Rut:

 

...politics isn't about sense, it's about power, status and money. Agrichar is a threat to the income and security of politicians and bureaucrats who exploit climate change. It's a better carbon sink and doesn't need any subsidies, regulations or coercion. This undermines some of the other exploits, exposes their weakness and inappropriateness for the current problem set. That can't be allowed. If agrichar isn't subsidized or controlled in some way, they'll try to make it illegal to protect their rackets. It's too good, too cheap and too free to be allowed to go unregulated.

[Winkelix]

There sure are challenges to terra preta, such as understanding how it all works, getting out the news to a world that is dealing with many pressing issues, and just proving it works. Also, the fact that it hasn't been used in climates with a freezing point, which brings up the question whether the special bacteria in terra preta can survive a cold climate.

 

But I personally think the benefits outway the challanges. Consider the benefits:

1. Carbon sequestration that will almost surely last for thousands of years, which can be used to combat global warming

2. Not especially hard to make, and the production of charcoal has many valuable byproducts

3. Though the science behind it may not be fully understood, I believe it does work, for it has been used by Amazonian Indians before the Europeans came and killed them with their diseases. Discover Magazine has an article an terra preta, and it notes that European explorers saw great civilizations, which could have only survived with terra preta(jungle soil couldn't have supported such great numbers). European diseases collapses their empires, and the jungle took hold of all the temples etc, leaving little evidence to support their claims.

4. There are still many more!

 

Though there are challenges, I don't think they should hold back the use of terra preta.

[Taildragerdriver]

I have not been able to get on for a while but it seems time to update you all on work we are doing on moving the concept foward politically and scientifically. This last post from "Winkelix" prompted me to respond.

 

I have a coworker and friend who is now involved in a short training opportunity being a congressional aid. He is a fire ecologist so one of his tasks is working with the fire and global warming bills.

 

Enclosed are the talking points we sent him to use as he is working to get Terra Preta specifically defined and supported in this new legilation on global warming being sponsored by Pete Domenichi (R-New Mexico).

 

Senators Struggle to Act on Global Warming

 

These are the talking points we sent to him.

 

===============

Terra Preta

Talking Points

 

• Atmospheric warming is partly from atmospheric carbon gain and some of it is the result of human activity

• Reduced timbering has large negative impacts on much of rural America and has lead to unnaturally dense forests

• Unnaturally dense forests bear infrastructure-threatening wildfires and current treatments burden the atmosphere with billions of tons of carbon

• Soil and water quality degradation, the result of natural-carbon loss from soils, is leading to decreased food and water quality and quantity and the loss exacerbates national security threats

• The US is dependent upon foreign oil for energy and fertilizer and could use alternative fuels and greater fertilizer efficiency

• A little understood carbon-rich soils phenomena called Terra Preta may have sustained Precolumbian South America and may help solve these modern dilemas

Terra Preta technology might help restore viable forests by removing excess vegetation and employing rural residents to char it--not burn it

• Harvest a nominal 3 billion renewable tons of atmospheric carbon as charcoal and sequester it for centuries in farm land

• Raise farm production nearly 9 fold and reduce water consumption by 10%

• Reduce petrochemical fertilizer dependence

• Use byproducts for ethanol/bio-diesel production

 

We intend rural development demonstrations evaluating potential for

• Enhanced soil productivity and water use efficiency

• Carbon sequestration on public land

• Wildfire mitigation with increased wildlife/livestock forage and habitat

• Alternative energy use and fuels production

 

We intend a study to

• Understand the science of Terra Preta and point to its technological development

– Carbon sequestration to benefit agriculture leads to agriculture for carbon sequestration

– Why Terra Preta works to enhance soil productivity, protect water quality

• Develop models for applications

– Worldwide use under varying climates and soils

– Predict Terra Preta application rate for most benefit

 

A joint US Forest Service/Los Alamos National Laboratory venture will examine a little understood ancient agricultural practice that might now remove billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere and fix it in soils for centuries to come. This application would also help to protect national food and water supplies while reducing wildfire; threats to soil and water resources; and our dependence on foreign oil.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is one mechanism by which the earth’s atmosphere seems to be warming. Approaches to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in the ground could help to mitigate climate change. In addition, terrestrial CO2 capture can provide the means to greatly improve soils and productivity, truly putting more biomass in the soil and creating a means to provide energy through co-firing or co-generation.

