tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.comments2019-02-20T14:57:34.591+01:00Folke Günther´s blogFolkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-3050993457852886482008-07-01T15:40:00.000+02:002008-07-01T15:40:00.000+02:00Probably I can say with this blog make, more some ...Probably I can say with this blog make, more some interesting topics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-8497974434490915072008-05-13T18:21:00.000+02:002008-05-13T18:21:00.000+02:00I am seeing the same char effect in my compost. My...I am seeing the same char effect in my compost. My compost is dominated by hardwood leaves: good for worm composting, but difficult to get hot because it overwhelms my green feedstock. <BR/><BR/>Now that I am adding charcoal, the compost really heats up, and does so extensively through the pile. I have to add water more frequently to keep the composting process going (Only 500mm precip here), which cools it down. However, it recovers quickly, and it is back to steaming in 18 to 24 hours instead of at least 48 hours before char. This is a tube composter, 800mm tall by 1000mm dia. I have another tube on order and am going to do a char / no char comparison, to get a better handle on the difference. I did not add that much char: Maybe 5% by volume. While I am convinced this is "real", <BR/><BR/>I wonder how large-scale composters could have missed this effect? Adding char to darken compost is a standard tool in the commercial composters tool box. Perhaps if they have been adding it at a final stage, the way they add coloring agents (USA practice, coloring agents are advertised in the commercial composting magazine I get) or if they aren't really composting (getting it hot), then the char stimulant effect would be completely missed. Indeed, needing a darkening agent implies they aren't getting it hot, doesn't it? Ironic.Phil Smallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00841426181734080101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-65033484849755464922008-05-11T17:13:00.000+02:002008-05-11T17:13:00.000+02:00In California Sierra Pacific Industries is promoti...In California Sierra Pacific Industries is promoting their report that claims that clearcutting (they call it intensive managment) will produce more carbon sequestation faster than other methods. This study is full of misleading and tilted data and they are using it to further justify clearcutting the rest of their massive holdings in California. Can good scientists not paid by the timber industry will dispute this report?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-16923631897884393902008-04-03T15:04:00.000+02:002008-04-03T15:04:00.000+02:00I found the page load and clear. Just try again!Be...I found the page load and clear. Just try again!<BR/>Because of it heat reflection capacity and longevity in the atmosphere, N2O is considered a serious greenhouse gas, more than 300 times than the effect of CO2. The redaction of emissions from soils with added char seems promising. Perhaps one could try with char in the manure storages in stables too? Adding charcoal to the dung groove behind the animals? Or elsewhere?Folkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-50779073198728385242008-04-03T13:10:00.000+02:002008-04-03T13:10:00.000+02:00Erich, I got "page not found" with the above link,...Erich, I got "page not found" with the above link, although http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ looks pretty good.<BR/><BR/>Folke, I don't understand the significance of nitrous oxide emissions from soil - could you give a clue please?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>Mark00Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10045807295909118677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-22465534285843966962008-03-30T19:55:00.000+02:002008-03-30T19:55:00.000+02:00Dr. Lukas reports 10X N2O soil emission reductions...Dr. Lukas reports 10X N2O soil emission reductions:<BR/><BR/>Beyond Zero Emissions interviews Dr Lukas Van Zweitan senior research scientist of the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI). Who is working hand-on with soil research focusing on Bio Char (Terra Preta de Indio / Agri Char) <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"we've found with some of the biochars in that we've had very, very significant reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from the soil; between five- and ten-fold reductions in nitrous oxide emissions."