DISQUS

GoatGuy · 5 months ago

And let it be remembered - at the very core of these proposals - that CO2 is viewed as "bad". AND, that the methods employed are largely ameloriative (CO2 absorbing cement - why not nation-scale tree farms?) What bad? Hmmm? Check out http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009...

The PREMISE has been - a la Gores wicked hockey-stick - that for the longest time, weather varied little, until Now! where we have been only in the last 100 years dumping vast sounding amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, correlated by bad science into the puckside face of the stick. Well, the bottom graph, taken from actual, factual numbers, NOT adjusted to fit theory, but just in their naked selves, shows no more variation toward the upside for the 20th century than at any period in the last 1,000 years.

I want to be clear: energy conservation is great, research and commercial development of alternative energy-storage-and-use technologies is great. Oil isn't going to last forever (and even if we wanted it to, it isn't a very promising long-term prospect). We will in the not too distant future feel it is better used for its petrochemical potential than its energetic value.

The annular ring concept for nuclear fuels is vexed by the viscosity of the water cooling the cores. They either need to be separated at intervals to allow the hotter inner water to escape, or to have additional pressure applied from the underside - a complex prospect. It would be better to have the rings be S-shaped, taking approximately the same constrained cross-section, adding more area for dissipating the thermal flux. But remember too: the darn fuel will be run closer to the Chernobyl limit, and as the ageing fuel enriches in less stable actinides ... well you fill in the dots.

Liquid fluoride reactors are very dicey: the fluoride is a surprisingly effective solvent of metallic containment materials. Just as H2O has a pH dependent equilibrium of H+ and OH- ions, so too does a high temperature flouride (and chloride) bath have an equilibrium of Me+ and Ha- (metal and halide) ions. Just like water, these species at elevated temperatures actively work on oxide-freed (F especially) surface metal nanoclusters to erode and solvate them. Oft with the deposition of the metal specie in majority of the fluoride working fluid, but surprisingly, also temporarily in excess by the expedient of electron-supplanting from ground.

Electric bikes? Utterly laughable, I'm sorry to say. Only in the prim and advantageous (and highly liberal) polyopolis of Amsterdam-et-surrounds does the free-bike concept work. The chinese are poor enough that pedal power suffices. But realistically, look at the Scientific American article circa 1993 about the energetic power balance of "car" versus "person pedalling". It ain't pretty. Cars, for all their downsides, are energetically no more egregious than horses eating hay, people eating tofu, or yeasties converting sugar-cane to rum. Actually somewhat more effective.

But thinner we should almost all be, and doubtless that an extra 10 miles of pedal rotaries perdiem would have cardiovascular benefits, decreasing the publicly bolstered healthcare budget, and frankly giving a new lease on life to the laconic bicycle maintenance industry.

RETROFITTING existing vehicles ... is like retrofitting old computers to endow reasonably competitive performance with any new-minted prestidigitator to a dirty, tired, cranky machinkin. Old cars suffer sizeably from more than a shortness of efficiency under the bonnet (hood)... their trannies, clutches, their torque converters, algorithms for fuel injection (or withernon, carbueration!), their toed in rubbers, their underinflated torii, their whizzing, useless air conditioning units, their worn rollers, balls, chains, their out-of-spec cams, erratic electric sparks, leaky batteries, lusty ampere consuming bulbs and resistive wires, ... come on. The most ecologically energetically useful expedient would be to collect said jalopies, strip'em, recycle all, and be done with it. If they're not "that old", then let them live their useful lives, for any car made in the last 5 years is pretty efficient compared to the 20 year old junkers.

Aeromodding? Nice idea. The numbers are always (always!) enthusiastically improved by taking old cars with no mods, measuring them on the track, then giving them oil changes, new fittings, pressurizing the tires and tuning up the engines, and then ... "with the aeromods" measuring again. Guess what - like the idiotic Brown's Gas exponents claims, the virtual effect is actually just the summation of the real effects of all the tuning and correcting. Only 1% or less comes from the purported "mod" technology (if measurable at all).

The KruizKontrol militancy is just as vapid as the special interests can get. Do the research, folks ... mileage is lost not to reasonable driving habits, but to the inefficiencies of the frontal area at speed (40%), the habits of braking in city traffic (30%) the mass of the vehicle (20%), and the alignment+pressure of the tires. (10%) Unless we're to outfit cars with governors limiting their top-speed to something lower than et-alia traffic, unless we're to outfit cars with stoplight and traffic-condition governers of top-speed (which would go over like a brick shithouse), then this is vapid bovine feces (smoking, just plopped).

