I am already using biochar, I use it in my potting mix In place of vermiculite and Perlite for plants I sell. One thing to note: raw biochar Ideally needs inoculating with beneficial bacteria Before use. If you don't do this it Can have a temporary negative effect on the soil. You only need to add it once you don't need to keep adding it every year. I also use it in my chicken's bedding its good for absorbing odours. Then it goes on the compost then the garden win win.
Too bad the bacteria emit CO2 and having the biochar exposed to O2 naturally creates CO2. So you are just temporarily slowing the CO2 generation. You are the CO2 problem.
Been making a couple heaping wheelbarrows of it 2 or 3X per yr, for a decade, just from tree trimming burn piles, mix into compost piles. Only complication is to create a teepee shaped burn pile instead of random, burns fast and clean, quench in 60 to 90 minutes.
Ok … I have no “Degrees” but I’ve been involved with the development of BioChar for over 15 yrs. First thing to note; it CAN be detrimental to put untreated biochar directly into your soil. This is because biochar acts as a sponge and if its a “new” sponge it will suck nutrients from your soil. Secondly; to “Treat” or “Charge” biochar can be quite easy. Take a bucket or tub or bigger fill it about 30% with manure mix in about 5-10% biochar (ground and broken to about the size of sand and dust. In the states you can buy and use “Cowboy Charcoal”) add water to moisten if you have a cover thats better. Every couple days give it a stir You’re looking for the manure odor to go away if after a week or so the manure smell remains, add another 5% of biochar and repeat above until the smell is completely neutralized. Your biochar and manure should be completely charged and everything can be used. Another way it can be “charged” is by incorporating into your mulch in the beginning … if its barnyard mulch. I’ve never seen biochar damage soil once its charged.
The problem with Biochar as I see it, is that I absolutely do not believe that Biochar will not be burned lateron for either energy generation, heating, cooking or any number of reasons putting us back to square one. The reason why I think this will be the case, is that Biochar is effectively the same as charcoal, only it's going to be abundant, cheap, and easy to "mix up by accident" with regular production of charcoal. So I honestly don't see it as a good method for carbon storage, it's too easy to turn around into a CO2 increasing source, as compared to a CO2 decreasing source in the atmosphere. Edit: Because people seem to think that I don't understand what the use of biochar is, let me put it this way. I absolutely do believe biochar would be great IF I believed that it would be used for soil enrichment. I however don't believe this will happen, instead I believe it will be burned in coal power plants or similar. This is bad for a variety of reasons, first of all it's not really a green technology, as burning any kind of biochar, whether it be from aggricultural waste, deliberately grown and easily convertable crops, to forests cleared for material to create biochar from, will always be a method that perpetuates the dependance on fossil fuels, destruction of biodiverse habitats and overall releases of CO2 into the atmosphere. Some argue that if we just burned biochar, it would be no big deal, this argument I vehemently disagree with. If we allow the burning of biochar, it will create an incentive to create more biochar to burn, which will lead to forests being cleared in order to allow grasses (or similar) to be grown, that can then be dried and burned. If I had any real reason to believe biochar would be limited to soil enrichment, I would not be averse to it, but I just don't believe that. And I would argue that if someone does believe that, then they havn't read up on how situations like these turn out in the real world. Anywho, I hope this edit explains my points to some of those that would make similar arguments as others in this thread.
even so the carbon emissions would be close to zero. After all, in this case you only burn coal and emit carbon that would have been released into the atmosphere anyway by decomposition.
@@phil-vi8lq my dude, what is your point? honestly this is no different than suggesting to burn coal the only answer to carbon reduction is in the word all along; REDUCE the consumption of things. but the wheels of capitalism dictate this to be an absolute no-no, so we're going to end up with like a million other greenwashing alternatives
@@phil-vi8lq That is the same argument as biofuels, something which has also turned out to never be that good in practice. These methods should be reserved for places where there are no other alternatives, not for options wherein the alternative is to log less forests, or reduce the amount of croplands needed worldwide, due to agricultural inefficiencies.
@@nisbahmumtaz909 come on do you really not see the difference between coal that is buried underground since thousands of years and biomass that lies on fields decomposing within a couple of weeks/months???
@@op4000exe it is very clearly stated in the video that not the concept of biofuels is the problem but how they are produced. If we use the huge amounts of otherwise unused biomass, then we wont have the same problems with biochar and this would equal net-zero emissions. Again: This is very clearly stated in the video and thus not an intrinsic problem of biochar but how we choose to use this technology.
Biochar is really a great idea. The natives of the Brazilian jungle used to use human waste mixed with charcoal from their cooking fires to make "Tierra Prieta," (tight earth), which would get them much greater crop yields. Now everyone else seems to be learning the benefits of their technique. --- Did you know that food waste is the largest component of US landfills at 24%, and that paper waste is 12%? That means that more than a third of landfills can be easily turned into biochar. That biochar mixed with cow manure can be used to rejuvenate weakened soils and hold back desertification. And separating all that paper and food waste is not that hard and would make the process of recycling the plastics (18%), metal (9%), and glass (5%) much easier. Going after biochar from landfill stuff could get us much farther along to a truly circular supply chain.
Where I live food waste has to be collected separately and goes to compost making and is mostly sold to farmers. you can also get up to 100 liters free each year for home owners.
Yes - we have in Germany different bins for our waste. Bio for food and small plant waste. Paper for all recyclable paper waste. I don't know how good that is - and that still leaves agriculture waste. I don't know if that's gets recycled into compost too? I'd be much more excited if we found a way to easily recycle plastic - maybe if we standardize the packaging of our food 🤔
@@farticlesofconflatulation OMG. I was thinking Spanish "prieta" and assumed that it was that in Portuguese. Thank you for letting me and the readers know.
@@joelado to be fair to you, prieta sounds similar to aprieta in Spanish wich means “to tighten”. But prieta in Spanish means dark or black. Portuguese spells dark/black as “preta” Confusing, I know.
Biochar is very similar to activated carbon and I've seen references where people have talked about using it as a filtration medium in industrial smoke stacks. The idea that it can do mutiple things simultaneously with a single feedstock is what makes it facinating.
The reason Indian farmers burn stubble is because it is cheap and quick to burn it where it stands. Biochar requires collection of the stubble which is the stumbling block.
It’s because they double crop and need to clear the field quick. In North American spring cropping systems they no till and leave all the residue. Straw is chopped and spread behind the combine
@@stynnieuwenhuis9999 Without double cropping it will not be possible to meet the foodgrain demand of India. However, that is no excuse for the ecological disaster that is annual stubble burning.
I am currently in South America converting ill placed pasture in marshy watersheds into giant bamboo forrests for biochar. Bamboo sequesters more carbon than anything on earth. Thousands of tons per hectare in just 5-7 years and 700-2000 per year thereafter. Simultaneously I'm reforesting 10 hectares of sloped pasture in complex coffee and cacao based agroforrestry systems. Next year, I hope to build a Biochar furnace that can precisely roast these products and thus turn the worlds highest emission foods into deeply negative emission ones. Eventually, I have 70 hectares to expand into, but am as short of labor as I am of funds. So I'll start small.
@@drillerdev4624 its certainly another useful product without turning it into biochar. In construction the useful carbon capture life can be close to that of biochar. But as biochar the carbon is fixed and doesn't biodegrade back to CO2 for many centuries, and can be used as a soil amendment for agriculture.
@@michaelhudson4171 I understand that the moment you sell the bamboo, you lose its track, so probably is best this way, but ideally, it could be used as bamboo, then when its useful life has ended, be converted to biochar, extending the carbon sequestering period. I hope hemp is studied more for these purposes as well, since it's a good alternative for dryer climates. However, even if it traditionally was used for ropes and is being used in hempcrete, it can't be used directly like bamboo.
Great article , thank you. Biochar works best for us when we use it to create the soil carbon sponge. It is clear that there is not just one recipe for activated biochar, different regions and soil types require different inputs. When we take carbon from the air and store it in the soil we witness benefits for the soil, the animals, the humans, the water and the air.