<BR/><BR/> <BR/>http://beyondzeroemissions.org/2008/03/21/lukas-van-zweiten-nsw-dpi-biochar-agrichar-terra-preta-soil-trials-zero-carbon<BR/> <BR/>Ericherichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17087852377037029513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-27241802899596649422008-03-29T18:53:00.000+01:002008-03-29T18:53:00.000+01:00Yes, that is a better formulation. What I mean is;...Yes, that is a better formulation. What I mean is; selling emission permits could not be man-to-man affair, it should have some relation to real material exchange in nature, i.e. you can not sell an 'idea' (issued by EU or who-knows-whom), you can only sell a right to emit when you have done some real counteracting service, as sequestration. <BR/>For the longevity of charcoal in soil: The charcoal in the Amazonian rain forest Terra Preta is certainly 500 years old, since they stopped producing it about 500 years ago. C14 measurements of the older Terra Preta soils point at 6000 years. Ogawa’s measurements (with ozone) points at 50,000 years.<BR/>As for the oceans and estuaries: It is probably this effect that stands for the difference between the calculated emissions by Houghton, 425 Gt C, and the actual atmospheric increase of 220 Gt C. However, I don't think we can rely on the continuation and increase of this effect, especially since we already have seen the atmospheric carbon dioxide level rise to dangerous levels already.<BR/>By that, I DON'T say that any available sequestration method should be abstained from.Folkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-32406822723689198112008-03-29T17:24:00.000+01:002008-03-29T17:24:00.000+01:00Folke,I came across your work in a presentation Ji...Folke,<BR/><BR/>I came across your work in a presentation Jim Hansen gave in February which is linked at his web site. I looked to me as though you have some specific propsals on ways to price carbon or ration it and I was particularly taken by what seems like a theory of rights in the statement: "And you should be the only one who has the right to sell emissions permits" but I'm a little vauge about this. I'm guessing that you mean that those who sequester should be able to chose if their efforts are an offset to current emissions or a capturing of past emissions. Is that correct?<BR/><BR/>While I can see the benefits of biochar, I am a little worried that their permanance has not been demonstrated in all soil ecologies. On the other hand, coral and shellfish sequester carbon as calcium carbonate which can be quite permanant, so I feel that restoration of the health of our estuaries and oceans should be a big part of sequestration efforts. I've made an estimate <A HREF="http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/03/reef-relief.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> of the scale of sequestration that might be accomplished.Chris Dudleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14124764472206647347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-46953820728049602542008-03-19T22:21:00.000+01:002008-03-19T22:21:00.000+01:00I've seen various numbers on Biochar's effects on ...I've seen various numbers on Biochar's effects on soil GHG emissions, ranging from 80% reduction in N2O, to an over all reduction of 1/3 , accounting for NH4 & N2O together.<BR/><BR/>The Japanese work in tea plants showed N2O reductions at very small application rates.<BR/><BR/>These co-benefits will vary with soil types, but once validated , a premium of CO2 equivalent payments should be added to each ton carbon (C) a farmer puts to the soil.<BR/><BR/>I would love to see an extrapolation accepting the 1/3 reduction of NH4 & N2O on your numbers calculation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks <BR/>Ericherichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17087852377037029513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-54680145555018199832008-03-06T09:38:00.000+01:002008-03-06T09:38:00.000+01:00I have to ask you read the discussion from the beg...I have to ask you read the discussion from the beginning. (That is a problem, when they are published from bottom up)<BR/>First, the amount of excess carbon in the atmosphere is currently <B>220 </B> Gt, counted from the current co2 level. The higher number (475) is what is released during industrialization.<BR/>he interesting thing is that charring is pretty easy. We have good and widespread knowledge of it. Furthermore, char in the soil is very good for the soil.<BR/>The problem is how to make people do it on a large scale. That is why I talk about a 'negative carbon dioxide tax' paid to the sequesterer, which would open a new, an hopefully more universally beneficial, Klondike.