Fortunately, woodland creatures don’t hire lawyers

  • 3.71K Posts
  • 4.12K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle





  • Because soils in and of themselves are generally productive. Aerating soils (tilling) boosts the microbial community, making it consume organic matter in the soil. Biochar is highly stable, so it wouldn’t be consumed, but instead the existing organic matter, which acts as the massive pool nutrients would then be consumed. So what you’d see, is a priming effect at least a few years, followed by a drop in soil productivity.

    Biochar is useful as a soil amendment in the right conditions, but its effect is really situational and highly dependent on cooking temperatures and feedstock. I used stuff cooked around 380C in an attempt to allow for some of the feedstock’s more available carbon forms to be accessible to microbes. It didn’t really work like that, but I ended up with an N boost in my soils, which we suspected was due to proving more microbial habitat (due to char surface area).

    It’s also really good at catching and holding onto leaching metals, and nitrogen too, in the right conditions


  • Hey, I can answer this one. I did my M.Sc on amending soils with biochar.

    I’m not sure what Stockholm is doing, though.

    To get good recovery of biochar, you need a pretty controlled environment. It’s also energy intensive to make; you need a heat source that’s not going to produce CO2, ideally, and cut into the benefit that you’d get by sequestering carbon in the first place. Like if it takes 1 ton of waste wood fuel to make 1 ton of biochar, it’s pretty much a wash. You could use green energy I suppose, like it you had a hydro grid set up to fire whatever furnace you’re cooking the stuff in, but that’s not always available or scalable (in the sense you can do it everywhere).

    You CAN make biochar crudely, and we’ve been doing so for centuries, but the rub is that your recovery quickly drops and decreases in recovery are increases in CO2 produced. I was toying with this idea to manage non-merchantable timber on mines, and using the char as a soil amendment.

    Suppose everything DOES work the way we want, though. Good recovery, cheap energy, people onboard. We now have a mountain of char and no place to put it. You could go underground mines). Stockpiling it aboveground would a nightmare and massive fire hazard… Etc. Etc.

    I like using char to store carbon and it’ll stay for a long time, but you can’t just capture it at the source like you can with other forms of carbon capture and storage. Those other methods don’t work well either… At least with char you have a solid to manage rather than stuffing gas underground and hoping the earth doesn’t fart.

    Like a lot of things, char use like you envision is ‘we would if we could but we can’t so we wont’.
















  • Of fucking course they did. And they did in the US and they are doing so in Canada. If you wanted to destabilize your enemies and all you really had to do was get a bunch of bots and people (paid, or coerced) to play on pre-existing dissent and fear, why the fuck wouldn’t you? Sure a lot easier and less traceable than shooting them. Best part is once you feed it enough, it turns into a self sustaining organism, and you can relax in your wing chair by the fire, vodka in hand, and watch any set of outcomes (all of which benefit you) play out.

    Then, when your enemy is weakened, you gobble up the bite sized pieces you can.