I fear the energy used for carbon dioxide sequestration is equivalent or greater than the energy we originally got out of burning hydrocarbons. I am convinced that using less of everything to ease our demand on the biological systems we need to live is the solution to overshoot.
According to climate scientists, we need to do both, otherwise the natural cycles that have been disturbed will keep degrading past a tipping point and cause major problems for all life.
A set of versatile solutions is required. But yes, we need to address our overconsumption first and foremost. Did you already watch our video on degrowth? Check out "What if we stopped making so much stuff?" here 👉 ruclips.net/video/_22mKe_OLsg/видео.html.
We need the public and governments to stop falling for these scams. Where do you think plants get their carbon from? Its from CO2 in the air. When they decay, some of that is put back in the atmosphere and some is sequestered in the remains in the earth. No "new" carbon is produced by the plants growing and decaying. IT'S A CYCLE. ... now do you believe that by harvesting, transporting, processing, and then using some of that same material for fuel we are "reducing" anything? We are ADDING to the problem with this... additional energy is being used here. Clearly. But our goverments and investors see ways to get rich, and fools who do not understand the basic carbon cycle and basic math root them on.
Sounds like it's the most efficient way of doing carbon capture that we have come up with so far, as long as we make absolutely certain that the biomass only comes from genuine, local waste and there's no incentive to "create" more waste.
@@DBGE001 Just don't pay for the fuel. Only pay for picking it up, and don't let them choose their cousin's transport company either. Free plant-based trash pickup, but no incentive to make more trash.
You know what carbon sequestration method has worked for literary millennia? Planting trees and building houses and structures with the ones on the end of their lifecycle. @@experimentalcyborg
@@DBGE001 No way! Thanks for your valuable insight, i never knew that. Good luck convincing everyone to plant more trees, because I'm sure nobody has thought of that before.
Well, apparently this is not very obvious for many leaders around the world. Forest growth was only achieved in China in the past 4 decades. In the US, South America and Europe forests keep declining in the same period. So planting trees has only been done in a meaningful way in the PRC.@@experimentalcyborg
Why didnt this blow up in the media yet? THIS IS what we need! Clever solutions, bit-by-bit, engineered as most natural as possible. If we can combine this with many other awesome inventions, despite every part contributing just a little, the outcome can be astonishing! Great mini-documentary!!! Love these! :D
Thanks for your feedback. ✨ If you loved this one, you can subscribe to our channel to make sure not to miss any of the videos we publish on Fridays! 🌱
Thanks Planet A for the rigorous reporting you do on climate change issues. It is essential that this type of non-biased information is produced and shared. I especially liked the measured but prominent way to approach the downsides/dangers of biochar production. Have a wonderful year entry and keep up this great work of journalism!
A very good friend of mine has a huge experiment going in Australia. He made that big like 10 years ago. Actually he does so much good stuff with it. His way is upsides for agricultural purposes. What he does is so awesome. I wish more people would be interested in his project.
As user & home scale producer of biochar i can say biochar is a tool. Like any tool it can be used correctly or i correctly. One possibility i dont often hear mentioned is using non agriculture areas ( roadsides, parking lots, etc) to grow woody biomass. In the tropics a little bit of extra irrigation at the eight time can drastically increase biomass production
Thank you DW Planet A. After reading about 2023 being by far the hottest year yet, I needed something a bit positive. It seems it is no panacea to global heating. However, endless negativity gets us nowhere. This seems more than worthwhile to pursue. Agriculture will probably be the hardest area to reduce GHGs, so any improvement can only be good. An added bonus, fertilisers are made from methane mining (called LNG where I am from), so using less of it will also reduce escaped methane.
If it is immediately buried so it can't be burned again, bio charcoal made from something like fast growing algae could be produced in a relatively cheap automated facility. Of course this requires a government willing to actually commit to doing something like this intentionally because any capital driven pathway to achieve this goal would fail
One possibility is to fill empty coal and iron ore mines with biochar. Plenty of those are available. If converted into a semi liquid state it can even be put into more places like empty oil wells and so on.
Everything in this world are based on economics, thus is capturing carbon and storing without making any product will be a loss.. but at the same time, using it defeat the purpose it self..
I have been using bio char as an amendment to our poor clay soil. It improves tilth, sequesters carbon and helps to control excess water on our 15 acre hobby farm. If I can be a part of the solution rather than the problem, then I am happier with that.
biochar? no, burning organic materials is. Biochar doesn't pollute the air because the carbon is kept inside. Did you even watch the whole video? Biochar would actually be extremely useful in India to PREVENT that exact issue. I think it would also be great for the husks of coconuts.
In my part of Australia they burn ACRES of stubble, sometimes you can smell it in the air a few kilometres away because multiple people are doing it. Especially on low wind days. They are really just burning it because the ash acts as a fertiliser and it makes ploughing easier and more consistent
i being producing it on household level by collecting the waste woods, tree branch and other biomass around my area to produce biochar and then put it into the garden and parks.
We also have a lot of dry underbrush in our under-managed forests, which are making the forest fire situation much worse than it needs to be. Biochar could help with that, too.
Not something that can be scaled beyond a certain point, but something that do a lot of good when slotted into existing waste streams. The solution to climate issues isn't a single big solution, but a big collection of small solutions all working together.
Does it not require energy to bring the biomass up to 700-800 degrees? Are the oils produced going to extend our use of internal combustion engines, which are proven to be bad for our planet. What will stop unethical people from using the biochar as as fuel source?
yes, but less than you'd think as it's a runaway exothermic reaction, Unlikely use case for those oils, as even green energies such as wind turbines require lubricants, which is a much more likely target for those oils, and the only real thing to prevent that is legislation and more importantly - enforcement. I think it's high time we make it incredible uneconomical to run unethical businesses. Once mass implemented, there should me ENORMOUS fines and even potential jail time thrown at people who commit such crimes. Make examples of the greedy unethical bastards who care more about money than the greater good. However, I realize that's unrealistic as most governments are beholden to the capitalist motive of profiteering.
It doesn't require continuous energy as the fire is able to sustain itself until all the energy stored in the biomass is consumed. What's only needed is to start the fire at the beginning.
@@Adam-nw1vy true. Traditional charcoal making is like that, light a few of the wood, make sure it's air-tight and eventually they'll all carbonize. Only difference is that they capture the gases in the factory.
Biochar is okay, but AMP grazing grasslands (especially in areas of decent rainfall) puts carbon on the soil, feeds the soil, and cattle are the worlds fastest walking mulchers that also deposit biology rich mulch on the field a few feet away from where they take up the plant matter. They also produce meat, milk, and fiber as an excess benefit. Goats can eat non-sprayed cotton plants. Cows and sheep can eat rice plant mass. Cover crops can be grazed to feed soil life and animals while keeping the ground covered.
Plenty of research regarding urea treatment of rice straw as well. Turn it into a decent quality forage and get the fertilizer from cattle. Goes against the agenda tho. We need over complicated bs solutions according to the elites
So, 2 harvests? First for the crop, the second to collect the stubble doesn't make sense to me. Double the energy to get the stubble off the fields. Plus the scenes shown in this video of the fields demonstrate the stubble being very low and nearly at ground level. Wouldn't be much return for the harvesting efforts.
"Biochar, generally speaking, is charcoal that has been “charged” with nutrients, beneficial microbes and fungi before it is used in a growing system as a soil amendment. Charcoal by itself can be a nutrient sink and is known to deprive nearby plants of nutrients in the short term when added to soil."
I believe that when making biochar it is cooled with water at the end of the cooking process which creates internal fracturing. Charcoal is cooled slowly and has no internal fracturing. It is these fractures which absorb the "charge".
I like this idea, and if it truly can sequester carbon in away that truly doesn't just add a bunch more carbon, it is great. The problem as I see it though is the scale of the problem: 50 billion tons of solid or liquid CO2 is emitted annually by all current human activities. That would be a solid block of CO2 one kilometer by one kilometer by 20 kilometers (or .6 miles by .6 miles by 12 miles) high. That is 100,000's of trees that would have to be processed this way annually. We need nuclear energy 25 years ago.
