This has been a fantastic debate and as a retired chef at a farther end of the food chain, it's clear that a little heat is needed to yield a flavorful discussion. Thanks Tony Del Plato
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ryan Hottle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom. - Albert Einstein _______________________________________________ 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