<BR/>Someting for the US citizens?Folkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-552251667432627412008-03-06T02:45:00.000+01:002008-03-06T02:45:00.000+01:00Jumping into the middle of a conversation is very ...Jumping into the middle of a conversation is very difficult. The net impression that a casual observer should take from this post is that we all have to work very hard to get all unnecessary carbon recovered in the form of biochar. <BR/><BR/>The math to get from 955GT of excess atmospheric C to the probable annual potential sequestration of 2GT needs to be more clearly presented if you want others to be able to follow.<BR/><BR/>However, the facilities for charing organic waste are pretty rare. So, no matter what the number turns out to be we have a Herculean task ahead of us. The question that is next in line is what steps are needed to get as many people doing the right thing as possible. Should we be developing small heating/generating systems that use easily collected residues to make electricity and heat and finally biochar which the person spreads on fields near home? Or do you envision large industrial complexes where this is done?<BR/><BR/>I have yet to meet any person in the US that is willing to begin to think about such an effort. When trying to compare the effort needed to accomplish the above with the accomplishments of recent military efforts, I would rather see the effort remain with small distributed producers rather than large centralized systems.<BR/><BR/>I think that your recent work has been very helpful. Thankyou.<BR/>Alan PageAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-68597419810862888542008-02-28T00:35:00.000+01:002008-02-28T00:35:00.000+01:00Here is a strait forward conversion of the impact ...Here is a strait forward conversion of the impact of building soil organic material (SOM) on ppm of atmospheric GHGs, using just marginal land and standard SOM building processes. Adding Biochar protocols would really jump start this solution.<BR/><BR/>Restoring soil carbon can reverse global warming, desertification and biodiversity loss<BR/><BR/><BR/>Tony Lovell of Soil Carbon P/L in Australia estimates that by actively supporting regrowth of vegetation in damaged ecosystems, billions of tons of carbon dioxide can be sequestered from the atmosphere.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Determining how much carbon dioxide (CO2) can physically be consumed from the atmosphere?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>As the planet has 7.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in circulation for each 1 ppm of atmospheric CO2, and there are 5 billion hectares of inappropriately managed or unmanaged, desertifying savannahs on the Earth (which on empirical evidence we contend to be the case), the question that should sensibly be asked is: How much carbon dioxide would be absorbed if policies were put in place (in Australia and elsewhere) that caused the focus of on-ground management to be deliberately directed towards the widespread consumption of cyclical GHGs within the currently under-utilised savannah lands?<BR/><BR/>Consumption of CO2 per hectare<BR/>One hectare is 10,000 sq. metres. If a hectare of soil 33.5 cm deep, with a bulk density of 1.4 tonnes per cubic metre is considered, there is a soil mass per hectare of about 4,700 tonnes.<BR/>If appropriate management practices were adopted and these practices achieved and sustained a 1% increase in soil organic matter (SOM)6, then 47 tonnes of SOM per hectare will be added to organic matter stocks held below the soil surface<BR/>This 47 tonnes of SOM will contain approximately 27 tonnes of Soil Carbon (ie 47 tonnes at 58% Carbon) per hectare<BR/>In the absence of other inputs this Carbon may only be derived from the atmosphere via the natural function known as the photo-synthetic process. To place approximately 27 tonnes of Soil Carbon per hectare into the soil, approximately 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide must be consumed out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis<BR/>A 1% change in soil organic matter across 5 billion hectares will sequester 500 billion tonnes of physical CO2<BR/>Converting global Soil Carbon capacity to ppm of atmospheric GHGs<BR/>Every 1% increase in retained SOM within the topmost 33.5 cm of the soil must capture and hold approximately 100 tonnes per hectare of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the variability in the equation being due only to the soil bulk density). We submit that under determined, appropriate management, that this is readily achievable within a very few years<BR/>For each 1% increase in SOM achieved on the 5 billion hectares there will be removed 64 ppm of carbon dioxide from atmospheric circulation (500,000,000,000 tonnes CO2 / 7,800,000,000 tonnes per ppm = 64 ppm).