ESPECIALLY the concept of legislating that you, me, us, them, whomever ... needs to be governed by the governator and the governatrix-in-Chief. Nope folks. The way to efficieny is so simple that even a 4th grader could master it: make the cars smaller, lighter, less powerful, flimsier, smaller tires, reduced frontal area, more aerodynamic, smaller, lighter and did I mention, smaller and lighter? When a production vehicle made from carbonite, aluminum and ceramics weighs in at 750 kilos or 1500 lbs, when it has no oil, is diesel, runs cherry red, has thermal-electric cogeneration, is essentially a hybrid, utilizes very high pressure 6-ply (variable conformity rubber) tires, and gets 80 mpg or 30 km per liter ... then we don't need no damned governators and constrictajigs.

Especially no legislation.

Cement that costs a small fortune, in order to "sequester carbon", is the most insidious of the bunch. The entire economics of building changes when concrete goes up 3x to 5x in price by way of paying limitless royalties (and way more expensive source materials) for Vinod K's special cement. It sounds good, plays good, and ... doesn't have anywhere near the spectrum of mechanical properties necessary to make it useful in so many ways now addressed by the last 200 years of cemented aggregate research. Let this one go. The truth is that the cement industry is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide - since it comes not only from the fuel to heat the carbonate rock to lime, but also from the carbonate rock RELEASING its CO2 in order to get to the limey clinker.

BIOCHAR sequestering is interesting, but let's just plant a whole lot more forests, and let the treestands do the work, if we're all that concerned. I'm not. Check out the graph again in the link at the front. It is remarkable in that it tells a story that is far, far, too inconvenient for mainstream feel-good, tyedye shirted politisized science to admit. THE THEORY IS WRONG. The sun is variable, the solar system is variable, our region of the galaxy is variable, shit happens, vulcanism modifies the whole gaflootin planet, and life goes on. If the oceans were to go down, people would bitch. Go up, they bitch. Stay the same and ho-hum. There was no bitching 7,000 to 2,000 years ago when all the worlds oceans were changing due to icecap meltoff post-last-ice-age. We're still in that icemelt era, with only Greenland really being the vestige of the former normal. Will it melt? Almost did in the Middle Ages, in deed, hosted farms, vineyards (unthinkable, even today) and a pretty vivacious culture oh, 1,000 years ago. But hey. Carbon foot print of our present day energy Neanderthals ... well "that's got to be the problem! Look at that hockeystick!!!"

GoatGuy

erichj · 5 months ago

Biochar Soil Technology.....Husbandry of whole new orders of life

Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.

It's hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel.

Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth, TP), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!
Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat".
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of pertinence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.

Dr. Scherr's report includes biochar. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6124

I think we will be seeing much greater media attention for land management & biochar as reports like her's come out linking the roll of agriculture and climate.

Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

Another significant aspect of bichar and aerosols are the low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease. http://terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems http://biocharfund.org/ with the Congo Basin Forest
Fund (CBFF). The Biochar Fund recently won $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
(1) Hunger amongst the world's poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
(4) Climate change.

This ordering of priorities is a compelling mantra against the Biofuel Watch UK group who have consistently misrepresented Biochar research work.

Major Endorsements:

Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinforma...

NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.112...

Dr. James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) says Biochar is "The only hope for mankind"

Charles Mann ("1491") in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/...

Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards Committee. Hosted by Monsanto, this group of diverse interests has been hammering out issues of definition, validation and protocol. The past week, this group have been pressing soil sequestration's roll for climate legislation to congress.
http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standar...

Along these lines internationally, the work of the IBI fostering the application by 20 countries for UN recognition of soil carbon as a sink with biochar as a clean development mechanism will open the door for programs across the globe.
http://www.biochar-international.org/biocharpol....


Reports:
This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .

This is the single most comprehensive report to date, covering more of the Asian and Australian work;
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf

Biochar data base;
TP-REPP
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node


Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?

This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Cheers,
Erich


Erich J. Knight
Eco Technologies Group Technical Adviser
University of California Riverside advisory board member
Shenandoah Gardens (Owner)
1047 Dave Barry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
540 289 9750
Co-Administrator, Biochar Data base & Discussion list TP-REPP


I will be speaking at the first North American Biochar Conference, at CU in Boulder , about my efforts to network the many disciplines and organizations researching and implementing biochar systems.
Keynote speaker Secretary Tom Vilsack & Dr. Susan Solomon (NOAA's head atmospheric scientist) at.
http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.a...

