5 ms·

Charcoal is pyrolized biomass, not fossil fuel, which means it's approximately carbon-neutral. The problems with it are more associated with deforestation.

Ekaros 3y ago
Isn't there some sort of energy input in process? I wonder where that usually comes from in industrial production.
rootusrootus 3y ago
Conventional consumer-grade charcoal briquettes used for backyard BBQ typically have some amount of coal in them.
- jamiek88 3y ago
  No regular brand of charcoal contains coal. Please link just one brand that does and I’ll withdraw my complaint but I’ve worked in the industry and very much doubt this.
  - a1369209993 3y ago
    "Charcoal" literally means "coal made by charring [implicitly: wood]". I assume you (and probably rootusrootus) mean "No regular brand of charcoal contains [fossil] coal." (eg, lignite, bitumite, or anthracite). (I don't know what they're on about either; presumably for sufficiently historical values of "conventional" barbecue coal was supplied from the same mines as train / steam engine / home heating coal, but that isn't much of a thing anymore.)
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      Anthracite coal, 15-40% https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets-sg-sds-en.pdf https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfor...
  - amluto 3y ago
    Linked just above: https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets-sg-sds-en.pdf https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfor... That’s from a major brand. I was surprised to learn this. But I’ve always been suspicious of charcoal briquettes — lump charcoal is much nicer. (And one should IMO always use a chimney starter or similar device in order to get them properly lit as quickly as possible and with as little other junk added and hopefully as little emissions as possible.)
- beAbU 3y ago
  Do you have a source for that?
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Sure. Anthracite coal, 15-40%. https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets-sg-sds-en.pdf https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfor...
- wil421 3y ago
  Anyone using briquettes should switch to lump charcoal.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  You're being downvoted, but another comment in this thread proves you're right: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37373903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37373903 I'm as surprised as anyone. I had no idea.
drdrey 3y ago
Still would be better to keep the carbon solid than released into the atmosphere, no?
- zwirbl 3y ago
  In that case you would not need to produce charcoal in the first place
- ip26 3y ago
  Only way that realistically happens is if you bury it deep underground. Charcoal above the surface is part of the carbon cycle.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Charcoal is resistant to the natural decomposition that normally turns wood back into CO2. Therefore if you char wood then bury that charcoal, you don't need to go deep underground to sequester the carbon. Burying charcoal in the topsoil can sequester that carbon for thousands of years or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_s...
legulere 3y ago
When burning things not 100% fully you produce carbon black, which has a greater greenhouse effect than if you would release carbon as CO2. Further harvesting wood leads to younger forests, which store less carbon than old growth forests. A better use-case than burning is using it for durable goods like in construction, which binds the carbon for much longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Forests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Forests p.s. I'm not telling anyone to stop doing bbq, just to stop lying to themselves about the negative effects it has
- strken 3y ago
  Carbon black, or black carbon? Black carbon only stays in the atmosphere for a few weeks, and while I can't find data on carbon black it presumably falls to earth pretty quickly too, which makes me think you're comparing instantaneous rather than lifetime greenhouse effect.
arghwhat 3y ago
Deforestation and release of its bound carbon which will take decades for trees to recapture, manufacturing and transport, impure combustion (which may also include non-carbon pollutants), yadda yadda... How does that become approximately carbon neutral? And that's before we look at the safety datasheets shared in the thread that indicate 15-40% anthracite/black coal as ingredient in (some?) charcoal briquettes.

Ekaros 3y ago

Isn't there some sort of energy input in process? I wonder where that usually comes from in industrial production.

rootusrootus 3y ago

Conventional consumer-grade charcoal briquettes used for backyard BBQ typically have some amount of coal in them.

jamiek88 3y ago
No regular brand of charcoal contains coal. Please link just one brand that does and I’ll withdraw my complaint but I’ve worked in the industry and very much doubt this.
- a1369209993 3y ago
  "Charcoal" literally means "coal made by charring [implicitly: wood]". I assume you (and probably rootusrootus) mean "No regular brand of charcoal contains [fossil] coal." (eg, lignite, bitumite, or anthracite). (I don't know what they're on about either; presumably for sufficiently historical values of "conventional" barbecue coal was supplied from the same mines as train / steam engine / home heating coal, but that isn't much of a thing anymore.)
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Anthracite coal, 15-40% https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets-sg-sds-en.pdf https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfor...
- amluto 3y ago
  Linked just above: https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets-sg-sds-en.pdf https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfor... That’s from a major brand. I was surprised to learn this. But I’ve always been suspicious of charcoal briquettes — lump charcoal is much nicer. (And one should IMO always use a chimney starter or similar device in order to get them properly lit as quickly as possible and with as little other junk added and hopefully as little emissions as possible.)
beAbU 3y ago
Do you have a source for that?
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Sure. Anthracite coal, 15-40%. https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfordcharcoalbriquets-sg-sds-en.pdf https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/kingsfor...
wil421 3y ago
Anyone using briquettes should switch to lump charcoal.
crazygringo 3y ago
You're being downvoted, but another comment in this thread proves you're right: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37373903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37373903 I'm as surprised as anyone. I had no idea.

drdrey 3y ago

Still would be better to keep the carbon solid than released into the atmosphere, no?

zwirbl 3y ago
In that case you would not need to produce charcoal in the first place
ip26 3y ago
Only way that realistically happens is if you bury it deep underground. Charcoal above the surface is part of the carbon cycle.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Charcoal is resistant to the natural decomposition that normally turns wood back into CO2. Therefore if you char wood then bury that charcoal, you don't need to go deep underground to sequester the carbon. Burying charcoal in the topsoil can sequester that carbon for thousands of years or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_s...

legulere 3y ago

When burning things not 100% fully you produce carbon black, which has a greater greenhouse effect than if you would release carbon as CO2. Further harvesting wood leads to younger forests, which store less carbon than old growth forests. A better use-case than burning is using it for durable goods like in construction, which binds the carbon for much longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Forests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Forests p.s. I'm not telling anyone to stop doing bbq, just to stop lying to themselves about the negative effects it has

strken 3y ago
Carbon black, or black carbon? Black carbon only stays in the atmosphere for a few weeks, and while I can't find data on carbon black it presumably falls to earth pretty quickly too, which makes me think you're comparing instantaneous rather than lifetime greenhouse effect.

arghwhat 3y ago

Deforestation and release of its bound carbon which will take decades for trees to recapture, manufacturing and transport, impure combustion (which may also include non-carbon pollutants), yadda yadda... How does that become approximately carbon neutral? And that's before we look at the safety datasheets shared in the thread that indicate 15-40% anthracite/black coal as ingredient in (some?) charcoal briquettes.