<BR/>Soil Organic Matter is the plant material released into the soil during the natural phases of plant growth. It includes root material sloughed off below the soil surface and plant litter carried into the soil by microbes, insects and rainfall<BR/>Soil Carbon is the elemental carbon contained within Soil Organic Matter (SOM).<BR/>One tonne of CO2 contains 12/44 units of carbon (ie 0.27 tonnes of carbon per tonne of CO2.). Therefore 27 tonnes of carbon sequesters 27/0.27 = 100 tonnes CO2 (rounded). NB Carbon atomic weight 12, oxygen atomic weight 16 ie CO2 = 12+(16+16) = 44<BR/>The global opportunity and numbers<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>It appears that the pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280ppm, and that globally we are now at 455ppm, and heading towards 550ppm. To get from 550ppm back to 280ppm, 270ppm must be removed. Globally, a 4.2% increase in SOM would potentially reverse the expected situation. In any case, any form of determined management will substantially reduce the now crippling legacy loadings in the atmosphere. "<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Erich J. Knight<BR/>1047 Dave Berry Rd.<BR/>McGaheysville, VA. 22840<BR/>540-289-9750<BR/>shengar@aol.comErich J. Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10995702794016834400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-61707482148866066382008-02-27T19:29:00.000+01:002008-02-27T19:29:00.000+01:00here are the current news and links on Terra Preta...here are the current news and links on Terra Preta (TP) soils and closed-loop pyrolysis of Biomass, this integrated virtuous cycle could sequester 100s of Billions of tons of carbon to the soils.<BR/> <BR/> This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. <BR/><BR/><BR/>UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference<BR/><BR/>http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/steinerbalinov2107<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>SCIAM Article May 15 07;<BR/><BR/>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.<BR/><BR/>Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.<BR/><BR/>The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;<BR/><BR/>S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007<BR/><BR/> A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:<BR/><BR/>Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative<BR/><BR/>for the 2007 Farm Bill<BR/><BR/>http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.<BR/>Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt<BR/>National Renewable Energy Laboratory<BR/><BR/>http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf<BR/><BR/>The organization 25x25 (see 25x'25 - Home) released it's (first-ever, 55-page )"Action Plan" ; see; http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/documents/IP%20Documents/ActionPlanFinalWEB_04-19-07.pdf<BR/>On page 29 , 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."<BR/>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."<BR/><BR/> I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture and waste stream, all that farm & cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG should be returned to the Soil. <BR/><BR/>Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.<BR/><BR/>If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node<BR/><BR/>It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Also Here is the Latest BIG Terra Preta Soil news;<BR/><BR/> The Honolulu Advertiser: "The nation's leading manufacturer of charcoal has licensed a University of Hawai'i process for turning green waste into barbecue briquets."<BR/><BR/>See: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/antalkingsford <BR/><BR/> <BR/>ConocoPhillips Establishes $22.5 Million Pyrolysis Program at Iowa State <BR/> http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/news_releases/2007news/04-10-2007.htm<BR/> <BR/> Glomalin, the recently discovered soil protien, may be the secret to to TP soils productivity;<BR/> <BR/> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2003/030205.htm<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Here is my current Terra Preta posting which condenses the most important stories and links; <BR/><BR/>Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle<BR/><BR/> Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.<BR/><BR/>The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.<BR/>I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.<BR/><BR/>On the Scale of CO2 remediation:<BR/><BR/>It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons of carbon.