The way I see it, if the biomass raw material is taken from a process where it was going to decompose or be burned, then it avoids those associated carbon emissions, meaning, it is NOT additive carbon reduction. Relating to farming fertilizer, to me, the solution is to quit using synthetic chemicals and instead use composted food scraps and manure.
It has to be stored/used in way where someone can't just get it and burn it just like charcoal or coal. It's effectively just restoring coal reserves by storing carbon.
Quick question ? Are they loading the biochar or inoculating it with any beneficial microbes prior to throwing it on the fields. If you do not fill the spaces of the charcoal they will be filled by what is already present in the soil . Bio char alone is not the answer . But it is an important step in the right direction !
Think of it like a building block with holes . Those holes provide places for microbes to live without being washed out . If those microbe homes are pre loaded with beneficial microbes to your soil ? You will get a better result because you will have better soil ! Its a tool to get the microbes into position to do their jobs as nature intended.
I am viewing it as beginner's steps, towards making biohydrogen and graphene based alloys & plloys from the hydrocarbon biomass waste.., It is primarily a matter of processing costs that we are wandering here & there without focusing on the worthy product's output..!! Biohydrogen will complement Green hydrogen whereas Graphene will complement the whole metal & plastic ecosystem, industry varying from energy, construction, healthcare to electronics and more resulting in multidimensional carbon reduction with qualitative products..!!
I used it in my lawn and it definitely reduced the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Combined with water polymer, I didn’t have to water my lawn either.
Biochar may only be a useful tool if there's locally produced water matter, but it's still worth looking into. Climate change doesn't have one single fix. It's about lots of smaller fixes. Reducing emissions from concrete. Recycling metals. Improving transit to reduce car usr. Rlectric cars. Biochar from waste matter. A wind farm. Etc. None of these alone can save the climate, but if you add up lots of small fixes it adds up to a lot.
Instead of crops or wood, just use sewage!! Literal trash can be used for this process and the liquid like by product can be again decomposed in absence of oxygen to create biogas, ie., even more energy.. Anyways we get only pure carbon in the end so we can either produce energy or products like concrete, carbon nanotubes, carbon sequestration in the already produced raw cement, pharmaceuticals, etc.. or even use it as activated carbon for producing drinking water
Yes that is possible. 🎇 Here is a further read that discusses the thermochemical co-processing of plastic wastes into biochar. 🔗www.researchgate.net/publication/369260960_Thermochemical_co-conversion_of_biomass-plastic_waste_to_biochar_A_review
What I often see left out of the biochar conversation is that the emissions from the natural degradation of biomass- even in compost- can be massive. Nearly all the carbon returns to the atmosphere- so any retained carbon that can be incorporated in soil or used as aggregate in building and paving materials is a net win. I appreciated the animation that explained how plant based carbon sequestration is only useful for net draw down if the carbon is prevented from returning to the air. Nicely Done! I would love to see a follow up video on the pyrolysis oil uses. The bio oils produced are very useful, we already have the chemistry to use them because it is identical to the wood chemistry used before oil based plastics. I have incorporated biochar from numerous sources in our free draining soils with good impact. The fruit trees in particular seem to benefit. I would love to see a policy in future that dictates that all municipal woody wastes become biochar. For anyone interested in learning more, I highly recommend the book: Burn by Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper. That book blew my mind on biochar!
People already do this with carbonized rice hull. I think the benefit with rice hulls (and agricultural waste) is they're used as soil amendment, there's less risk that people would just burn it again for energy as compared to if its blocks of charcoal.
If biochar is expelled or sold off as tiny particles it is diffucult to burn as charcoal. It only becomes easy to burn when it is compressed into briquettes along with binding agents. In that case, processing nullifies any economic benefit of using biochar as heating fuel.
That biomass could be used in a wood gas stove. Burn excess biomass from all sorts of byproducts in a pyrolitic stove, and it puts itself out after it turns to coals, then you just cool down the coals or fully seal the burn chamber.
When prohibiting to use food plants and natural grown wood, this might be helpful. However, as we all learned from experience with any government, regulations will come too late, and will be too weak.
This study revealed that 166.7 kg biochar could substitute completely 155 kg pulverized coal in metal production. (🔗www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236123000145#:~:text=Biochar%20has%20a%20great%20potential,hot%20metal%20production%20%5B77%5D.)
Does all of the biochar added to the soil really keep the carbon captured in the soil permanently? I had thought microorganisms can eventually break it down to use the carbon in it and result in the carbon being released again. I wonder if it could be turned into a sort of watered down slurry and pumped into oil wells where crude oil is being extracted to take its place. I certainly don't understand all of the logistical problems though and if it would be a fire hazard.
An analysis of the net efficiency would be helpful. Otherwise, it is just another green shortsighted hype. Transporting the wood chips to a biochar generator and then the biochar to the farmer. Energy! How long can you add biochar to a field until it is saturated and no longer can accept biochar. Sustainability! Even simple burning wood for heating, Germany doesn't have enough agricultural areas to provide enough. Scalability! No one is burning stubble or straw in Germany. Everything is recycled, stubble is plowed in. And burnt stublle (like in India for example) does provide nutrition for the next seed. Applyability!
It feels like biochar is like humans making coal, especially when we use it for carbon sequestration. But instead of releasing what is in the ground, we are using what is in the air already. In lower temperature coal applications where biochar can replace coal, it seems like a good step towards a circular carbon cycle.
living in ireland i have seen many farmers clear trees out of hedges and just pile them into a corner to rot or sometimes they burn them so i dont think the source of biochar would be a problem if we used waste like this and the windfalls that happen every year that are never used
Hey there! There are no findings on that, unfortunately. However, a possible indirect effect is the following: using biochar can improve soil quality and therefore reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers that are a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
ive been saying this. You could also seed the arctic and antarctic oceans during their summers to create even larger explosions of life, eat the fish, and turn the waste into biochar.
Just need to ensure installed Biochar production capacity doesn't exceed naturally occurring biomass (both from nature and byproduct of other industries). If it exceeds, you will inevitably run into the main concern mentioned in this video - artificially producing biomass for the explicit purpose of feeding biochar plants.
Biochar is great, but we'll also need biogas. So we'll have a shortage of biomass to produce both those things. A great way to have more land available for that biomass production, is Precision Fermentation. This technology will free up a lot of land that now produces food for cows in dairy farms.
biochar is the ultimate soil amendment used in terra preta.. and thats a pretty stable product lasting for hundreds of years of arable soil. there is no doubt or question its very usefull. but its - relatively expensive too, compared to conventional gardening.
Reversing is a strong way to put it but there are studies reflecting that biochar can help preventing land degradation. (🔗 i.e. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143622811001780). We also made these videos on desertification that may interest you. 👇 🌱"Can we stop the deserts from spreading?" ruclips.net/video/D6Kz_OcOgvE/видео.html 🌱"Can India's Great Green Wall stop desertification?" ruclips.net/video/g59CelQPX74/видео.html
I am un ertain about it being made large scale. Humans never learn from their mistakes, and just as we saw wood pellets being shipped to the UK, made from trees felled in Oregon 'specifically' for this purpose, I can see the greedy thinking they can get rich quick by buying up forests and commiting them to biochar production. Before this industry yakes off, there must be legislation restricting what can be used, how much land can be reserved for biochar production, and outlawing the transport of raw ingredients and finished product needlessly from country tp country. Some countries would benefit from biochar, we can see that, but there needs to be good sense used in how far it travels and where the original biomass came from.
I would have expected that this would be used for CCS (carbon capture and storage). But maybe that will happen in the future to remove historical CO2 emissions.
Every landfill I've been to in America has a huge surplus of logs, and branches from arborists and landscapers. They compost as much as possible but far more comes in every year than goes out.
