QUESTION - the US has approximately 100 million acres of dead trees from beetle kill. Would biochar be a better use of these trees then letting them burn in wildfires?
Look up "rogue biochar". Thing is, you should add small terra cotta beads as well. I'd say about 10% by volume. Plus, to activate your biochar, you can do it anerobically, by covering with hot material ( green or manure material ) Plus a bit of flour and water ( 50% water by volume) in a sealed container. Make sure there is a small, cloth covered vent though! After a month, mix that nasty mess 50/50 with your Texas clay dirt, and dump it into the pit you dug to get it. :-) save the liquid for fertilization. Apply it daily until it's exhausted. Then plant the bed, after letting it rest for at least a few days. If it still smells nasty, wait until it doesn't. The CO2 thing is BS marketing. It's just great for your soil.
This can be achieved through the education and suport of millions of small farmers around the world, something the global permaculture movement is working on, we could use some help!
All those branches and twigs from plants hold a lot of empty air bubbles when transporting and transport is expensive. However the process of torrefaction and compression to briquettes afterwards is a solution for this. Torrefaction can be done locally (even with microwaves) and is not high tech. But a good pyrolysis oven is high tech if we want it to produce methanol or sulfur poor fuel..next to biochar.
Let's have the presenter identify specific ways to create 'sustainable' charcoal and how to properly integrate it into soil for increased food production. This is imperative, or there is no point. He speaks of what can be done. I want to hear how specifically it is to be done and if it's even applicable to be done per soil type. Half truths are often a great lie. I think, true biochar in the right environment can be significant to soil improvement but burning a buch of stuff for the sake of burning stuff with with no foresight is a fallacy. How is this suposed to work?
Continue your research even just right here on youtube for exactly how low tech or high tech the process can be. And how to soak it to be full of good biology and how to integrate it is compost and soils.
Usually in a pyrolysis plant a fraction of the biomass is burned to produce heat, or another fraction can be gasified to produce a syngas. Both the exhaust gases from the burner and the syngas produced by gasification do not contain oxygen and they are hot. So they can be used to heat up the biomass to produce char.
Are you still actively working on this project? I'm coming at the carbonization phase and think I can radically increase the efficiency with simple materials. I'm trying to work on that aspect as my contribution to a couple of problems. If it pans out and you're interested I'll let you know.
Hi there, please could you add references or studies which support your claims! I'm writing a literature review of soil carbon sequester strategies however would like some solid evidence to explore. Thanks!
Oh we finally figured out how to use energy to put carbon back to the ground? Thats almost as cool as not digging it up and burning it in the first place.
Reduction is imperative, but we’re at the point where we need to take a lot out of the atmosphere, the ocans have already acidified, the temps are 1 celsius above 1975
The key is to take biological refuse (think fallen trees in a hurricane, wood chips from tree removal companies and utility work, yard waste, etc) and change it into pure physical carbon (char) rather than CO2. CO2 occurs naturally when you burn it to ash or let it lie on the ground to decay. The carbon is “captured (not released)” when you turn it into char through a process called pyrolysis. All that carbon is locked in the char…and cannot combine with oxygen to form CO2 (CARBON dioxide!!!)
@@TheEmbrio i completely agree that were so over the limit that we should probably even retrieve c from the air but as mentioned. This target cant possibly be close to achieved as long as compacted carbon in coal or oil is dug up from the ground and burned in millions of tons a day.
Looks like a solution that could help - when we place human and even industry emissions in perspective alongside the oceans, we need to stop man made weather modifications that are directly keeping heat within the ocean.
Um, how is this any better than just mulching or composting dead plants? How is generating _more_ heat a good thing? Lots of other things already generate heat (eg electronics), why not try to capture or divert those unavoidable sources of heat instead of making more? If you want to burn plants (hopefully already dead), then at least try to find ways to reduce how much heat other stuff (like lighting and transportation) generate.
@@krystal5887 so is biochar ultimately, all biology decays, decay releases sequestered carbon, biochar merely slows that process but then so does simply planting more trees, wood fuel should count as 'carbon neutral' in reality which might drive far better change than its listing as a pollutant.
@@krystal5887 Agree entirely, in south east london we are now overrun by a canadain maple used as a decoration for a royal visit that never happened in '77, now if all those trees were treated as a man made forest and harvested on a 12 year cycle, none of this would be problematic and home owners could be compensated by selling their low grade timber for fuel wood.