<BR/><BR/>The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined<BR/>pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of<BR/>that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation<BR/>the other 2/3.<BR/><BR/>Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel CO2 emissions as stable charcoal in the soil.<BR/><BR/>As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and 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! "<BR/><BR/>Terra Preta Soils Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X FertilityToo <BR/> <BR/><BR/>This some what orphaned new soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any. I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.<BR/> <BR/>The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may<BR/>provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power<BR/>structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.<BR/> <BR/>The economics look good, and truly great if we had CO2 cap & trade or a Carbon tax in place. <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>.Nature article, Aug 06: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green: <BR/>http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdf<BR/> <BR/> Here's the Cornell page for an over view:<BR/>http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm<BR/><BR/>University of Beyreuth TP Program, Germany http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=taxonomy/term/118<BR/><BR/>This Earth Science Forum thread on these soils contains further links, and has been viewed by 19,000 self-selected folks. ( I post everything I find on Amazon Dark Soils, ADS here): <BR/>http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html<BR/> <BR/><BR/>There is an ecology going on in these soils that is not completely understood, and if replicated and applied at scale would have multiple benefits for farmers and environmentalist.<BR/> <BR/>Terra Preta creates a terrestrial carbon reef at a microscopic level. These nanoscale structures provide safe haven to the microbes and fungus that facilitate fertile soil creation, while sequestering carbon for many hundred if not thousands of years. The combination of these two forms of sequestration would also increase the growth rate and natural sequestration effort of growing plants.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>The reason TP has elicited such interest on the Agricultural/horticultural side of it's benefits is this one static:<BR/> <BR/>One gram of charcoal cooked to 650 C Has a surface area of 400 m2 (for soil microbes & fungus to live on), now for conversion fun:<BR/> <BR/>One ton of charcoal has a surface area of 400,000 Acres!! which is equal to 625 square miles!! Rockingham Co. VA. , where I live, is only 851 Sq. miles<BR/> <BR/>Now at a middle of the road application rate of 2 lbs/sq ft (which equals 1000 sqft/ton) or 43 tons/acre yields 26,000 Sq miles of surface area per Acre. VA is 39,594 Sq miles.<BR/> <BR/>What this suggest to me is a potential of sequestering virgin forest amounts of carbon just in the soil alone, without counting the forest on top.<BR/> <BR/>To take just one fairly representative example, in the classic Rothampstead experiments in England where arable land was allowed to revert to deciduous temperate woodland, soil organic carbon increased 300-400% from around 20 t/ha to 60-80 t/ha (or about 20-40 tons per acre) in less than a century (Jenkinson & Rayner 1977). The rapidity with which organic carbon can build up in soils is also indicated by examples of buried steppe soils formed during short-lived interstadial phases in Russia and Ukraine. Even though such warm, relatively moist phases usually lasted only a few hundred years, and started out from the skeletal loess desert/semi-desert soils of glacial conditions (with which they are inter-leaved), these buried steppe soils have all the rich organic content of a present-day chernozem soil that has had many thousands of years to build up its carbon (E. Zelikson, Russian Academy of Sciences, pers. comm., May 1994). http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/carbon1.html<BR/> <BR/> <BR/><BR/>All the Bio-Char Companies and equipment manufactures I've found:<BR/> <BR/> Carbon Diversion<BR/>http://www.carbondiversion.com/<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Eprida: Sustainable Solutions for Global Concerns<BR/>http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4<BR/><BR/>BEST Pyrolysis, Inc. | Slow Pyrolysis - Biomass - Clean Energy - Renewable Ene<BR/>http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Dynamotive Energy Systems | The Evolution of Energy<BR/>http://www.dynamotive.com/<BR/><BR/>Ensyn - Environmentally Friendly Energy and Chemicals<BR/>http://www.ensyn.com/who/ensyn.htm<BR/><BR/>Agri-Therm, developing bio oils from agricultural waste<BR/>http://www.agri-therm.com/<BR/><BR/>Advanced BioRefinery Inc.