 

Conversion of forest waste, a renewable resource, to organic matter, i.e., creation of Terra Preta, is an ancient technology best known in South America. Modern application of Terra Preta technology could (1) mitigate some of the drivers of climate change; (2) enhance local agricultural economies and water quality; (3) provide energy and fertilizer offset sources independent of foreign oil; and (4) reduce risks of catastrophic resource losses due to wildfire, pollution of air and water, and land degradation.

 

How do we know Terra Preta is a solution that provides CO2 sequestration? Researchers from the US Forest Service and Los Alamos National Laboratory plan to demonstrate the technology and understand the science of Terra Preta through an empirical/analytical/predictive approach.

 

Empirical demonstration projects in two agricultural/timbering communities will show the potential for carbon-neutral wood-waste conversion and the benefit of charcoal application to arid western farm land. Benefits include: reduction of vegetative overburden or wood waste without burning; and conversion of wood waste into charcoal followed by application of the charcoal to agricultural lands to increase water use efficiency and release stored nutrients.

 

Analysis should reveal the chemical and physical properties of Terra Preta that are only now partially understood. Careful, hypothesis-driven testing will reveal to the US Forest Service/Los Alamos team the mechanistic basis behind Terra Preta behavior. Understanding these mechanisms will provide the data to predict Terra Preta behavior in a variety of national environments and point to greenhouse gas reduction and better agricultural/timber management worldwide.

 

Benefits of a successful Terra Preta demonstration and application program include: reduced use of petroleum-based fertilizers; increased soil quality and water use efficiency; revitalized local economies, especially in rural communities; a source for new fuels; and, perhaps most importantly, decreased local and world-wide atmospheric carbon loading.

 

=============

So this is one of our curent attempts to move Terra Preta forward on the political front.

 

As I have discussed in previous posts the science is a critical next step to move this concept forward.

 

We are still attempting to get funding for our work and we are still in the running for the Los Alamos grants I have mentioned in the past.

 

In addition we are looking at another grant opportunity we feel we have a good chance for. The folloowing is some reference information:

 

===========

Biomass Research and Development Initiative

The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 06/12/2007. If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.

If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails. The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.

Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.

Document Type: Grants Notice

Funding Opportunity Number: RD-RBP-BIOMASS-2007

Opportunity Category: Discretionary

Posted Date: Jun 12, 2007

Creation Date: Jun 12, 2007

Original Closing Date for Applications: Jul 11, 2007

Current Closing Date for Applications: Jul 11, 2007

Archive Date: Aug 10, 2007

Funding Instrument Type: Grant

Category of Funding Activity: Agriculture

Science and Technology and other Research and Development

Energy

Category Explanation:

Expected Number of Awards: 500

Estimated Total Program Funding: $18,000,000

Award Ceiling: $1,000,000

Award Floor: $0

CFDA Number: 81.087 -- Renewable Energy Research and Development

Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: Yes

 

Eligible Applicants

 

Private institutions of higher education

Public and State controlled institutions of higher education

Others (see text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility" for clarification)

 

Additional Information on Eligibility:

 

Other* National Laboratories (as defined in 42 USC 15801), Federal Research Agencies, State Research Agencies, Private sector entities (Private sector entities include companies, corporations, cooperatives, and other entities that compete in the marketplace), Nonprofit organizations, other than 501©(4) organizations that engage in lobbying, Consortia of 2 of more eligible entities

 

Agency Name

 

Business and Cooperative Programs

 