My attendance is thanks to the folks at EcoTechnologies Group .
( http://www.ecotechnologies.com/index.html , they have also fully funded my field trials with the Rodale Institute & JMU)

There is real magic coming out of the Asian Biochar conference.
15 ear per stalk corn with 250% yield increase,
Sacred Trees and chickens raised from near death
Multiple confirmations of 80% - 90% reduction of soil GHG emissions

The abstracts of the conference are at
http://www.anzbiochar.org/2009presentations.html

GoatGuy · 5 months ago

FIRST - I abhor "cut'n'paste" responses. Especially when they are virtual marketing materials for a commercial venture wrapped in the opprobrium of neo-academics.

I TAKE TO TASK several of your studied points:

[001] Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life,
[===] No different from "inorganic carbon", all be told.


[002] should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed.
[===] yet it is oxidized all the time, every day, month, year by life and geochemical processes themselves.

[003] We seldom think about the complex recycled bio-carbon
[===] That's true. Ignorance is bliss.

[004]It's hard [to recognize] ecology is our health.
[===] A very hippy argument. True, but mushily saccharine.


[005] farming over 10,000 years [is] responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases.
[===] says who? the boreal forest, tropical jungle, untouched savanah ... all produce prodigeous quantities of purported "greenhouse gasses". LONG before Ol' Monkey Bob was emitting the insignificant fracation that now is causing such hubris.

[006]Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
[===] OK, maybe.

[007] Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth, TP),
[===] which was AND REMAINS a utter travisty in terms of soil erosion, depleted landtracts (useless for centuries)...

[008] is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!
[===] just the opposite, dude. It is a fvckn ecological travisty. Get YOUR facts straight.

[009] Modern biomass Pyrolysis [has] 10x Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too...
[===] Bull. The concept of charring gigatons of ... biomass ... in order to produce gigatons of carbon, and then to spread it over the earth ... is poppycock.

[010] Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
[===] Give me a break. What a load of hogwash. Cures hangnails, warts, increases penis length, renders all kids beautiful, and delivers basketloads of gold to ... YOUR BACKERS.

[011] By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.
[===] This reminds me of an advert for 'ranching' the ecologically amazing, wealth producing WORMS. There are no wealthy wormers, and most enterprises last only a couple of years 'afore going bust.

[012] Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price...
[===] THERE IT IS: once we CHARGE people for using carbon, and SQUANDER it largely, but PUBLICLY SPEND a small fraction SUBSIDIZING a few crafty proponents of uber-organic methods, oh yes... I see it now.

[013] they will be laughing all the way to it.
[===] That's right. The beneficiaries are quite indentured to their wealth.

[014] Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web.
[===] The incredible vision dims. It is all so sanguine. PLANT TREES, my friend, and get off the carbon-grits diet.

[015] Another significant aspect of bichar and aerosols are the low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease.
[===] Hey, protagonist-in-a-vacuum: It doesn't even slightly occur to you that the very poor, to whom all these cookstoves would be delivered (from taxing oil), wouldn't be very inclined to walk the extra miles each day to pick up 250% more combustable vegetation, only to throw away 65% of its BTU potential - AND have the problem of "delivering" all the mountains of perfectly burnable char, back to the fields? GO LIVE AMONG THE RECIPIENTS for a year or more. This is as workable as selling freezers to Eskimos.

[016] priorities is a compelling mantra
[===] INDEED, a mantra. Ommm... ommm... ommm...

[017] Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar
[===] WHO PUBLICLY denied (yesterday) that the greatest future effect on the hubris of greenhouse gasses won't be the US's reductions, but China's, India's and the Third Worlds accelarated use of carbon-based fuels (notably coal).


[018] NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global
[===] Whose work is all but discredited as myopic, politically charged, disingenuous, with huge fudge-factors TO MAKE THE FACTS FIT THE CONCLUSION.

I give up. There's just too much self-aggrandizement here.

Perhaps if the (much derided) corporate farmers, with their million-plus acre tracts of corn, wheat, soybeans, milo, rice and so on could be convinced to till their fields AFTER harvest in such a way so as to pick up the chaff, pyrolize it, cool it down, and immediately disc it into the earth, maybe then ... it could be done on a scale - and with an effectivenss - to accomplish a small part of what you are propounding, sir. But it ain't going to come at the hands of the picturesque little villagers, with their shocking bevvies of dirt-encrusted children, their prehistoric sanitary practices, and their ignorant ways.

GoatGuy

qraal · 5 months ago

Excellent ideas there Brian. Enough to make one hopeful.
But just how much fossil fuel is left to burn?