<BR/>http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/<BR/><BR/>Technology Review: Turning Slash into Cash<BR/>http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17298/<BR/> <BR/><BR/>3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. (Edward Someus)<BR/>WEB: http://www.terrenum.net/<BR/><BR/>The company has Swedish origin and developing/designing medium and large scale carbonization units. The company is the licensor and technology provider to NviroClean Tech Ltd British American organization WEB: http://www.nvirocleantech.com and VERTUS Ltd.<BR/>http://www.vertustechnologies.com<BR/><BR/>Genesis Industries, licensee of Eprida technology, provides carbon-negative EPRIDA energy machines at the same cost as going direct to Eprida. Our technical support staff also provide information to obtain the best use of biochar produced by the machine. Recent research has shown that EPRIDA charcoal (biochar) increases plant productivity as it sequesters carbon in soil, thus reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.<BR/><BR/>http://www.egenindustries.com/<BR/><BR/><BR/>If pre-Columbian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using "Slash & CHAR" verses "Slash & Burn", it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.<BR/>Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.<BR/>We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.<BR/><BR/>Erich J. Knight<BR/>Shenandoah Gardens<BR/>1047 Dave Berry Rd.<BR/>McGaheysville, VA. 22840<BR/>(540) 289-9750<BR/>shengar@aol.comErich J. Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10995702794016834400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-21538527481261538502008-01-23T23:33:00.000+01:002008-01-23T23:33:00.000+01:00Lars Olert: "Problemet är att det går alldeles för...Lars Olert: "Problemet är att det går alldeles för långsamt att binda koldioxiden i biomassa som blir kol. "<BR/>Njaa.. Den globala årliga fotosyntesen uppskattas till runt 100 Gt. (120 - 70, beroende på årsmån). Hälften av detta kan antas vara respiration, och hälften av återstoden kan antas vara löv och tunna rötter, alltså i prncip okolbart. Anta alltså, för enkelhetes skull att 25 Gt <I>teoretiskt</I> är kolbar produktion. Låtsas, vidare, att man genom herkuleiska, krigsliknande anstängningar skulle kunna binda ungefär 15% av årstillväxten i form av kol. Det skulle så fall bli ungefär 1,5 Gt. Vi släpper i dag ut ungefär 7 Gt kol i form av koldioxd. Om man kunde minska denna mängd, återigen genom yttert beslutsamma (och osannolika) åtgärder av världens befolkningar, med 85% på 25 år, skulle världens 'koldioxidmoln' faktiskt börja minska efter ungefär 18 år. Och då skulle vi vara på väg hemåt.<BR/>Se inlägg 28 september om dettaFolkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-21405589927681776622008-01-23T15:44:00.000+01:002008-01-23T15:44:00.000+01:00Problemet är att det går alldeles för långsamt att...Problemet är att det går alldeles för långsamt att binda koldioxiden i biomassa som blir kol. <BR/><BR/>Ett gammalt informationsblad ENERGIFAKTA 1 okt 1979 från Näringslivets Energiinformation anger att jordens totala fotosyntes är 8 gånger samhällets energiomsättning (SE). Ved och trävaror utgör tillsammans 0.25 ggr SE. Mellanskillnaden 7.75 ggr SE måste då ske i haven eller där människan inte kan tillgodogöra sig biomassan. Huvuddelen av den CO2 som fångas upp av haven m.m. går tillbaka till atmosfären vid furmultningen.<BR/><BR/>Dessa gamla siffror betyder således att vi helt måste avstå från koldioxidutsläpp och gräva ner allt kol från ved och trävaror i <B>fyra år</B> för att kompensera för ett års utsläpp. <BR/><BR/>Enligt senaste skattningar har haven en potential att minska koldioxidhalten i atmosfären från 450 ppm till 400 ppm om vi samtidigt minskar CO2-utsläppen till 10--20 procent av nuvarade utsläpp. Trots detta kommer vi genom eftersläpningen att hamna på strax under 2 graders temperaturhöjning jämfört med temperaturen före industaliseringen då CO2-halten var 280 ppm. Vi ligger nu på 0.6--0.8 grader över.<BR/><BR/>Kommentar:<BR/>Eftersläpningen beror huvudsakligen på att haven inte nått jämviktstemperatur vilket kommer att inträffa år 2100 vid konstanta förhållanden. <BR/>Två graders ökning = Tvåprocentsmålet är den temperatur då haven och skogarna börjar avge mer koldioxid än de kan ta upp vilket leder till en ohejdbar temperaturökning.