Farmers could reap $3b carbon harvest

Ball Lightning

www.sporedum.net
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
2,126
Location
Thunderstorm, Melbourne, Australia
Link

new report says farmers could make an extra $3 billion a year by helping to produce clean energy and by offering carbon offsets to big polluters.

The CSIRO report was commissioned by a group called the Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change, which includes farming and green organisations.

It found that farmers could create carbon offsets for the big polluters and reap up to $920 million a year.

It also found that by harvesting renewable energy farmers could reap royalties from wind farms, and get an annual revenue of $250 million.

The Climate Institute's John Connor says it is a key step needed to cut greenhouse gases.

"The rural sector can play a key role in not just providing bread and butter but providing power and pruning greenhouse pollution," he said.

The study found that a renewable energy target of 25 per cent is cost effective and could deliver farmers wind royalties of up to $250 million a year.

Dale Park, from the West Australian Farmers Federation, which is part of the alliance, says the rural sector can play a key part in cutting greenhouse gases.

"It hasn't been easy in the agricultural sector for the last 10 years and farmers have been looking at declining terms of trade so they really have to look at other forms of income streams or possibilities and so that's where we are coming from on that one," he said.

Agforce chief executive officer Brett de Hayr says the agriculture industry will play a key role in climate change solutions and must be included in the discussions.

"Agriculture hasn't been included in the discussions so far," he said.

"Whether that's around emissions trading framework, whether it's about moving forward on various other climate initiatives, we are actually part of the solution.

"So I think as the report highlights and whether it's about emissions trading, renewables, environmental stewardship programs - agriculture is the key."

He says Queensland farmers should also look beyond renewable energy.

"That will be a reality for some farmers in some parts of the country where they can structure a partnership with someone who can put those things in place," he said.

"For Queensland farmers, the more relevant areas relate to acting as offsets for emissions in other sectors and particularly relating to environmental stewardship work in biodiversity."

Your thoughts?
 
I think this talks about two things:

a) Clean energy from wind power that negates the need to burn fossil fuels. This is nothing new and most farmers already get some payment if the wind turbine sits on their land. This is good and it is already being done allover the world. The reason why it isn’t done any faster is because suppliers aren’t able to build enough turbines, but everybody is expanding their productions but it will still take few years to catch up with demand.

b) Growing something that will soak up CO2 that is released when burning fossil fuels. This is stupid. The reason why it is stupid it is because whatever you grow will eventually get released back in a decade or two when it rots away.

If they would be really serious about reduction of CO2 and not as much as “giving farmers another revenue stream” like with corn to ethanol scheme, they should just take or grow all the biomass that is inedible, break it up with pyrolysis into gas, bio-oil and char (carbon + minerals). Gas would get burned to power the whole process, bio-oil could be refined like we refine crude oil and the char would get dumped on the field, where it will stay for millennia and would actually increase field fertility (we would create very fertile Terra Preta ) That way you get renewable “fossil fuel” for cars that recycles CO2 that is already in the air and you store carbon in inactive form on the ground.

Carbon negative process.
 
b) Growing something that will soak up CO2 that is released when burning fossil fuels. This is stupid. The reason why it is stupid it is because whatever you grow will eventually get released back in a decade or two when it rots away.

If they would be really serious about reduction of CO2 and not as much as “giving farmers another revenue stream” like with corn to ethanol scheme, they should just take or grow all the biomass that is inedible, break it up with pyrolysis into gas, bio-oil and char (carbon + minerals). [...]

What he said. I guess Slovenia is eerily similar to the US in terms of the popularity of white welfare for farmers. :(
 
b) Growing something that will soak up CO2 that is released when burning fossil fuels. This is stupid. The reason why it is stupid it is because whatever you grow will eventually get released back in a decade or two when it rots away.
How do you suppose all that coal and oil got created underground in the first place.....?

Answer that one, and you'll see this solution is entirely workable, because the planet was doing it for millions of years after life evolved but before humans came along. The trick is to make sure that wherever you put that CO2, it doesn't get out again. In other words, resist the urge to burn those dead plants that soaked it up.

Whether humans can bring themselves to do that as oil becomes increasingly scarce, is a different matter.
 
This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.


I thought the current news and links on Terra Preta (TP)soils and closed-loop pyrolysis would interest you.
SCIAM Article May 15 07;

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40

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.

Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.

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;

S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007

A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:

Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative

for the 2007 Farm Bill

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html



Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.

Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf

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 Documents/ActionPlanFinalWEB_04-19-07.pdf
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."
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."

I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.



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.

Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as the Democrats/Enviromentalist 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.

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

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.



Also Here is the Latest BIG Terra Preta Soil news;

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.”

About a year ago I got Clorox interested in TP soils and Dr. Antal's Plasma Carbonazation process.

