Save the Earth (step 1 of 1)
orca | 25.01.2009 14:34 | Climate Chaos | Energy Crisis
James Lovelock is revered by greens for his Gaia theory and getting CFCs banned globally, and then dismissed by them for advocating nuclear power for the UK. He was just interviewed in New Scientist, saying he can see only one way to avert climate change - burying charcoal.
Low Tech, Low Pollution
"Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.
So are we doomed?
There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.
Would it make enough of a difference?
Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it."
WHY BURY CHARCOAL?
Burying charged charcoal in soil stores carbon for potentially thousands of years and increases crop yield. Charcoal can be produced from any agricultural waste burned at low-temperatures. Charge it with nutrients for a month, such as soaking it in urine or plant tea, dry it and crunch it up, and bury it 20 to 50 cm deep in acidic soil for home-made Terra Preta. Terra Preta is named after the dark earth found in long inhabited Amazonian sites, a dark, nutrient-rich soil that increases agricultural yield. It is about 9% black carbon which keeps more nutrients in the soil longer by encouraging microbacterial growth while also storing carbon for hundreds or thousands of years.
Benefits:
1) Atmospheric Carbon Sequestration
2) Soil fertilisation/mineralisation without oil based fertilisers
3) Energy with a negative carbon footprint
It will have more effect on CO2 levels than ending all flights and banning all cars, so why aren't we all already doing it already? Lovelock is envisioning a global scheme but the technology is low-tech and we can all benefit from using it in our soil.
GASIFIERS
This is a separate but related issue.
Wood gasifier stoves and engines that are fuelled by the gases given off by wood combustion can drive vehicles, generate electricity, cook and heat homes. The temperature of this process is regulated by oxygen intake to vary the amount of biogas to charcoal produced. If the charcoal is used in the soil instead of a subsequent fuel then it will improve the soil and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere while producing energy.
The same equipment also has the advantage of a 'clean-burn', with the resultant gases being combusted and particulate emissions drastically reduced. In terms of personal transportation, Wikipedia states that "1000 kg of wood combustible matter has been found to substitute 365 litres of petrol during real transportation in similar driving conditions and with the same otherwise unmodified vehicle ...Against general belief, exhaust gas emission level of internal combustion engine is significantly lower on wood gas than on petrol."
The World Health Organisation estimates that 1.8 million people die each year in developing countries from the effects of indoor air pollution - many of them from lung diseases caused by persistent smoke inhalation. "Half the world's population is exposed to indoor air pollution, mainly the result of burning solid fuels for cooking and heating. Globally, it is estimated to cause 36% of all lower respiratory infections and 22% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."
An open wood fire spews seven times more particulates into the air than a car does. More than cars or industry domestic open wood fires and commerical slash and burn fires are the biggest contributors to the 'pollution layer', the vast cloud of smog that hangs over all of Asia for most of the year. By encouraging the use of gasifiers rather than open fires, and slash'n'char rather than slash'n'burn, not only will millions of developing world lives be saved each year, but the equipment and knowledge necessary to produce charcoal will be popularised.
SAVING THE EARTH?
It may seem crazy to be burying good fuel, charcoal, while other people are still digging up coal and oil, but of course it would be crazier not to try to mitigate or offset the effects they cause.
One effect of clearing air pollution is to increase light by up to 25% which could increase global warming. Global dimming due to pollution reflecting sunlight is estimated to be ten times greater than global warming although there is new evidence that smoke pollution also traps heat.
Sequesting carbon in charcoal is a stop-gap method to buy at least a few hundred years for humanity but because it could more than offset all other human contributions then there is a risk that companies and states will ignore the underlying man-made contributions to global warming.
Reducing the number of fatalities from smoke inhalation increases population strains.
This won't save the earth as the earth doesn't need saving. The planet will survive whatever humanity throws at it so reducing the effects of climate change will not save the earth, the issue is about saving as many lives and species as possible.
One last chance to save mankind
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true
Cooking hearths largely to blame for Asian haze
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16468-cooking-hearths-largely-to-blame-for-asian-haze.html
Increasing Asian smog blocks out the Sun
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1010-increasing-asian-smog-blocks-out-the-sun.html
Scientists Promote Benefits of Black Magic Soil
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334451.html
Terra preta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta#Wood_charcoal
How to make charcoal at home
http://www.velvitoil.com/Charmake.htm
Traditional Charcoal Production
http://www.phogle.com/en/photos/1.html
Hybrid Stove Making Charcoal
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BGXv7buNUMY
How to make charcoal at home
http://www.velvitoil.com/Charmake.htm
How to make plant tea
http://www.fourthway.co.uk/posters/pages/plantt.html
Wood Gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
World Health Report 2002
http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/index.html
It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.