That's pretty tragic. Up here in the north, at least where I live - not sure about the rest of the country, only small private contractors would be allowed to do that, most of the bigger jobs use massive chippers (actually had one on my neighbors lawn 3 months ago, dude told me they had carbide teeth that weigh 100 lbs each - 35 per wheel and 4 wheels side by side, spinning at 12000 RPM and taking an off 4 inches per pass of the stump for the tree they had to cut down cause it was going through the foundation - could feel the vibrations sitting at my desk in my house. Anyway I digress, they take those chips and bring them to centralized depots where anyone who needs mulch can go get some for free, and if the piles they make start to break down they also have full composting structures that the city uses the compost for in the spring for various jobs. I hate that under capitalism "the right thing to do" costs more money so few seldom do it -.-
If the Biomass Plant could be reduced to the size of a shipping container, then it would be feasible fro larger farms. timber mils etc to have one on site, thus greatly reducing the need to transport the bio mass and in turn reducing emissions.
Correct me if I am wrong but don't trees grow carbon rich objects we generally refer to as leaves? Needles on some coniferous but still referred to as leaves. Why would anyone cut down a tree if they could make the leaves into biochar every year? It doesn't make any sense. Don't clear the forests, they make an ideal spot for the biochar made from their leaves. The video mentioned that the alcohol used in gasoline is being made from corn and sugarcane and isn't turning out as well as hoped. Well, when it is made from Jerusalem artichokes or switchgrass it produces much more, doesn't take up such valuable farmland and is much easier to grow.
The way we are producing biochar as well as biofuels is the reason why they are seen as villian instead of boon. We are producing biofuel and biochar from our food, which makes zero sense. Instead using waste and products like water cleaning algae to produce biofuels, biogas and biochar is more logical and can help in drastically reducing the carbon emissions.
Not sure why they want to grow biomass just for this, there's many tons of wood and food waste that can converted to energy. Biochar and anaerobic digester are great ways to convert waste into energy
What about the moisture content of this biomass? Dehumidifying is extremely energy consuming, or time consuming if sun and wind is used let alone practical possible. Heating up moisture in this pyrolisis is in my opinion a problem.
I think the key into helping preserve our planet is finding multiple ways to stop climate change, and find equal weights to produce our food. Also discover ways to reduce waste and generate electricity.
Sounds like a low volume, high cost process. Mulching stubble into the soil would improve soil health and water retention properties of the soil. India has a huge problem with air pollution and that is made worse when farmers burn stubble every year. The government needs to provide mulching machines for co-ops that could loan them to poor farmers and reduce or eliminate the burning and air pollution it causes.
We made a video on smog called "How megacities around the world are tackling their air pollution" you can watch here 👉 ruclips.net/video/3F6mq20QOcE/видео.html. Please share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to our channel for more videos on environment! ✨
Converting waste products into biochar is a great idea! The problem comes from large scale capitalism. People complain about how much land is used for solar panels, imagine how much it would take to produce commercial biochar!
@@DWPlanetA : you make a good point - the host soil needs to be maintained but composting has so many positives - in reducing a number of important GHG emissions compared to landfill/incineration.
It's a pity biofuelwatch is so prominently cited here. This one-woman-show is against everything related to biomass, by principle, systematically questioning established science. That is not credible criticism, it is activism.
So could it help transform deserts into lush vegetation? The green belt to hold back the Sahara might usefully consume biochar created from stubble created in Europe?
Biochar may impact the soil sturcture positively and can potentially increase fertility. Also, you might want to watch our video: "Can India's Great Green Wall stop desertification?" ruclips.net/video/g59CelQPX74/видео.html. Please share what you think in the comments. 🌸🌲🌲🌲
I don't think, we can use biochar as fuel. Since, if it so, then it is not biochar ..... it is just charcoal, instead. By pyrolisis process, its self. Once the biomass has been in biochar form. It does not have any lignin of which has been turned to syngass and bio-oil. And its hemicellulose of which is volatile carbon, has been converted to fixed carbon. That's why biochar has much higher porosity and much lighter in weight. With pyrolizing temperature process of >700C, depended on its retention time. It will be closely turned to bio graphite.
I mean if people stopped trying to get a profit motive out of biochar and instead governments would use it of its intended purpose then it would be a good way of getting Carbon
Biochar sounds like a silver bullet - implausible. Until you go through a mountain of research that has happened in the last 20 years. This super simple, cheap material, especially as a soil ameliorate, is incredibly useful.
For me biochar is really not a solution in it's own right, but then none of the technologies I am integrating at my upcoming Regenerative Resource Network is a solution in their own right... rather it is the integrations that I'm employing. In that context, currently I see biochar as a very small cog and one that could be a pain in the neck but won't be because we'll be locking down it's optimal use cases. For me, going directly for biochar from biomass is a huge waste of resources. I'd rather put the feedstock into my holistic system and I'd really be treating any biochar as a peripheral. It certainly isn't the low hanging fruit but done in the right way, it has it's place. If scientists are saying they don't know exactly how it works, I'm quite surprised. Go to a rural area, build a massive complex of high rise buildings and tell everyone they have to breed fast enough to populate the million fold increase in living space and they have to be productive at work too... umm that will take a while and might ruin the place. They might take so long to fill the new apartments that the buildings themselves are starting to fall down. Also, in life, pathogens are in a minority, but they thrive where there is imbalance, biochar won't probably directly support pathogens but it does change the playing field enough to mess up the balance, taking longer for beneficial biome to win over. As another commenter noted, it needs to be encouraged or it takes a while and you may lose the shirt off your back waiting for the balance to restore. Starting a company who's sole purpose is to make biochar, for me, is like making a high-tech horse carriage mass production line.
6:24 "if its used to replace coal burning, then it is no longer eco friendly". HOW!?! If it replaces mining hydrocarbons from the earth, it must be better. srsly, how??
I am already using biochar, I use it in my potting mix In place of vermiculite and Perlite for plants I sell. One thing to note: raw biochar Ideally needs inoculating with beneficial bacteria Before use. If you don't do this it Can have a temporary negative effect on the soil. You only need to add it once you don't need to keep adding it every year. I also use it in my chicken's bedding its good for absorbing odours. Then it goes on the compost then the garden win win.
Too bad the bacteria emit CO2 and having the biochar exposed to O2 naturally creates CO2. So you are just temporarily slowing the CO2 generation. You are the CO2 problem.
This is the way!
Permaculture will save mother earth
I also put a bunch down with my chickens bedding, i just started doing it but it seems to be working well
Been making a couple heaping wheelbarrows of it 2 or 3X per yr, for a decade, just from tree trimming burn piles, mix into compost piles.
Only complication is to create a teepee shaped burn pile instead of random, burns fast and clean, quench in 60 to 90 minutes.
@@Electedsphinx40 holistic planned grazing Management and fmnr could be very helpful as well
Ok … I have no “Degrees” but I’ve been involved with the development of BioChar for over 15 yrs.
First thing to note; it CAN be detrimental to put untreated biochar directly into your soil. This is because biochar acts as a sponge and if its a “new” sponge it will suck nutrients from your soil.
Secondly; to “Treat” or “Charge” biochar can be quite easy. Take a bucket or tub or bigger fill it about 30% with manure mix in about 5-10% biochar (ground and broken to about the size of sand and dust. In the states you can buy and use “Cowboy Charcoal”) add water to moisten if you have a cover thats better. Every couple days give it a stir You’re looking for the manure odor to go away if after a week or so the manure smell remains, add another 5% of biochar and repeat above until the smell is completely neutralized. Your biochar and manure should be completely charged and everything can be used.
Another way it can be “charged” is by incorporating into your mulch in the beginning … if its barnyard mulch.
I’ve never seen biochar damage soil once its charged.
The problem with Biochar as I see it, is that I absolutely do not believe that Biochar will not be burned lateron for either energy generation, heating, cooking or any number of reasons putting us back to square one. The reason why I think this will be the case, is that Biochar is effectively the same as charcoal, only it's going to be abundant, cheap, and easy to "mix up by accident" with regular production of charcoal. So I honestly don't see it as a good method for carbon storage, it's too easy to turn around into a CO2 increasing source, as compared to a CO2 decreasing source in the atmosphere.