Description

 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) jointly solicit applications for financial assistance addressing research and development of biomass based products, bioenergy, biofuels and related processes. This Notice herein referred to as the "Solicitation" is intended to promote greater innovation and development related to biomass, and to support the Biomass Research Development Act of 2000, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal policy calling for greater use of biomass-based products, feedstock production, and processing and conversion. This joint USDA/DOE solicitation for FY07 reflects the technical areas identified in the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These technical areas will assist DOE and USDA in developing and maintaining a balanced portfolio of activities under the Federal Government's Biomass program to effectively advance cost effective utilization of biomass for the production of biobased fuels and products. DOE and USDA will have separate funding allocations and make separate awards under this Notice.

 

=======

 

We hope to get funding under this grant for our work if the Los Alamos grant application fails, or use it as joint funding if we get the Los Alamos grant.

 

That's all I have time for now.

 

Thanks

 

Taildragerdriver

[Flapjack]

The challenges as I see it is getting the right microbes into new Terra Preta mixes. I grow and hold a National Collection of Fuchsia species but I'm new to Terra Preta. It is very easy to buy fungal microbes but I think the key will be from small additions of well manured well worked top soil. I have used this with modern commercial composts with good results. straight charcoal additions although are producing short internodes and side shoots growth is not rapid. The root system is showing a good clean meristem and lots of root hairs

[Michaelangelica]

Show us the money

Carbon-Friendly Farming

* don’t plough

* don’t compact

* don’t burn

But could it make money? While soil carbon sequestration has no formal support from federal or state government legislation or policy, moves are afoot to lay the groundwork. Landcare, and the NSW Farmers Association are pushing for a trading exchange for carbon farming. The NSW Commissioner for Natural Resources John Williams said in February that he strongly supports soil carbon sequestration, saying it “could be a consistent revenue stream [for farmers] … so we can actually address the climate change problem.”

Scientists sample soil Scientists sample soilMethods for sampling soil for measurment of carbon content (above).

 

There are several groups who are trying it out on a small scale, such as NSW farmer Michael Kiely. Meanwhile, in March this year, a group called Carbon For Life launched a soil carbon accreditation scheme in Western Australia. The scheme will pay certain farmers $90 for every tonne of carbon they sequester in their soils (this amount is based on the going rate on the European Carbon Exchange market).

 

Farmers from the north and the south coast areas of the state were invited to apply to set up areas on their properties where they could try out different methods of sequestering carbon. Carbon for Life spokesperson Christine Jones says if a farmer was able to increase soil carbon by 0.15 per cent per year, they could earn $21.20 per hectare. If this carbon was sequestered over 80 ha of land (the maximum allowable under the scheme), the farmer could potentially earn $1600/year, potentially for several decades until the soil carbon reached equilibrium.

 

The first three years of the trial has been funded by mining company Rio Tinto, which, when compulsory federal emissions credit trading is introduced into Australia in 2012, will presumably be looking for opportunities to offset the emissions from its business activities.

 

Challenges & Obstacles

 

Even fans of soil carbon sequestration agree the scheme has a number of technical hurdles. One is measuring soil carbon gains in the soil, given that soil carbon levels vary naturally between different soil types and different rainfall areas.

 

Agricultural practices detrimental to soil carbon levels

Ploughing and burning off - two farming practices which reduce soil carbon levels. Pic: Brian Murphy

 

Another problem is ensuring that the promised sequestration actually happens – which is why the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme recommends farmers only be paid retrospectively for the carbon they sequester.

 

Another sticking point is how to ensure that the carbon that farmers have already been paid for stays in the ground. In fact there is no guarantee that this won’t happen, but neither can emission reduction be made permanent. These and other issues will no doubt exercise the minds of those attending a major expo on carbon farming to be held in Mudgee, NSW in November.

 

Meanwhile, industrialised countries continue to struggle with how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2050, the target recommended by the Kyoto Protocol.

