<HTML><HEAD>
<STYLE
type=text/css>body { font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:17px}</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eli </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=ArchiLogic@yahoo.ca
href="mailto:ArchiLogic@yahoo.ca">RT</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 28, 2015 8:46 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">Green Building</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Greenbuilding] Biochar as Annual Cycle Building
Dehumidifier</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>On
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:22:12 -0400, <conservationarchitect@rockbridge.net>
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>My
last posting on biochar was somewhat of an introduction to the subject.
</DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This video about charcoal in Japan shows its use as an annual cycle
dehumidifier in a
home</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eli;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have to confess that the notion of promoting charcoal as being Green
struck me as being perverse.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That opinion was formed in the early 1970's after having read a
charming little booklet entitled </DIV>
<DIV>"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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anyone who heats with wood will know that charcoal is the result of
incomplete combustion -- ie a dirty, smouldering fire.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, I could be completely off-base with my antiquated 1970's
impression/opinion of charcoal. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=M2Signature>
<DIV>-- </DIV>
<DIV>=== * ===<BR>Rob Tom DT7-64 <BR>Kanata, Ontario, Canada</DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Greenbuilding mailing
list<BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your
List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>