Edit: Because people seem to think that I don't understand what the use of biochar is, let me put it this way. I absolutely do believe biochar would be great IF I believed that it would be used for soil enrichment. I however don't believe this will happen, instead I believe it will be burned in coal power plants or similar. This is bad for a variety of reasons, first of all it's not really a green technology, as burning any kind of biochar, whether it be from aggricultural waste, deliberately grown and easily convertable crops, to forests cleared for material to create biochar from, will always be a method that perpetuates the dependance on fossil fuels, destruction of biodiverse habitats and overall releases of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Some argue that if we just burned biochar, it would be no big deal, this argument I vehemently disagree with. If we allow the burning of biochar, it will create an incentive to create more biochar to burn, which will lead to forests being cleared in order to allow grasses (or similar) to be grown, that can then be dried and burned. If I had any real reason to believe biochar would be limited to soil enrichment, I would not be averse to it, but I just don't believe that. And I would argue that if someone does believe that, then they havn't read up on how situations like these turn out in the real world.
Anywho, I hope this edit explains my points to some of those that would make similar arguments as others in this thread.
even so the carbon emissions would be close to zero. After all, in this case you only burn coal and emit carbon that would have been released into the atmosphere anyway by decomposition.
@@phil-vi8lq my dude, what is your point? honestly this is no different than suggesting to burn coal
the only answer to carbon reduction is in the word all along; REDUCE the consumption of things. but the wheels of capitalism dictate this to be an absolute no-no, so we're going to end up with like a million other greenwashing alternatives
@@phil-vi8lq That is the same argument as biofuels, something which has also turned out to never be that good in practice. These methods should be reserved for places where there are no other alternatives, not for options wherein the alternative is to log less forests, or reduce the amount of croplands needed worldwide, due to agricultural inefficiencies.
@@nisbahmumtaz909 come on do you really not see the difference between coal that is buried underground since thousands of years and biomass that lies on fields decomposing within a couple of weeks/months???
@@op4000exe it is very clearly stated in the video that not the concept of biofuels is the problem but how they are produced. If we use the huge amounts of otherwise unused biomass, then we wont have the same problems with biochar and this would equal net-zero emissions. Again: This is very clearly stated in the video and thus not an intrinsic problem of biochar but how we choose to use this technology.
Biochar is really a great idea. The natives of the Brazilian jungle used to use human waste mixed with charcoal from their cooking fires to make "Tierra Prieta," (tight earth), which would get them much greater crop yields. Now everyone else seems to be learning the benefits of their technique. --- Did you know that food waste is the largest component of US landfills at 24%, and that paper waste is 12%? That means that more than a third of landfills can be easily turned into biochar. That biochar mixed with cow manure can be used to rejuvenate weakened soils and hold back desertification. And separating all that paper and food waste is not that hard and would make the process of recycling the plastics (18%), metal (9%), and glass (5%) much easier. Going after biochar from landfill stuff could get us much farther along to a truly circular supply chain.
Where I live food waste has to be collected separately and goes to compost making and is mostly sold to farmers. you can also get up to 100 liters free each year for home owners.
Yes - we have in Germany different bins for our waste.
Bio for food and small plant waste. Paper for all recyclable paper waste.
I don't know how good that is - and that still leaves agriculture waste.
I don't know if that's gets recycled into compost too?
I'd be much more excited if we found a way to easily recycle plastic - maybe if we standardize the packaging of our food 🤔
Terra preta is black soil in Portuguese. Not “tight soil”.
@@farticlesofconflatulation OMG. I was thinking Spanish "prieta" and assumed that it was that in Portuguese. Thank you for letting me and the readers know.
@@joelado to be fair to you, prieta sounds similar to aprieta in Spanish wich means “to tighten”. But prieta in Spanish means dark or black. Portuguese spells dark/black as “preta” Confusing, I know.
Biochar is very similar to activated carbon and I've seen references where people have talked about using it as a filtration medium in industrial smoke stacks.
The idea that it can do mutiple things simultaneously with a single feedstock is what makes it facinating.
Biochar can filter most liquids and gases. Hopefully it works well to clean forever chemicals from our waters
@@kevinleecaster2698 and air
Also used in hospitals to treat overdose
The reason Indian farmers burn stubble is because it is cheap and quick to burn it where it stands. Biochar requires collection of the stubble which is the stumbling block.
But hopefully if it can be sold by them as a by-product or increases their yield, they may be incentivised to do so?
It’s because they double crop and need to clear the field quick. In North American spring cropping systems they no till and leave all the residue. Straw is chopped and spread behind the combine
@@stynnieuwenhuis9999 Without double cropping it will not be possible to meet the foodgrain demand of India. However, that is no excuse for the ecological disaster that is annual stubble burning.
@@linesydclb8845Vietnam advised India to convert those hay to use in mushroom making process and thus gain additional income to farmers.
@@oadka maybe more research needs to be done on no till and improving microbial breakdown of crop residues. Bio char doesn’t seem super scalable
I am currently in South America converting ill placed pasture in marshy watersheds into giant bamboo forrests for biochar. Bamboo sequesters more carbon than anything on earth. Thousands of tons per hectare in just 5-7 years and 700-2000 per year thereafter. Simultaneously I'm reforesting 10 hectares of sloped pasture in complex coffee and cacao based agroforrestry systems. Next year, I hope to build a Biochar furnace that can precisely roast these products and thus turn the worlds highest emission foods into deeply negative emission ones. Eventually, I have 70 hectares to expand into, but am as short of labor as I am of funds. So I'll start small.
Can't the bamboo be sold "as is" without needing to char it? Or are you talking only about the bamboo residue left?
@@drillerdev4624 its certainly another useful product without turning it into biochar. In construction the useful carbon capture life can be close to that of biochar. But as biochar the carbon is fixed and doesn't biodegrade back to CO2 for many centuries, and can be used as a soil amendment for agriculture.
@@michaelhudson4171 I understand that the moment you sell the bamboo, you lose its track, so probably is best this way, but ideally, it could be used as bamboo, then when its useful life has ended, be converted to biochar, extending the carbon sequestering period.
I hope hemp is studied more for these purposes as well, since it's a good alternative for dryer climates. However, even if it traditionally was used for ropes and is being used in hempcrete, it can't be used directly like bamboo.
Awesome
Great article , thank you. Biochar works best for us when we use it to create the soil carbon sponge. It is clear that there is not just one recipe for activated biochar, different regions and soil types require different inputs. When we take carbon from the air and store it in the soil we witness benefits for the soil, the animals, the humans, the water and the air.
I fear the energy used for carbon dioxide sequestration is equivalent or greater than the energy we originally got out of burning hydrocarbons. I am convinced that using less of everything to ease our demand on the biological systems we need to live is the solution to overshoot.
According to climate scientists, we need to do both, otherwise the natural cycles that have been disturbed will keep degrading past a tipping point and cause major problems for all life.
@@GandhiGunda Yes, but I am not optimistic that we will do anything except keep using more and more until we absolutely can't any more.
A set of versatile solutions is required. But yes, we need to address our overconsumption first and foremost. Did you already watch our video on degrowth? Check out "What if we stopped making so much stuff?" here 👉 ruclips.net/video/_22mKe_OLsg/видео.html.
We need the public and governments to stop falling for these scams. Where do you think plants get their carbon from? Its from CO2 in the air. When they decay, some of that is put back in the atmosphere and some is sequestered in the remains in the earth. No "new" carbon is produced by the plants growing and decaying. IT'S A CYCLE.
... now do you believe that by harvesting, transporting, processing, and then using some of that same material for fuel we are "reducing" anything? We are ADDING to the problem with this... additional energy is being used here. Clearly.
But our goverments and investors see ways to get rich, and fools who do not understand the basic carbon cycle and basic math root them on.
Sounds like it's the most efficient way of doing carbon capture that we have come up with so far, as long as we make absolutely certain that the biomass only comes from genuine, local waste and there's no incentive to "create" more waste.
The incentive to create more waste is practically build in the the method and the business model.
