Karl, I know you've got a vendetta against specialization and reductionism but don't take it out on me.... I tend agree with ya. You're trying to categorize my suggestion into this type of thinking but it simply doesn't work. I was suggesting a holistic farm design with permaculture elements... not some easy techno fix to all the world's problems through the touch of a button.
I agree... it's gonna take huge changes--most of them involving massive reduction in our wasteful materialistic lifestyles and having nothing to do with technology whatesoever. A lot of it is going to have to pick up from the ways we were doing things a hundred years ago. These two points granted, there's no reason to suggest if we have an elegant and sustainable means of removing C from the atmosphere that we shouldn't do so. OK. So few points: 1) C sequestered through addition of labile carbonaceous materials does not simply turn into infinitely stable C... humic substance represent the most stable fraction of C (other than carbonate minerals and charcoal) and this is still fairly labile. Further, labile inputs eventually reach a equilibrium or saturation point beyond which no additional C can be added... this is highly dependent on soil physical and chemical qualities, but is always finite. Biochar is an order of magnitude more stable than these fractions and is not subject to an equilibrium point (although plants under many conditions do reactive negatively to greater than 50-150 tons of biochar per hectare... but that's a heck of a lot of material). 2) Pyrolyzation of biomass is under many circumstance more efficient than direct combustion and can additionally produce electricity and biochar. 3) I was agreeing with you about the availability of french fry grease... it's simply not scalable... it wouldn't even satisfy 1% of US automotive demand. On the other hand, pyrolysis can use practically any dry high-Carbon content material thereby making it not subject to this same constraint. 4) The benefit of pyrolysis is that it is inherently small scale... you can't have mega-pyrolysis plants because you can't ship biomass very far before it becomes uneconomical or more polluting than sequestering... This is good... Small is beautiful, right?! I think you're right Karl... we're going to need a systemic approach. If we want to lower atmospheric carbon levels below 350 ppmv as Hansen et al are suggesting, we're going to need a full and integrated toolbox, biochar being one of the more useful tools among other: massive reforestation, reversal of desertification, restoration of wetlands, widespread conservation and efficiency programs, sustainable and local food production, paying farmers in developing to sequester C in their soils and trees through sustainable management, possibly ocean fertilization, C tax with built in incentives to reduce the human population, switching away from annual to perennial agriculture systems, r&d of as much renewables as possible, reduction of meat consumption (beef in particular), carbon negative cement production, regeneration of mangrove swamps to buffer coastal communities, wildlife corridors to allow plants and animals to migrate during the comes changes to climate, regional seedbacks to produce, protect, and distribute regionally appropriate seeds, peridotite mineral sequestration, and, perhaps, a switch back to draft animal power on the farm. Doubt many people are going to start clamoring for these things until the situation gets quite a bit worse. Nonetheless, to criticize biochar as simply being reductionistic, or to call me a specialist is simply to miss the point. This is a powerful tool we might have to do some real good. As for a demonstration, you might check out Frye Poultry Farm in West Virginia<http://www.motherearthnews.com/Energy-Matters/Biochar-Poultry-Manure.aspx>is operating a gasifier which produces biochar that heats his poultry barns and produces biochar that he sells to neighboring farmers. Our www.BiocharFund.org who is operating pyrolyzers on farms in Africa to improve their highly degraded soils. Best, Ryan On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ryan and Joel, > > I am going to press on with this, not because I think biochar is that big > a fish to fry, but because the thinking and debate around it is an > example of widespread, fundamental flaws in the way people are evaluating > the adoption of technologies, particularly those that seem to present > powerful solutions. But first, to respond to specifics: > > > 1. The stable organic carbon pool of which you speak is humic > > substrates > > which are certainly resistant to breakdown but far less so that > > biochar. > > They may have a mean residence time on the matter of decades maybe > > a > > century. Biochar is an order of magnitude longer than this. > > No, the stable organic carbon pool I'm referring to is not "humic > substrates", it is carbon that has finally become inert and, by my > reading of the literature, should last just as long as biochar. Moreover, > even if it were for some reason being slowly lost, proper soil organic > building will be slowly but constantly replenishing the pool. > > > 2. Equating