See: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707280348

ConocoPhillips Establishes $22.5 Million Pyrolysis Program at Iowa State 04/10/07


Here is my current Terra Preta posting which condenses the most important stories and links;

Terra Preta Soils Technology To Master the Carbon Cycle

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.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
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.

On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

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.

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.

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.

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! "

Terra Preta Soils Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X FertilityToo


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.

The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

The economics look good, and truly great if we had CO2 cap & trade or a Carbon tax in place.


.Nature article, Aug 06: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green:
http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdf

Here's the Cornell page for an over view:
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm

University of Beyreuth TP Program, Germany http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=taxonomy/term/118

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):
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html



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.

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.


The reason TP has elicited such interest on the Agricultural/horticultural side of it's benefits is this one static:

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:

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

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.

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.

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




All the Bio-Char Companies and equipment manufactures I've found:

Carbon Diversion
http://www.carbondiversion.com/


Eprida: Sustainable Solutions for Global Concerns
http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4

BEST Pyrolysis, Inc. | Slow Pyrolysis - Biomass - Clean Energy - Renewable Ene
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html


Dynamotive Energy Systems | The Evolution of Energy
http://www.dynamotive.com/

Ensyn - Environmentally Friendly Energy and Chemicals
http://www.ensyn.com/who/ensyn.htm

Agri-Therm, developing bio oils from agricultural waste
http://www.agri-therm.com/

Advanced BioRefinery Inc.
http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/

Technology Review: Turning Slash into Cash
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17298/


The International Agrichar Initiative (IAI) conference held at Terrigal, NSW, Australia in 2007. ( http://iaiconference.org/home.html ) ( The papers from this conference are now being posted at their home page)
.

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.

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.

We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.




Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com
 
The difference between the crop based CO2 and oil and coal being the last two representing a massive store of CO2, which, if we like our current climate, is best not released. The crop based CO2 is essentially neutral.

Grow crop = catch CO2. Utilise crop = release CO2. And around again.

Carbon credits seem like a good idea to me - a way of balancing the books, so to speak...
 
Whether humans can bring themselves to do that as oil becomes increasingly scarce, is a different matter.
I didn't say it wouldn’t work. I said it was stupid. Why would you want to grow trees, cut them down, transport them somewhere to be buried, when we would still need to extract gas, coal and oil for our energy needs. While both gas and coal could easily be replaced by other ways of generating power like wind or nuclear, but we need oil for our transport needs.

Fast Pyrolise that wood, bio waste, corn stalks, switchgrass, miscanthus or anything else that has carbon in it. That way you get bio-oil which could replace oil. You also get 15% - 50% of charcoal by weight. Charcoal is pure carbon that is different from the wood in that it does not rot away. If you spread it to the field it will actually increase plant growth since it acts both as a slow release fertilizer and an island for beneficial bacterias. This is what the Amazonian Indians did centuries ago. They chopped the trees, made charcoal and used it to create very fertile soil that is fertile even today.

The good thing about Fast Pyrolisis is that is that you need way less energy to get liquid carbohydrates (oil) then you need with corn -> alcohol or even cellulose -> alcohol. And you can use any biomass that will grow anywhere. 170.28 billion tonnes of biomass grows up on earth every year. This could be used to replace 10 billion tones of petroleum and 5.3 billion tons of coal used every year. And since you would convert carbon into inactive form in the ground this would be a carbon negative process. How hard would it be to convince farmers to spread something on their fields that will increase their plant growth (and their profit)? Not very much I guess..
 
Will farmers be making an extra 3 billion each or as a whole????
 
Jesus, I hate how everything in this country has to somehow benefit the two backwater states that decide who will be Preznit, or else it's politically untenable.

Let me be the first to say, FUDGE IOWA. Farmers should not be paid government subsidies for growing crops they were going to grow anyway. Your cornfield is not a "new carbon sink." Nor is it a source of Supar Mystery Ethanol Fuel. Ethanol will be remembered in the history of fuel the same way the dirigible is remembered in the history of flight.

b) Growing something that will soak up CO2 that is released when burning fossil fuels. This is stupid. The reason why it is stupid it is because whatever you grow will eventually get released back in a decade or two when it rots away.

Or be stored for centuries in the wood that goes to make buildings. The construction industry is one of our greatest current carbon sinks. Who's stupid, again?
 
Or be stored for centuries in the wood that goes to make buildings. The construction industry is one of our greatest current carbon sinks. Who's stupid, again?
We have been using wood from the time we knew how to build houses. That hasn't prevented CO2 from rising, has it?

The size of wood production is way too small to act as a carbon sink, plus what will happen with wood from those old houses that you will replace.. they were built from wood too..
 
Top Bottom