[Stoves] Terra Preta - Economics - Human Nature; was, Re: Cooking on a Philips stove

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Andrew

Consider a case where I harvest a quantity of biomass containing 1.0 ton 
of C. Assume 20% ends up as Fixed Carbon in charcoal and the other 80% 
goes off with the Volatiles. Assume also for simplicity, that 20% of the 
energy content of the biomass ends up in the Charcoal, and 80% goes off 
with the volatiles.

1: If the char is buried, and the gas is vented unburned, then .2 Ton of 
Carbon is removed from the Biosphere.

2: As in 1:, EXCEPT that the gas is burned in a flare, .2 ton C is 
removed from the Biosphere.

3: As in 1 EXCEPT 50% of the gas is burned in a way that it eliminates 
the need to burn .4 tons of Fossil Carbon for energy. The result is that 
the Biosphere has .2 tons less C in it, and .4 tons of C addition was 
avoided.

4: If the charcoal is sold as cooking fuel, and half the gas is burned 
productively to displace the need to burn Fossil Carbon, tehn the 
Biosphere has .6 tonnes less carbon than if teh Biomass had not been burned.

So, when biomass is burned to displace Fossil Fuel, an increase in 
Biosphere CO2 is avoided. When Charcoal is buried, it is the same as 
putting an equivalent fossil fuel carbon content back in the ground, ie, 
"un-mined from the Biosphere".

Certainly, the Biomass Harvest will increase when the price of fossil 
fuel gets adequately high, or if the value of Carbon Credits gets 
adequately high. How each Country handles the biomass harvest is indeed 
an important issue. One would hope that each country acts in a way that 
is in teh best interest of its People.

Best wishes,

Kevin

acparker at xmission.com wrote:
> AJH said, 
> 
> "What terra preta is offering is the ability of those non-importers of
> fossil fuels to enter the game by picking up the crumbs that fall off
> the effluent society's table. They cannot afford the coal, so are not
> involved in digging it up. If the biochar sequestered in the soil can
> approach the value of the coal, being used elsewhere, then they have
> an access to an "export" which is a cash crop and does not involve
> denuding the land like other cash crops for export do. This biochar
> suddenly changes in value from that of a cheap woodfuel to that of the
> unattainable price of industrial coal.
> 
> The trouble is the concept is attracting the interest of all the grant
> sucking scammers that our world encourages such that the benefit is
> unlikely to be delivered to the people at the biochar coalface."
> 
> 
> This brings me back to my first post to the REPP site many years ago. 
> At that time I expressed my concern for biomass becoming an
> international commodity.  Please consider that, should terra preta be
> seen as a viable business opportunity, there is every likelihood the
> land would in fact be denuded at a pace inconceivable before now.  It is
> far easier and cheaper to harvest biomass from "unproductive" and
> unclaimed land, i.e., virgin forests, shrub and grasslands.  Also, at an
> industrial level where are they going to plow under all that char?
> 
> I do not wish to dampen enthusiasm, but I think it is prudent to
> consider that many of our ideas, while quite appropriate in the margins,
> can have unintended consequences if adopted by the mainstream.
> 
> 
> Andrew Parker
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
> 
>