4 ms·

Why doesn't the obvious thing, i.e., making charcoal, work? You can call it "biochar" if you want. A big pile runs the risk of catching fire, but if it's mixed

Why doesn't the obvious thing, i.e., making charcoal, work? You can call it "biochar" if you want. A big pile runs the risk of catching fire, but if it's mixed with soil I'd think it won't burn. Is there some slow oxidation process to worry about? I'd think that charcoal briquettes, pencil leads, and soot would all last essentially forever. Plus, you can harness the pretty-high-grade heat energy extracted during the charcoal-making, to run heat engines or for other uses. So it's basically a way to use biology to get some solar power, and to sequester carbon at the same time. If you're talking about only the charcoal-making, then this is prehistoric technology, and if you throw heat engines into the mix then you're at maybe an 1880s tech level. Seems easy? I guess the "giant pile of frozen vegetables" method is even simpler in some ways (pipes being the only tech), but it also seems less stable, and it doesn't return the non-carbon nutrients to the soil. What am I missing?

pstrateman 2y ago
Simple math unfortunately. To offset global human CO2 production you'd need to biochar all plant matter several times a year.
- FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
  This feels like a "yes, and" thing, where the most important use of effort is to reduce production (and we're nowhere close yet), but at some point we'll need to also do capture to deal with production that is truly unavoidable, and, if we're dreaming, to achieve net negative production, for the purpose of returning to preindustrial levels. But yeah, if you're burning coal with one hand and making charcoal with the other, it's all pretty pointless.
  - pstrateman 2y ago
    Reducing production is simply impossible. There's billions of people on earth who are desperately poor compared to even the poorest American. There is absolutely no chance those people just accept their position as ultra poor. If individuals want to reduce their CO2 output the only viable strategy is to buy and permanently store fossil fuels.

pstrateman 2y ago

Simple math unfortunately. To offset global human CO2 production you'd need to biochar all plant matter several times a year.

FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
This feels like a "yes, and" thing, where the most important use of effort is to reduce production (and we're nowhere close yet), but at some point we'll need to also do capture to deal with production that is truly unavoidable, and, if we're dreaming, to achieve net negative production, for the purpose of returning to preindustrial levels. But yeah, if you're burning coal with one hand and making charcoal with the other, it's all pretty pointless.
- pstrateman 2y ago
  Reducing production is simply impossible. There's billions of people on earth who are desperately poor compared to even the poorest American. There is absolutely no chance those people just accept their position as ultra poor. If individuals want to reduce their CO2 output the only viable strategy is to buy and permanently store fossil fuels.