Grassland do it even better. Why not both, right ? We can make tjousands of tons of biochar per year, not make forests grow faster. Wait. With biochar research shows plants grow better. Wow. Both, then
@@adrienconverset6571 yes. The great floods in which sea level increased feet over the course of a few days are well documented.....caused by Youngas Dryer impact
I am so very sorry, I have to admit it was me, I wen't out the other epoch and silly me, I left the heating on full blast. Was such a bender that sesh, took me a million years or so to get home and turn it down.
@@fairlanemuscle Can I ask you to consider the vast volume of water the oceans would have had to swallow, given any sea ice does not add to the level in the same way melting ice does not brim a glass if it melts, so all those mega kilometers of water volume can only have occupied the most northern and southern land masses (lets give it a generous half the total land mass @5% total area) so we need to explain a 95-5 volumetric increase ie; 90% of the planet rose by hundreds of meters with a volume ONLY drawn from 5% of its surface!
![Chlöe - Shake (Feat. Jeremih) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aDs_1ufpfv8/mqdefault.jpg)
QUESTION - the US has approximately 100 million acres of dead trees from beetle kill. Would biochar be a better use of these trees then letting them burn in wildfires?
It absolutely would be!
Where are these dead trees that are dead from the bark beetle?
Yes.
BioChar Now are already doing this
It's probably too expensive to haul the trees away.
This could be very useful in India as Agriculture residues are just brunt.
Spread the word !
yes really, this is true of most places.. i have been an advocate of this for 10 years now and my enthusiasm for it is only growing!
Hello sir
I m anant from India Jharkhand. Please introduce yourself. Are you an entrepreneur?
This is great! Now, where can I get some for my nasty Texas dessert soil?!
Look up "rogue biochar". Thing is, you should add small terra cotta beads as well. I'd say about 10% by volume. Plus, to activate your biochar, you can do it anerobically, by covering with hot material ( green or manure material ) Plus a bit of flour and water ( 50% water by volume) in a sealed container. Make sure there is a small, cloth covered vent though!
After a month, mix that nasty mess 50/50 with your Texas clay dirt, and dump it into the pit you dug to get it. :-) save the liquid for fertilization. Apply it daily until it's exhausted. Then plant the bed, after letting it rest for at least a few days. If it still smells nasty, wait until it doesn't.
The CO2 thing is BS marketing. It's just great for your soil.
It’s actually commercially available. You can make your own, then dump it in your compost pile, then use it in your plot of land.
This can be achieved through the education and suport of millions of small farmers around the world, something the global permaculture movement is working on, we could use some help!
All those branches and twigs from plants hold a lot of empty air bubbles when transporting and transport is expensive. However the process of torrefaction and compression to briquettes afterwards is a solution for this. Torrefaction can be done locally (even with microwaves) and is not high tech. But a good pyrolysis oven is high tech if we want it to produce methanol or sulfur poor fuel..next to biochar.
I am confused as one tells us not to work up the soil as it kills microorganisms but another tells us to do it. Rodney
Captions would have been nice on this one.
Just click on the CC (close caption) button to get the automatic one.
atmospheric C02 has been the same level for a very long time. If you drive c02 down for no reason. Photosynthesis can't occur.
Let's have the presenter identify specific ways to create 'sustainable' charcoal and how to properly integrate it into soil for increased food production. This is imperative, or there is no point. He speaks of what can be done. I want to hear how specifically it is to be done and if it's even applicable to be done per soil type. Half truths are often a great lie. I think, true biochar in the right environment can be significant to soil improvement but burning a buch of stuff for the sake of burning stuff with with no foresight is a fallacy. How is this suposed to work?
Continue your research even just right here on youtube for exactly how low tech or high tech the process can be. And how to soak it to be full of good biology and how to integrate it is compost and soils.
How is it heated without oxygen?
Simply packing it in a sealed metal box with an outlet valve and heating the box will do
Usually in a pyrolysis plant a fraction of the biomass is burned to produce heat, or another fraction can be gasified to produce a syngas. Both the exhaust gases from the burner and the syngas produced by gasification do not contain oxygen and they are hot. So they can be used to heat up the biomass to produce char.
if you think pyrolysis is interesting, look into HTC hydro thermal carbonization is like pyrolosis but with 1 less step and less energy required
OK, HTC looks interesting as a special pyrolysis variant but it seems more technical complicated in a low-tech agricultural environment
Ted needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
Incredible
Are you still actively working on this project? I'm coming at the carbonization phase and think I can radically increase the efficiency with simple materials.
I'm trying to work on that aspect as my contribution to a couple of problems. If it pans out and you're interested I'll let you know.
Hi there, please could you add references or studies which support your claims! I'm writing a literature review of soil carbon sequester strategies however would like some solid evidence to explore. Thanks!
hi there! were you able to put your paper together I'd happily read it
Wow, Biochar looks so promising.
