[Greenbuilding] Past the Tipping Point (was the Hope of Biochar)

Mon Jul 6 09:52:48 CDT 2015

Like it or not, we are past the tipping point for reversing climate change with only reducing emissions.  Given the historical highs in emissions of fossil fuels still currently going on, reducing our emissions by say, building buildings that are net zero with energy supplied by clean renewables is a way to reduce or even eliminate additional damage from our practices.  However, it does not heal the damage already done by greenhouse gases.  

This year I have discerned what may or may not be apparent to you, but greenhouse gases are cumulative.  Just like a financial debt, when you stop adding to the debt, the previous debt does not go away.  Although with a financial debt, you can change the rules.  We are now at the point with the accumulation of greenhouse gases that we are causing positive feedbacks that are accelerating the warming.  The melting of glaciers and tundra are releasing methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than co2.  Also, the dramatic reduction in white sea ice, reducing the light reflected back into space and increasing the heat absorbed by dark blue water is significantly adding to the heating.  If we were to achieve net zero emissions of human caused greenhouse gases with plants sequestering carbon, we will continue to warm because of these positive feedbacks.  

Reducing emissions remains the highest priority.  Each day we must consider ways we can reduce our damage.  However, we must consider how to restore a healthy greenhouse gas level that addresses the accumulated build up from the industrial era, particularly the last half century and still continuing.  How can we remove co2 from the atmosphere?  Planting plants and trees do that.  Our economy needs to run on what we can sequester out of the atmosphere.  However, plant sequestration is temporary.  In the life cycle, the plant will die, decompose and re-emit co2 into the atmosphere in a relatively brief time.  Yes, this is helpful to buy us time.  However, creating biochar, half the carbon of the material remains sequestered for 1000+ years.  It is really helpful that there is a short term benefit of holding onto water, micro nutrients, and provide ideal environment for microorganisms.  This has been demonstrated by the terra pretta soils of the Amazon.  

Until recently, I only thought of charcoal as a fuel for grilles.  I actually thought it came from coal.  Because that product is formulated for a fuel, it is not suited as a soil amendment.  That use of charcoal is wasteful and polluting.  However, as part of a movement to restore carbon into soils and increase fertility by holding the nutrients, yes, I do consider the use of biochar as a soil amendment a green, sustainable, regenerative practice.  In addition to holding carbon from original material, it also holds onto amonia and nitrous oxide from fertilizers (also potent greenhouse gases) to the benefit of plant growth, food production and the climate.  

I am still exploring this potential.  Therefore, I may still learn something new that throws doubt into this approach.  That is why I posted to this list.  If you have concerns about biochar, let me know so I can consider them.  In this time of transition, we are called to be open to new information that may challenge our previous assumptions.  

Eli 

From: RT 
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 8:46 PM
To: Green Building 
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Biochar as Annual Cycle Building Dehumidifier

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:22:12 -0400, <conservationarchitect at rockbridge.net> wrote:

  My last posting on biochar was somewhat of an introduction to the subject.  

  This video about charcoal in Japan shows its use as an annual cycle dehumidifier in a home

Eli;

I have to confess that the notion of promoting charcoal as being Green struck me as being perverse.

That opinion was formed in the early 1970's  after having read a charming little booklet entitled 
"A Reverence for Wood" by Eric Sloane, most likely purchased as a result of having seen it mentioned  in one of the Whole Earth Catalogues.

I recall Sloane having described the process of making charcoal and the lives of the men who made it in early America. They were shunned and/or feared, not only because of their appearance  but  also because of the strange life they necessarily led due to the demands of tending the charcoal mound 24/7/365.

Anyone who heats with wood will know that charcoal is the result of incomplete combustion  -- ie a dirty, smouldering fire.

Its seems (to me anyway) that to promote charcoal "aka BioChar" as a Green resource is akin to promoting a 1967 Buick Electra with a 430 cubic inch V-8 engine as environmentally-friendly transportation.

It would also seem that instead of using  4500 kgs  (almost 5 tons) of charcoal as a desiccant for dehumidification ,  simply using clay or salt would achieve the same result with far less embodied-energy.   I suspect that Norbert Senf would have a pretty good idea of actual figures but my wild-@$$ guess would be that something like 10 tons of hardwood would need to be burned in a very dirty manner to make 5 tons of charcoal.

However, I could be completely off-base with my antiquated 1970's impression/opinion of charcoal. 

-- 
=== * ===
Rob Tom DT7-64 
Kanata, Ontario, Canada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20150706/f0e19799/attachment.html>