@@DBGE001 Just don't pay for the fuel. Only pay for picking it up, and don't let them choose their cousin's transport company either. Free plant-based trash pickup, but no incentive to make more trash.
You know what carbon sequestration method has worked for literary millennia?
Planting trees and building houses and structures with the ones on the end of their lifecycle.
@@experimentalcyborg
@@DBGE001 No way! Thanks for your valuable insight, i never knew that. Good luck convincing everyone to plant more trees, because I'm sure nobody has thought of that before.
Well, apparently this is not very obvious for many leaders around the world. Forest growth was only achieved in China in the past 4 decades. In the US, South America and Europe forests keep declining in the same period. So planting trees has only been done in a meaningful way in the PRC.@@experimentalcyborg
Why didnt this blow up in the media yet? THIS IS what we need! Clever solutions, bit-by-bit, engineered as most natural as possible. If we can combine this with many other awesome inventions, despite every part contributing just a little, the outcome can be astonishing! Great mini-documentary!!! Love these! :D
Thanks for your feedback. ✨ If you loved this one, you can subscribe to our channel to make sure not to miss any of the videos we publish on Fridays! 🌱
Thanks Planet A for the rigorous reporting you do on climate change issues. It is essential that this type of non-biased information is produced and shared. I especially liked the measured but prominent way to approach the downsides/dangers of biochar production. Have a wonderful year entry and keep up this great work of journalism!
Human caused climate change is a hoax. We need more CO2 not less.
A very good friend of mine has a huge experiment going in Australia. He made that big like 10 years ago. Actually he does so much good stuff with it. His way is upsides for agricultural purposes. What he does is so awesome. I wish more people would be interested in his project.
send me a link to this project I would like to see it.
Hey mate, quite interested in your friends work. Would you mind sharing the link? Thanks
OK... Where is the link, where are the facts ? ...
As user & home scale producer of biochar i can say biochar is a tool. Like any tool it can be used correctly or i correctly. One possibility i dont often hear mentioned is using non agriculture areas ( roadsides, parking lots, etc) to grow woody biomass. In the tropics a little bit of extra irrigation at the eight time can drastically increase biomass production
Thank you DW Planet A. After reading about 2023 being by far the hottest year yet, I needed something a bit positive.
It seems it is no panacea to global heating. However, endless negativity gets us nowhere. This seems more than worthwhile to pursue. Agriculture will probably be the hardest area to reduce GHGs, so any improvement can only be good.
An added bonus, fertilisers are made from methane mining (called LNG where I am from), so using less of it will also reduce escaped methane.
If it is immediately buried so it can't be burned again, bio charcoal made from something like fast growing algae could be produced in a relatively cheap automated facility. Of course this requires a government willing to actually commit to doing something like this intentionally because any capital driven pathway to achieve this goal would fail
Maybe from food waste? Plenty of that in first world countries.
One possibility is to fill empty coal and iron ore mines with biochar. Plenty of those are available. If converted into a semi liquid state it can even be put into more places like empty oil wells and so on.
Everything in this world are based on economics, thus is capturing carbon and storing without making any product will be a loss..
but at the same time, using it defeat the purpose it self..
I have been using bio char as an amendment to our poor clay soil. It improves tilth, sequesters carbon and helps to control excess water on our 15 acre hobby farm. If I can be a part of the solution rather than the problem, then I am happier with that.
Biochar is excellent for gardening, and if it can also capture CO2, this is a huge win.
Here in Northern India, it's the primary cause of air pollution.
Why farmers don´t plow the stubble back to the soil?
biochar? no, burning organic materials is. Biochar doesn't pollute the air because the carbon is kept inside. Did you even watch the whole video? Biochar would actually be extremely useful in India to PREVENT that exact issue. I think it would also be great for the husks of coconuts.
In my part of Australia they burn ACRES of stubble, sometimes you can smell it in the air a few kilometres away because multiple people are doing it. Especially on low wind days. They are really just burning it because the ash acts as a fertiliser and it makes ploughing easier and more consistent
I have been making biochar for five years. More than 10 tons have already been incorporated into the soil.
Thanks 4 video.
Its a real solution in african tropic farms since most farmers burn residue after harvest.
i being producing it on household level by collecting the waste woods, tree branch and other biomass around my area to produce biochar and then put it into the garden and parks.
We also have a lot of dry underbrush in our under-managed forests, which are making the forest fire situation much worse than it needs to be.
Biochar could help with that, too.
Not something that can be scaled beyond a certain point, but something that do a lot of good when slotted into existing waste streams. The solution to climate issues isn't a single big solution, but a big collection of small solutions all working together.
Absolutely yes, for a large collection of solutions! Check out the channel for more of these ideas and subscribe to new videos every Friday! ✨🙌
Does it not require energy to bring the biomass up to 700-800 degrees?
Are the oils produced going to extend our use of internal combustion engines, which are proven to be bad for our planet.
What will stop unethical people from using the biochar as as fuel source?
yes, but less than you'd think as it's a runaway exothermic reaction, Unlikely use case for those oils, as even green energies such as wind turbines require lubricants, which is a much more likely target for those oils, and the only real thing to prevent that is legislation and more importantly - enforcement. I think it's high time we make it incredible uneconomical to run unethical businesses. Once mass implemented, there should me ENORMOUS fines and even potential jail time thrown at people who commit such crimes. Make examples of the greedy unethical bastards who care more about money than the greater good. However, I realize that's unrealistic as most governments are beholden to the capitalist motive of profiteering.
It doesn't require continuous energy as the fire is able to sustain itself until all the energy stored in the biomass is consumed. What's only needed is to start the fire at the beginning.
@@Adam-nw1vy true. Traditional charcoal making is like that, light a few of the wood, make sure it's air-tight and eventually they'll all carbonize. Only difference is that they capture the gases in the factory.
0:49 where can I watch the full video ? somebody help me...😬
Biochar is okay, but AMP grazing grasslands (especially in areas of decent rainfall) puts carbon on the soil, feeds the soil, and cattle are the worlds fastest walking mulchers that also deposit biology rich mulch on the field a few feet away from where they take up the plant matter. They also produce meat, milk, and fiber as an excess benefit. Goats can eat non-sprayed cotton plants. Cows and sheep can eat rice plant mass. Cover crops can be grazed to feed soil life and animals while keeping the ground covered.
Plenty of research regarding urea treatment of rice straw as well. Turn it into a decent quality forage and get the fertilizer from cattle. Goes against the agenda tho. We need over complicated bs solutions according to the elites
So, 2 harvests?
First for the crop, the second to collect the stubble doesn't make sense to me. Double the energy to get the stubble off the fields. Plus the scenes shown in this video of the fields demonstrate the stubble being very low and nearly at ground level. Wouldn't be much return for the harvesting efforts.
"Biochar, generally speaking, is charcoal that has been “charged” with nutrients, beneficial microbes and fungi before it is used in a growing system as a soil amendment. Charcoal by itself can be a nutrient sink and is known to deprive nearby plants of nutrients in the short term when added to soil."
Yes, that's absolutely correct. Only real gardeners know about this.
I believe that when making biochar it is cooled with water at the end of the cooking process which creates internal fracturing. Charcoal is cooled slowly and has no internal fracturing. It is these fractures which absorb the "charge".
I like this idea, and if it truly can sequester carbon in away that truly doesn't just add a bunch more carbon, it is great. The problem as I see it though is the scale of the problem: 50 billion tons of solid or liquid CO2 is emitted annually by all current human activities. That would be a solid block of CO2 one kilometer by one kilometer by 20 kilometers (or .6 miles by .6 miles by 12 miles) high. That is 100,000's of trees that would have to be processed this way annually. We need nuclear energy 25 years ago.
Thank you for the video, happy new year 🎉
Same to you! 🌸 And don't forget to subscribe to our channel for videos every Friday!
00:28 Pyrolysis and Carbon Sequestration, It's really great in explanation
The way I see it, if the biomass raw material is taken from a process where it was going to decompose or be burned, then it avoids those associated carbon emissions, meaning, it is NOT additive carbon reduction. Relating to farming fertilizer, to me, the solution is to quit using synthetic chemicals and instead use composted food scraps and manure.