My current business
Good
These videos always makes our days better
Bot
Good video
Watch the doc "we need to grown"
Save the planet.
There's a native source of caffeine on every continent. Look at the Wikipedia page for caffeine
oui oui
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Oh we finally figured out how to use energy to put carbon back to the ground? Thats almost as cool as not digging it up and burning it in the first place.
Reduction is imperative, but we’re at the point where we need to take a lot out of the atmosphere, the ocans have already acidified, the temps are 1 celsius above 1975
The key is to take biological refuse (think fallen trees in a hurricane, wood chips from tree removal companies and utility work, yard waste, etc) and change it into pure physical carbon (char) rather than CO2. CO2 occurs naturally when you burn it to ash or let it lie on the ground to decay. The carbon is “captured (not released)” when you turn it into char through a process called pyrolysis. All that carbon is locked in the char…and cannot combine with oxygen to form CO2 (CARBON dioxide!!!)
@@TheEmbrio i completely agree that were so over the limit that we should probably even retrieve c from the air but as mentioned. This target cant possibly be close to achieved as long as compacted carbon in coal or oil is dug up from the ground and burned in millions of tons a day.
Looks like a solution that could help - when we place human and even industry emissions in perspective alongside the oceans, we need to stop man made weather modifications that are directly keeping heat within the ocean.
📖
CO2 is how all plants are able to get water from the soil.
What do you mean?
@@calithyde5346 it's basic science. Do a search for what I said.
Removing it from the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere does not help plants.
Bot
Mai vlogs bnata hu aur khud hi unko dekhta hu 🥺😂😂🥺
Let the planet rest by letting the people rest without fear. No more evictions from primary residences!!
It a bucket against the sea. Much more effective processes are needed.
One of many solutions and carbon to the soil has additional benefits. All wholistic approaches will be useful to design our future systems.
evil project, CO2 is plants food, less CO2 less crops less food ...starvation.
We breath out enough CO2 for plants to use don't u think, the ones coming from biomass is what we are capturing
@@fauziyatusman5315 maybe AI suggest this CO2 madness, who knows;)
Booooooooo to this old TED intro. The new one is soooooooo much less annoying than this one -- it's cleaner and adroitly concise!
Um, how is this any better than just mulching or composting dead plants? How is generating _more_ heat a good thing? Lots of other things already generate heat (eg electronics), why not try to capture or divert those unavoidable sources of heat instead of making more? If you want to burn plants (hopefully already dead), then at least try to find ways to reduce how much heat other stuff (like lighting and transportation) generate.
It’s not heat that is stored it’s carbon in a very stable form. But do garden and mulch. Humus is also a stable carbon form.
Someone tell this guy trees do the same.
@@krystal5887 so is biochar ultimately, all biology decays, decay releases sequestered carbon, biochar merely slows that process but then so does simply planting more trees, wood fuel should count as 'carbon neutral' in reality which might drive far better change than its listing as a pollutant.
@@krystal5887 Agree entirely, in south east london we are now overrun by a canadain maple used as a decoration for a royal visit that never happened in '77, now if all those trees were treated as a man made forest and harvested on a 12 year cycle, none of this would be problematic and home owners could be compensated by selling their low grade timber for fuel wood.
@@krystal5887 Is the REAL problem the trees or ur suburbian lifestyles often grounded in excessive consumerism?
@@krystal5887 let's build the tree houses 😍🤩
Grassland do it even better. Why not both, right ? We can make tjousands of tons of biochar per year, not make forests grow faster. Wait. With biochar research shows plants grow better. Wow. Both, then
I don’t know if anyone noticed but the icecaps have been melting since the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago. Who was responsible then?
Not even close to the same rate.
@@adrienconverset6571 the rate is irrelevant, the outcome was inevitable. It’s happened before.
@@adrienconverset6571 yes. The great floods in which sea level increased feet over the course of a few days are well documented.....caused by Youngas Dryer impact
I am so very sorry, I have to admit it was me, I wen't out the other epoch and silly me, I left the heating on full blast. Was such a bender that sesh, took me a million years or so to get home and turn it down.
@@fairlanemuscle Can I ask you to consider the vast volume of water the oceans would have had to swallow, given any sea ice does not add to the level in the same way melting ice does not brim a glass if it melts, so all those mega kilometers of water volume can only have occupied the most northern and southern land masses (lets give it a generous half the total land mass @5% total area) so we need to explain a 95-5 volumetric increase ie; 90% of the planet rose by hundreds of meters with a volume ONLY drawn from 5% of its surface!