So are we doomed?
There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.
Would it make enough of a difference?
Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it."
WHY BURY CHARCOAL?
Burying charged charcoal in soil stores carbon for potentially thousands of years and increases crop yield. Charcoal can be produced from any agricultural waste burned at low-temperatures. Charge it with nutrients for a month, such as soaking it in urine or plant tea, dry it and crunch it up, and bury it 20 to 50 cm deep in acidic soil for home-made Terra Preta. Terra Preta is named after the dark earth found in long inhabited Amazonian sites, a dark, nutrient-rich soil that increases agricultural yield. It is about 9% black carbon which keeps more nutrients in the soil longer by encouraging microbacterial growth while also storing carbon for hundreds or thousands of years.
Benefits:
1) Atmospheric Carbon Sequestration
2) Soil fertilisation/mineralisation without oil based fertilisers
3) Energy with a negative carbon footprint
It will have more effect on CO2 levels than ending all flights and banning all cars, so why aren't we all already doing it already? Lovelock is envisioning a global scheme but the technology is low-tech and we can all benefit from using it in our soil.
GASIFIERS
This is a separate but related issue.
Wood gasifier stoves and engines that are fuelled by the gases given off by wood combustion can drive vehicles, generate electricity, cook and heat homes. The temperature of this process is regulated by oxygen intake to vary the amount of biogas to charcoal produced. If the charcoal is used in the soil instead of a subsequent fuel then it will improve the soil and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere while producing energy.
The same equipment also has the advantage of a 'clean-burn', with the resultant gases being combusted and particulate emissions drastically reduced. In terms of personal transportation, Wikipedia states that "1000 kg of wood combustible matter has been found to substitute 365 litres of petrol during real transportation in similar driving conditions and with the same otherwise unmodified vehicle ...Against general belief, exhaust gas emission level of internal combustion engine is significantly lower on wood gas than on petrol."
The World Health Organisation estimates that 1.8 million people die each year in developing countries from the effects of indoor air pollution - many of them from lung diseases caused by persistent smoke inhalation. "Half the world's population is exposed to indoor air pollution, mainly the result of burning solid fuels for cooking and heating. Globally, it is estimated to cause 36% of all lower respiratory infections and 22% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."
An open wood fire spews seven times more particulates into the air than a car does. More than cars or industry domestic open wood fires and commerical slash and burn fires are the biggest contributors to the 'pollution layer', the vast cloud of smog that hangs over all of Asia for most of the year. By encouraging the use of gasifiers rather than open fires, and slash'n'char rather than slash'n'burn, not only will millions of developing world lives be saved each year, but the equipment and knowledge necessary to produce charcoal will be popularised.
SAVING THE EARTH?
It may seem crazy to be burying good fuel, charcoal, while other people are still digging up coal and oil, but of course it would be crazier not to try to mitigate or offset the effects they cause.
One effect of clearing air pollution is to increase light by up to 25% which could increase global warming. Global dimming due to pollution reflecting sunlight is estimated to be ten times greater than global warming although there is new evidence that smoke pollution also traps heat.
Sequesting carbon in charcoal is a stop-gap method to buy at least a few hundred years for humanity but because it could more than offset all other human contributions then there is a risk that companies and states will ignore the underlying man-made contributions to global warming.
Reducing the number of fatalities from smoke inhalation increases population strains.
This won't save the earth as the earth doesn't need saving. The planet will survive whatever humanity throws at it so reducing the effects of climate change will not save the earth, the issue is about saving as many lives and species as possible.
One last chance to save mankind
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true Cooking hearths largely to blame for Asian haze
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16468-cooking-hearths-largely-to-blame-for-asian-haze.html Increasing Asian smog blocks out the Sun
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1010-increasing-asian-smog-blocks-out-the-sun.html Scientists Promote Benefits of Black Magic Soil
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334451.html Terra preta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta#Wood_charcoal How to make charcoal at home
http://www.velvitoil.com/Charmake.htm Traditional Charcoal Production
http://www.phogle.com/en/photos/1.html Hybrid Stove Making Charcoal
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BGXv7buNUMY How to make charcoal at home
http://www.velvitoil.com/Charmake.htm How to make plant tea
http://www.fourthway.co.uk/posters/pages/plantt.html Wood Gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas World Health Report 2002
http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/index.html
orca
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Reality check
25.01.2009 22:47
If there were that much crop waste about we would be able to do away with fossil fuels at least for all large stationary applications and burn crop waste in those instead to generate the same energy. Don't you think they'd do that if it were so easy?
