[SustainableTompkins] Subject for debate

[Joel and Sarah Gagnon]

This is the first I have heard of this approach (pyrolisation). You are 
assuming that we are better informed than we are (or at least than I am). 
I'm guessing that we are talking about charcoal here, which is resistant to 
decay and would presumably persist in the soil for extended periods. I 
would think that it would behave somewhat differently than the humus 
produced by the natural cold oxidation of organic matter. Why would anyone 
stop at charcoal, given that most of the energy remains in it?

Joel

  At 01:21 PM 9/10/06 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I suppose the graduate student workload has so far limited most traffic
>on this list to announcements. So this more substantive posting is to
>test that assumption. I will also post it to Sustainable Tompkins,
>sustainabletompkins at lists.mutualaid.org where discussion of relevant
>issues occurs more often.
>
>One debate that is heating up is around the whole soil organic
>matter/carbon sequestration/biofuels question. I have followed this
>debate for a while because of my long interest in soil organic matter
>accumulation on my farm. My take so far is that most of the debate lacks
>holistic perspective - it fails to consider all the angles. Of the many
>parts of this debate I would like to select one for discussion here: Is
>char/pyrolisation (a la terra preta) and effective solution? For farming?
>For climate stabilization? For energy production?
>
>This is some relevance to the Cornell/Ithaca community because Cornell
>scientists have weighed in on the question. Johannes Lehman has said:
>"This is the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative"
>(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442624a.html). John
>Gaunt is said to be working on making the practice carbon-tradeable. The
>idea is to convert farm and other wastes to fuel and in addition a
>concentrated form of carbon that is put back into the soil.
>
>My question is: Don't the farm-integrated biogas systems developed by
>people like Thomas Preston
>http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/rodriguez/paper.htm and the
>Institute for Science in Society http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DreamFarm2.php
>produce the same results (fuel, fertility and carbon sequestration)
>without the extra energy cost of pyrolizatiion? In other words, why char
>organic matter before sequestration? And isn't it better for both soil
>biology and aggregation to let soil organic matter additions decompose
>through the various soil carbon pools? Pyrolisation seems like it
>fast-tracks the process toward inert carbon. Its promoters claim that
>carbon in this form is sequestered more permanently. But so is some of
>the carbon added to soils from compost or biogasification residues. And
>the char product of firms like Eprida
>http://www.eprida.com/data/Energy_article.pdf that are piloting
>production of the stuff contains only half the carbon of the original
>organic waste input. Where did the rest go? Don't all carbon
>decomposition processes release CO2?
>
>Lastly, Preston and others have demonstrated that poor peasants can
>afford biogas production systems. Can they afford pyrolization, or is
>this just another capitalist trick whose goal is mainly sequestration of
>profit to international capital? Or is it just another band-aid on our
>main problem: a civilisation addicted to excessive energy consumption?
>
>Maybe Julie Grossman, who has worked with Lehman on terra preta, can shed
>some light on these questions.
>
>Cheers, Karl
>
>Karl North
>Northland Sheep Dairy, Freetown, New York USA
>      www.geocities.com/northsheep/
>"Mother Nature never farms without animals" - Albert Howard
>"Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
>_______________________________________________
>SustainableTompkins mailing list
>SustainableTompkins at lists.mutualaid.org
>http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
>free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org