 

It may well be that soil carbon sequestration could buy us those precious few decades to get the house in order and reduce emissions going into the atmosphere in the first place. And at the same time Australia’s soils — which have taken such a battering over the past several hundred years — may get a new lease of life.

The Carbon Farmers - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

Good simple, well written, clear, article worth reading.

I have printed out a copy to study it further.

[davidgmills]

Taildragerdriver:

 

"We hope to get funding under this grant for our work if the Los Alamos grant application fails, or use it as joint funding if we get the Los Alamos grant."

 

I think this is a great project for a grant. But if you are trying to reach politicians and make talking points for them, I think you went over their head.

 

My suggestion is to first tell politicians about what terra preta is. It really is a very interesting history and science lesson on several levels. Give some talking points about the people who discovered it, how scientists think it might have been made and most of all make the point it is charcoal.

 

There was nothing in your talking points that made these points in anything but a very subtle way. Politically, it makes sense to give credit to the aboriginal peoples of this continent and makes us all see them in a different light. That will sure get their support. (They may be in the process of taking back their continent anyway).

 

Secondly, everyone knows about charcoal. But the idea that charcoal can help us all needs to be front and center in the minds of everyone. So mention the word numerous times and make sure you talk about how it is different from ash.

 

Bottom line. You have to make sure people clearly understand it is about putting charcoal in the soil.

 

My two cents.

[Michaelangelica]

Gerry Kutney from Alterna Energy Inc made this post on the TP list-serve.

I thought it raised an interesting point and asked for permission to re-post his comments here.

CARBON: Can Terra Preta Compete?

 

Those of us in the biocarbon industry (i.e., those that have manufacturing facilities for biocarbon and are marketing the material) watch with great interest the countless articles on terra preta. We are concerned, though, about the misunderstanding of the value of biocarbon. The biocarbon, itself, is discussed as almost a waste product that is worth a few dollars per ton. Biocarbon has inherent value as a renewable energy pellet, with an energy content of 30 GJ/te, which is similar to coal and almost double that of a wood pellet. Recently, a Korean steel manufacturer was reported to be paying over $300 per tonne for coking coal. If coal can be valued so highly, how much higher in price should be a renewable (GHG neutral) replacement for coal, i.e. biocarbon? An even higher valued market opens when the biocarbon is activated. An important environmental role for activated biocarbon is to remove mercury contamination from flew gas in coal-fired power plants. While costs increase to activate the material, selling prices are often in excess of $1,000 per tonne.

 

 

 

This wonder of nature appears to have amazing impact on plant growth and has a significant carbon negative footprint. However, studies in someone’s backyard or flower garden, do not supply the rigour that government agencies demand to prove the agricultural benefits of new products. Extensive field trials are required to prove and quantify the benefits of TP. The issue is especially important for terra preta since it does not fit the standard mold of an agricultural product. It is not a fertilizer or nutrient, yet it stimulates plant growth. This agricultural catalyst will likely be thus put under even closer regulatory scrutiny; more reason to get proper field trials under way.

 

 

 

We, at Alterna Energy (clean + green - the alterna option - Alterna Energy), are investigating carrying out such field trials on terra preta in Australia, and we will shortly be promoting such trials in Canada. These trials will only begin to quantify the benefits of terra preta. For the terra preta genii to be released from its carbon bottle, many soils in varying climatic conditions must be tested. In the meantime, Alterna Energy continues to market its biocarbon as carbon-neutral, bioenergy pellets. We eagerly await the opportunity to build plants around the world to supply a future agricultural market.

 

 

 

In the end, the success of terra preta will depend on demonstrated agricultural and environmental benefits, and competing market demand. Biocarbon is an amazing substance; so much so that various industries will be vying for its almost magical abilities. We will have to see if terra preta can compete? In other words, will the field trials demonstrate to the agricultural community and related government agencies that terra preta is worth, at least, what competing industries are willing to pay for it. Of course, we all hope that it can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerry Kutney

 

Chief Operating Officer