<BR/><BR/>Lars Olert, LinköpingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-55022389534240711422007-11-20T11:40:00.000+01:002007-11-20T11:40:00.000+01:00I gave some thought to your Bunclody seminar organ...I gave some thought to your Bunclody seminar organised by Feasta, and put these on record at<BR/><BR/>http://www.iol.ie/~rjtechne/climate/fsta0807.htm<BR/><BR/>where I suggested some system options, and a role for a pricing mechanism. I am wondering how best to get this on to the political agenda in ireland.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-58445032389841197952007-11-08T15:01:00.000+01:002007-11-08T15:01:00.000+01:00Whose current lifestyle?Whose current lifestyle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-25297499221806607612007-11-07T17:19:00.000+01:002007-11-07T17:19:00.000+01:00A pleasure to encounter you. I intend to follow th...A pleasure to encounter you. I intend to follow this blog and direct my readers to it.<BR/><BR/>You may be interested in my related argument at<BR/>gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/29/195245/792 <BR/><BR/>I have briefly referred to this article at my blog at<BR/>http://initforthegold.blogspot.comMichael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-18044836142860918972007-10-13T17:32:00.000+02:002007-10-13T17:32:00.000+02:00Agreed completely. In fact, we need to look back a...Agreed completely. In fact, we need to look back and correct mistakes of previous generations instead of promulgating them. One thing related to this that "gets me" is that Sweden produces 900Twh of energy to achieve current living standards. Any simple back of the envelope calculation will show this much is way excessive of what theoretically could be done with a relatively simple redesign and retrofit of present systems. In fact, we could 1) introduce carbon sequestering according to Folkes model, 2) radically reduce CO2 emissions 3) all live in comfort problably not requiring a 40 hour work week either. Of course, you would have to work out a way of reworking the present economic system - but why not? Do you really think your pension plan is going to be worth something - or do you really see your workplace surviving?<BR/>Steve Hinton http://porena.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-3368485768752189412007-09-21T10:34:00.000+02:002007-09-21T10:34:00.000+02:00En korrekt beskrivning av nuvarande policy och en ...En korrekt beskrivning av nuvarande policy och en realistisk, konkret motåtgärd. Dock ett fel. Jag citerar: "Även om man ... fullständigt upphör med all användning av fossila bränslen så blir klimatet detsamma." Det finns en eftersläpning som stabiliserar tillfälliga variationer i naturen. Detta är bra när det gäller just tillfälliga variationer men katastrofalt när människan permanent ändrar naturens balans eftersom effekterna märks inte omedelbart. Därför kan vi inte räkna med att klimatet förblir det nuvarande även om vi omedelbart upphör med nettoutsläppen av koldioxid. En orsak är att polar- och glaciärisarnas avsmältning fortsätter till dess att jämvikten återställs. Detta visar på nödvändigheten att verkligen minska det antropogent orsakade överskottet av luftens koldioxid liksom andra växthusgaser, t ex dikväveoxid (lustgas) så temperaturen åter sänks. Lustgasen som används för narkos t ex vid förlossning är kanske av mindre betydelse. Värre är lustgasavgång från åkermark, särskilt vid kraftig kvävegödsling. Det är möjligt att växthuseffekten blir värre om man kör bil på etanol tillverkad från en handelsgödslad vete- eller majsgröda än om man kör på bensin. Som slutsats kan man konstatera att den miljövänligaste energin är den som aldrig använts. T ex genom att släcka lyset som inte behövs, tilläggsisolera och minska uppvärmning och luftkonditionering, samt att gå eller cykla istället för att åka bil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-78246903555969558582007-09-19T22:22:00.000+02:002007-09-19T22:22:00.000+02:00Det var därför jag sade att man inte skall försöka...Det var därför jag sade att man inte skall försöka lagra en gas, utan göra biomassa till träkol, så slipper man problemetFolkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825915840370879746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5859007729102115848.post-1166145920760753942007-09-19T18:53:00.000+02:002007-09-19T18:53:00.000+02:00Men om koldioxiden omsider läcker ur bergrunden - ...Men om koldioxiden omsider läcker ur bergrunden - skall "nedgrävaren" då betala pengen åter? Eller skall pengen säkras någonstans - i så fall, hur länge?<BR/><BR/>Gunnar VagerstamGunnar Vagerstamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11321149501333732606noreply@blogger.com