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

Mon Jul 6 10:44:44 CDT 2015

Hi Eli,

There's a great email list specifically about biochar on Yahoo Groups:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info

BioEnergylists (where this list is hosted) also has a pretty good list of
biochar projects and resources: 

http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/

Since we're chatting on the Greenbuilding list, this is a project where they
used biochar as a building material:

http://www.biochar-journal.org/en/ct/3-The-use-of-biochar-as-building-materi
al-

The spray on stucco idea is pretty good, since biochar has no tensile
strength of its own.  It has also been incorporated into bricks, where the
strength of the material is primarily coming from the clay and other
ingredients. 

If you want more information about the stability of biochar in soils, the
International Biochar Initiative, has the set of resources on that topic
available. You do have to become a member to get access to some of their
content, but if you do join them, your work goes to support the proactive
development of science-based international standards for carbon negative
biochar. 

http://www.biochar-international.org/

Kind regards,

Erin Rasmussen

BioEnergy Discussion Lists

erin at trmiles.com

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of conservationarchitect at rockbridge.net
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 7:53 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: [Greenbuilding] Past the Tipping Point (was the Hope of Biochar)

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 <mailto:ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca>  

Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 8:46 PM

To: Green Building <mailto:greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org>  

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.bioener
gylists.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20150706/6a6130a7/attachment.html>