bio-oil from french fry grease to biochar from pyrolysis > > is > > about the silliest thing I have heard considering that practically > > any dry > > carbonaceous material can be pyrolyzed... don't need to go to > > McDonals to > > get it, in other words. > > I did not equate bio oil to french fry grease. My point was that the > supply of any of the bio residues of our civilization, like cooking oil > or sawdust, is too small to be solutions to societal-scale problems, be > they fuel needs or soil carbon. Of course all residues should be used, > and much more intelligently than at present. But the great expectations > people have are mistaken because because they are confusing solutions at > the small scale personal and farm level, with solutions that are > scalable. > > > on-farm > > pyrolyzer which heats your house, greenhouse, and even gives a > > little heat > > to your horses so they're warm and cozy during the coldest months. > > Having a > > system capable of heating multiple areas at once thereby replacing > > other > > less efficient systems (such as heating oil, or wood > > Once again this imaginary personal farm solution ignores the question of > scalability, which is more complex than most specialists imagine. Second, > where is the evidence that a pyrolyzer that splits the wood energy into > heat and a gas fuel is as efficient a use of the wood as converting all > the wood energy to heat directly with full-oxygen combustion of the wood > in a properly designed stove? Besides all this is still pie in the sky; > when it comes down to earth in a successful demonstration, then it may be > worthy of consideration. > > > I have been gardening organically for almost a half century at this > > point. > > It has been a continuous challenge to raise and maintain soil > > organic > > matter. > > There are proven ways to accelerate the process, which require proper use > of animals, composting, etc. I will summarize the process in Part Two of > my paper on TCLocal. > > While it is true that you can raise humus levels over time, > > it is > > also true that the fraction of added organic material that ends up > > as humus > > is very small, and even that is subject to accelerated oxidation > > under > > tillage. > > I am not talking about humus, but about a residual inert carbon pool (see > above). As you know, humus is extremely valuable in may ways for > agricultural productivity, and is obtained by adding biomass to the soil > in any form EXCEPT BIOCHAR. Unlike humus, biochar contains no source of > plant nutrients. The fraction of biomas in pyrolization that ends up as > biochar is also small compared to the original raw biomass. There is a > reduction size in all metabolic processes in the carbon cycle, no? > > The increment of carbon added to the soil with biochar is > > hugely > > greater > > Sure, if you add enough of it. But this begs my original questions: Where > is all the raw material for biochar to come from, and what are the > consequences for the sustainability of human society, when scaled up to > adequately amend all agricultural land? > > But enough of this. As I said at the start of this post, the flaws in the > consideration of biochar are one example of an all-too-common pattern, > especially when a technology under consideration involves some > specialized science. Promoters of high tech solutions are often > techno-geeks whose severely reductionist training makes them more > narrowly sighted by far than my horse wearing a bridle with blinders. > Because of this training, they are not even aware that a systemic > approach is required in all applied science, that is, in all application > of specialized knowledge to the real world. They are rarely taught to > ask, What are all the important variables to consider? What are likely > consequences, over space and time, of adoption? In short, what are the > ripple effects? What are the trade-offs? Is it sustainable with respect > to the big picture? > > We all are to a degree victims of a pathologically reductionist > scientific culture. We need to remember that, and fight toward a more > holistic perspective, every day. > > Karl > ____________________________________________________________ > Save hundreds on an Unsecured Loan - Click here. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIqYyPHkjBmIBGc8kuaXVTXQNqpuRhFBMp5vBVPSSirHm3JBNxNQE/ > _______________________________________________ > For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, > please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > > RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: > [email protected] > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins > Questions about the list? ask > [email protected] > free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org > -- Ryan Darrell Hottle LEED-AP Environmental Science, PhD Student Carbon Management and Sequestration Center The Ohio State University Rm. 454 Kottman Hall 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 C: (740) 258 8450 NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins Questions about the list? ask [email protected] free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