onlyme
See Oh Too
26.01.2009 02:22
For a start there is that much agricultural and natural waste about, it dwarves all other human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide by a large factor and existing power-plants do run off rice-husks for example. I could quote figures or you could research the subject for yourself since figures can be confusing. I've maybe confused you already by listing carbon-free energy as a benefit, when it is really more of a side-effect. Loveluck is suggesting burying charcoal as a method of removing carbon from the atmosphere. The energy and the fertilisation of the soil are positive but incidental. This is about stopping, or at least delaying, global warming.
Say you have cut down a tree or a tree has blown down. Half of it is carbon but all of it burns so if getting energy from it is your sole motivation you would burn the entire tree.
A lot of the developing world already produce charcoal as it is a lighter fuel to carry than wood, but the charcoal is subsequently burned so all the carbon is released into the atmosphere. What is being suggested is partially burning the tree so as to produce charcoal, then burying that charcoal. If you didn't know about the soil benefits and the atmospheric benefits then it would seem counter-intuitive to bury perfectly good charcoal. The amazonian Indians who did this presumably stumbled upon the soil fertilisation benefit, carbon in soil normally breaks down faster in tropical regions which is why the soil in a rainforest is generally poor despite the lavish amounts of biomass deposited there. I've heard people discussing using trees to soak up more carbon from the atmosphere before but the question is always what to do with the dead wood? Unless you cover them in plastic resin and dump them down a sealed mineshaft then they will biodegrade quickly enough anyway releasing their carbon again. Charcoal extends the time the carbon is trapped in an inert form especially when buried.
"Don't you think they'd do that if it were so easy?"
It is low-tech and perfectly feasible, but it will not be easy and is indeed unlikely. Lovelock is proposing a grand project, a huge endeavour, one he thinks is beyond us. He is also saying it is our only chance.
Our planet is carbon neutral, we have just pumped too much of it into the atmosphere for our species to survive. Since you never asked for numbers I assume you just want a general understanding so I will add a link to a singular piece of literature which explores the existence of a carbon atom.
Carbon
The Periodic Table By Primo Levi
orca
3x cropyield,Transitiontowns,allotment groups,organ& coop farms starting Biochar
26.01.2009 17:17
This would help kick up the arse local councils,regional,national & international government take it on soon too, we may have to protest about that, G20 in London soon gives us a opportunity in UK.
2006imc biochar article you link to seems to be by Brian Davey a pioneer or transition town in the midlands area who focused on Biochar. He & afew other nottinghamshire scientists & small organic farmer have been experimenting with it.
Brians knowledge on this is volumous, he is also a professional environmental economist & cap & share organiser, he is maybe one of best contacts in UK to set up a biochar company-coop
Vconvincing PR for Biochar by Lovelock,he is still promoting nuclear though with modern "safer" ways of doing nuclear safer than natural background radiation that have been promoted on indymedia,
But misses out on the military situ of a false economy that creates conflict, the pentagon has the worlds largest footprint & keeping the current nuclear system going to get to "safe" integral nuclear reactors isnt safe.
Dont like the bit were you say air pollutants keep down population strains, what are you implying?, air pollutants increase cancer etc & waste money rescources increasing strain on NHS. If we didnt live in a false economy where upto 10 million mostly children die unecessarily according to UN figures population levels would decrease,why. Most of worlds population live via subsistence farming & are often displaced by war at mercy of markets, poor families at moment often dont have birth control & need more children to provide for them as technology is not fairly, spread. In west population levels have levelled or are dropping, a fairer world with direct economic democracy is the only one that is survivable for the current ecosystem.
Universal Confederalist
testing
26.01.2009 19:37
That the title 'Save the Earth (Step 1 of 1) is tongue-in-cheek. Even if we removed all the particulates that would contribute to other problems so human survival isn't a one step process. If we remove all the particulates then global warming will increase if we don't remove the excess CO2 as well. So it isn't a one step solution, just a necessary step.
Thanks for the tips. I'm charging some charcoal just now to try under a fruit tree, with an identical tree in normal soil as a control, to see if the effects are visible quickly. If it is then I'll try to persuade local farmers and politicians to adopt it.
orca