It has to be stored/used in way where someone can't just get it and burn it just like charcoal or coal. It's effectively just restoring coal reserves by storing carbon.
Quick question ? Are they loading the biochar or inoculating it with any beneficial microbes prior to throwing it on the fields. If you do not fill the spaces of the charcoal they will be filled by what is already present in the soil . Bio char alone is not the answer . But it is an important step in the right direction !
Think of it like a building block with holes . Those holes provide places for microbes to live without being washed out . If those microbe homes are pre loaded with beneficial microbes to your soil ? You will get a better result because you will have better soil ! Its a tool to get the microbes into position to do their jobs as nature intended.
I am viewing it as beginner's steps, towards making biohydrogen and graphene based alloys & plloys from the hydrocarbon biomass waste..,
It is primarily a matter of processing costs that we are wandering here & there without focusing on the worthy product's output..!!
Biohydrogen will complement Green hydrogen whereas Graphene will complement the whole metal & plastic ecosystem, industry varying from energy, construction, healthcare to electronics and more resulting in multidimensional carbon reduction with qualitative products..!!
I used it in my lawn and it definitely reduced the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Combined with water polymer, I didn’t have to water my lawn either.
Biochar may only be a useful tool if there's locally produced water matter, but it's still worth looking into. Climate change doesn't have one single fix. It's about lots of smaller fixes.
Reducing emissions from concrete. Recycling metals. Improving transit to reduce car usr. Rlectric cars. Biochar from waste matter. A wind farm. Etc.
None of these alone can save the climate, but if you add up lots of small fixes it adds up to a lot.
Instead of crops or wood, just use sewage!!
Literal trash can be used for this process and the liquid like by product can be again decomposed in absence of oxygen to create biogas, ie., even more energy..
Anyways we get only pure carbon in the end so we can either produce energy or products like concrete, carbon nanotubes, carbon sequestration in the already produced raw cement, pharmaceuticals, etc.. or even use it as activated carbon for producing drinking water
can biochar factories? also handle waste plastic waste streams?
🖤
Yes that is possible. 🎇 Here is a further read that discusses the thermochemical co-processing of plastic wastes into biochar. 🔗www.researchgate.net/publication/369260960_Thermochemical_co-conversion_of_biomass-plastic_waste_to_biochar_A_review
What I often see left out of the biochar conversation is that the emissions from the natural degradation of biomass- even in compost- can be massive. Nearly all the carbon returns to the atmosphere- so any retained carbon that can be incorporated in soil or used as aggregate in building and paving materials is a net win. I appreciated the animation that explained how plant based carbon sequestration is only useful for net draw down if the carbon is prevented from returning to the air. Nicely Done!
I would love to see a follow up video on the pyrolysis oil uses. The bio oils produced are very useful, we already have the chemistry to use them because it is identical to the wood chemistry used before oil based plastics.
I have incorporated biochar from numerous sources in our free draining soils with good impact. The fruit trees in particular seem to benefit. I would love to see a policy in future that dictates that all municipal woody wastes become biochar.
For anyone interested in learning more, I highly recommend the book: Burn by Albert Bates and Kathleen Draper. That book blew my mind on biochar!
People already do this with carbonized rice hull. I think the benefit with rice hulls (and agricultural waste) is they're used as soil amendment, there's less risk that people would just burn it again for energy as compared to if its blocks of charcoal.
It would be interesting to know how much of the increased crop yeilds is caused by the warming effect of darkened soil.
If biochar is expelled or sold off as tiny particles it is diffucult to burn as charcoal. It only becomes easy to burn when it is compressed into briquettes along with binding agents. In that case, processing nullifies any economic benefit of using biochar as heating fuel.
Biochar is good only needs to be harmonized with the soil composition or added with other substances to reduce negative effects.
That biomass could be used in a wood gas stove. Burn excess biomass from all sorts of byproducts in a pyrolitic stove, and it puts itself out after it turns to coals, then you just cool down the coals or fully seal the burn chamber.
When prohibiting to use food plants and natural grown wood, this might be helpful. However, as we all learned from experience with any government, regulations will come too late, and will be too weak.
Wow! This is amazing and I hope to see its effects in real life ❤
would biochar be a good alternative to coal in steel production ?
This study revealed that 166.7 kg biochar could substitute completely 155 kg pulverized coal in metal production. (🔗www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236123000145#:~:text=Biochar%20has%20a%20great%20potential,hot%20metal%20production%20%5B77%5D.)
Does all of the biochar added to the soil really keep the carbon captured in the soil permanently? I had thought microorganisms can eventually break it down to use the carbon in it and result in the carbon being released again. I wonder if it could be turned into a sort of watered down slurry and pumped into oil wells where crude oil is being extracted to take its place. I certainly don't understand all of the logistical problems though and if it would be a fire hazard.
Could Biochar be used to make graphine or carbon fiber? If so, it could make these promising materials less expensive.
🖤
An analysis of the net efficiency would be helpful. Otherwise, it is just another green shortsighted hype.
Transporting the wood chips to a biochar generator and then the biochar to the farmer. Energy!
How long can you add biochar to a field until it is saturated and no longer can accept biochar. Sustainability!
Even simple burning wood for heating, Germany doesn't have enough agricultural areas to provide enough. Scalability!
No one is burning stubble or straw in Germany. Everything is recycled, stubble is plowed in. And burnt stublle (like in India for example) does provide nutrition for the next seed. Applyability!
It feels like biochar is like humans making coal, especially when we use it for carbon sequestration. But instead of releasing what is in the ground, we are using what is in the air already. In lower temperature coal applications where biochar can replace coal, it seems like a good step towards a circular carbon cycle.
I think we should make a mutant tree that can produce 10 times more oxygen and also absorb 10 times carbon emissions
Its a good way to tackle excess biomass in developing or less developed countries.
living in ireland i have seen many farmers clear trees out of hedges and just pile them into a corner to rot or sometimes they burn them so i dont think the source of biochar would be a problem if we used waste like this and the windfalls that happen every year that are never used
If you mix bio char into soil, does it help the native plants sequester carbon more efficiently?
Hey there! There are no findings on that, unfortunately. However, a possible indirect effect is the following: using biochar can improve soil quality and therefore reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers that are a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
ive been saying this. You could also seed the arctic and antarctic oceans during their summers to create even larger explosions of life, eat the fish, and turn the waste into biochar.
Just need to ensure installed Biochar production capacity doesn't exceed naturally occurring biomass (both from nature and byproduct of other industries).
If it exceeds, you will inevitably run into the main concern mentioned in this video - artificially producing biomass for the explicit purpose of feeding biochar plants.
Biochar is great, but we'll also need biogas. So we'll have a shortage of biomass to produce both those things. A great way to have more land available for that biomass production, is Precision Fermentation. This technology will free up a lot of land that now produces food for cows in dairy farms.
biochar is the ultimate soil amendment used in terra preta.. and thats a pretty stable product lasting for hundreds of years of arable soil. there is no doubt or question its very usefull. but its - relatively expensive too, compared to conventional gardening.
The key ingredient for terra preta is biochar. This soil has improved washed out soils in the Amazon basin.
Can we use it to reverse desertification?
Reversing is a strong way to put it but there are studies reflecting that biochar can help preventing land degradation. (🔗 i.e. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143622811001780). We also made these videos on desertification that may interest you. 👇
🌱"Can we stop the deserts from spreading?"
ruclips.net/video/D6Kz_OcOgvE/видео.html
🌱"Can India's Great Green Wall stop desertification?"
ruclips.net/video/g59CelQPX74/видео.html
I am un ertain about it being made large scale. Humans never learn from their mistakes, and just as we saw wood pellets being shipped to the UK, made from trees felled in Oregon 'specifically' for this purpose, I can see the greedy thinking they can get rich quick by buying up forests and commiting them to biochar production.
Before this industry yakes off, there must be legislation restricting what can be used, how much land can be reserved for biochar production, and outlawing the transport of raw ingredients and finished product needlessly from country tp country. Some countries would benefit from biochar, we can see that, but there needs to be good sense used in how far it travels and where the original biomass came from.
