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