I would have expected that this would be used for CCS (carbon capture and storage). But maybe that will happen in the future to remove historical CO2 emissions.
Every landfill I've been to in America has a huge surplus of logs, and branches from arborists and landscapers. They compost as much as possible but far more comes in every year than goes out.
That's pretty tragic. Up here in the north, at least where I live - not sure about the rest of the country, only small private contractors would be allowed to do that, most of the bigger jobs use massive chippers (actually had one on my neighbors lawn 3 months ago, dude told me they had carbide teeth that weigh 100 lbs each - 35 per wheel and 4 wheels side by side, spinning at 12000 RPM and taking an off 4 inches per pass of the stump for the tree they had to cut down cause it was going through the foundation - could feel the vibrations sitting at my desk in my house. Anyway I digress, they take those chips and bring them to centralized depots where anyone who needs mulch can go get some for free, and if the piles they make start to break down they also have full composting structures that the city uses the compost for in the spring for various jobs. I hate that under capitalism "the right thing to do" costs more money so few seldom do it -.-
India need this system .
If the Biomass Plant could be reduced to the size of a shipping container, then it would be feasible fro larger farms. timber mils etc to have one on site, thus greatly reducing the need to transport the bio mass and in turn reducing emissions.
Excellent point. TorrGreen is working on exactly such a system.
You can make biochar in a can. It is a fully scalable process, both ways.
Correct me if I am wrong but don't trees grow carbon rich objects we generally refer to as leaves? Needles on some coniferous but still referred to as leaves. Why would anyone cut down a tree if they could make the leaves into biochar every year? It doesn't make any sense. Don't clear the forests, they make an ideal spot for the biochar made from their leaves. The video mentioned that the alcohol used in gasoline is being made from corn and sugarcane and isn't turning out as well as hoped. Well, when it is made from Jerusalem artichokes or switchgrass it produces much more, doesn't take up such valuable farmland and is much easier to grow.
The way we are producing biochar as well as biofuels is the reason why they are seen as villian instead of boon.
We are producing biofuel and biochar from our food, which makes zero sense. Instead using waste and products like water cleaning algae to produce biofuels, biogas and biochar is more logical and can help in drastically reducing the carbon emissions.
Problem is that its teally difficult with single year crops because of ash melting properties.
Still trees are processed as main source.
Punjab needs this ASAP
Introducing one of these systems into a waste management site for turning yard debris into bio-char could be viable.
Not sure why they want to grow biomass just for this, there's many tons of wood and food waste that can converted to energy. Biochar and anaerobic digester are great ways to convert waste into energy
Why not composting instead ? This way you don’t use energy and don’t produce CO2 for providing energy, and you make soil.
That's counterproductive. Composting releases CO2. As organic material decomposes or transforms in a compost pile, the primary gas given off is CO2.
What about the moisture content of this biomass? Dehumidifying is extremely energy consuming, or time consuming if sun and wind is used let alone practical possible. Heating up moisture in this pyrolisis is in my opinion a problem.
I think the key into helping preserve our planet is finding multiple ways to stop climate change, and find equal weights to produce our food. Also discover ways to reduce waste and generate electricity.
This sounds like natural CCS. Why invent sone machine to take co2 out of the air when plants do it for you?
Sounds like a low volume, high cost process.
Mulching stubble into the soil would improve soil health and water retention properties of the soil.
India has a huge problem with air pollution and that is made worse when farmers burn stubble every year.
The government needs to provide mulching machines for co-ops that could loan them to poor farmers and reduce or eliminate the burning and air pollution it causes.
We made a video on smog called "How megacities around the world are tackling their air pollution" you can watch here 👉 ruclips.net/video/3F6mq20QOcE/видео.html. Please share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to our channel for more videos on environment! ✨
Converting waste products into biochar is a great idea!
The problem comes from large scale capitalism. People complain about how much land is used for solar panels, imagine how much it would take to produce commercial biochar!
Which of these two has the lower carbon footprint; biochar or compost?
If we turned plants into biochar, we could sequester carbon dioxide for centuries - compost is not as long-lived in that respect.
@@DWPlanetA : you make a good point - the host soil needs to be maintained but composting has so many positives - in reducing a number of important GHG emissions compared to landfill/incineration.
I'm going to make a biochar pyrolysis reactor for my food forest!
It's a pity biofuelwatch is so prominently cited here. This one-woman-show is against everything related to biomass, by principle, systematically questioning established science. That is not credible criticism, it is activism.
If it is a useful product than we should make and use it.
It should only be used for existing waste streams, ie. it is not suitable for a circular environmental economy application.
So could it help transform deserts into lush vegetation? The green belt to hold back the Sahara might usefully consume biochar created from stubble created in Europe?
Biochar may impact the soil sturcture positively and can potentially increase fertility. Also, you might want to watch our video: "Can India's Great Green Wall stop desertification?" ruclips.net/video/g59CelQPX74/видео.html. Please share what you think in the comments. 🌸🌲🌲🌲
Biochar is somewhat similar to the Cinder extracted as a waste product from brick factories and Thermal Plants.
It's good as long as it's regulated.
I don't think, we can use biochar as fuel. Since, if it so, then it is not biochar ..... it is just charcoal, instead.
By pyrolisis process, its self. Once the biomass has been in biochar form. It does not have any lignin of which has been turned to syngass and bio-oil. And its hemicellulose of which is volatile carbon, has been converted to fixed carbon. That's why biochar has much higher porosity and much lighter in weight.
With pyrolizing temperature process of >700C, depended on its retention time. It will be closely turned to bio graphite.
Char is an amazing material because of its water holding capacity , but like anything dont over do it.
To become biochar, charcoal need to be activated with beneficial bacteria. At least this is what I heard.
@@lifeinaustralia6415I wonder if that would help against fertilizer run-off for commercial farming.
Not a bad thought TaLeng 🤔Quite possible.🙂
That just speeds the process but it is not a requirement. Alternatively you can put 50g/m² every year.
Such a good turkish accent, like the accent.
I mean if people stopped trying to get a profit motive out of biochar and instead governments would use it of its intended purpose then it would be a good way of getting Carbon
Biochar sounds like a silver bullet - implausible. Until you go through a mountain of research that has happened in the last 20 years. This super simple, cheap material, especially as a soil ameliorate, is incredibly useful.
For me biochar is really not a solution in it's own right, but then none of the technologies I am integrating at my upcoming Regenerative Resource Network is a solution in their own right... rather it is the integrations that I'm employing. In that context, currently I see biochar as a very small cog and one that could be a pain in the neck but won't be because we'll be locking down it's optimal use cases. For me, going directly for biochar from biomass is a huge waste of resources. I'd rather put the feedstock into my holistic system and I'd really be treating any biochar as a peripheral. It certainly isn't the low hanging fruit but done in the right way, it has it's place. If scientists are saying they don't know exactly how it works, I'm quite surprised. Go to a rural area, build a massive complex of high rise buildings and tell everyone they have to breed fast enough to populate the million fold increase in living space and they have to be productive at work too... umm that will take a while and might ruin the place. They might take so long to fill the new apartments that the buildings themselves are starting to fall down. Also, in life, pathogens are in a minority, but they thrive where there is imbalance, biochar won't probably directly support pathogens but it does change the playing field enough to mess up the balance, taking longer for beneficial biome to win over. As another commenter noted, it needs to be encouraged or it takes a while and you may lose the shirt off your back waiting for the balance to restore. Starting a company who's sole purpose is to make biochar, for me, is like making a high-tech horse carriage mass production line.
Well, the biggest source of waste material for biochar is probably the sludge from waste water treatment plants. But that has its own set of problems.
6:24 "if its used to replace coal burning, then it is no longer eco friendly". HOW!?!
If it replaces mining hydrocarbons from the earth, it must be better. srsly, how??
Hey, what the reporter meant there is that even though it could be a better alternative to coal - it is by no means then eco friendly any more.
That's called charcoal!!!