LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from Curbina

That’s precisely why Biochar is a great tool, it couples with something we have to do (crop producing) and sequesters a fraction of that carbon in the cropping soils while enhancing their productivity.

Yes, charcoal resists decomposition, perhaps for hundreds or thousands of years. Not as long as solid coal buried deep underground, but for a long time. See:

"More important, unlike other organic fertilizers, charcoal is very stable and it will not decompose to carbon dioxide. So once applied, it will stay in soil for hundreds to thousands of years."

Charcoal May Help Improve Soil Quality

Researchers say that adding charcoal to soil may provide more benefits for long-term soil quality than compost or manure. It could also be used to sequester…

www.npr.org

That is why you sometimes see the charred remains of a burned tree in a forest that has been there for a long time. It is also why people in Japan used to make the outside walls of houses and barns with charred wood. (I guess they still do, but you don't see it often.) I think I have seen this in New England as well. Much as I deplore Wikipedia . . . see:

Yakisugi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ash is no good for sequestration because the carbon is gone, as I said.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, charcoal resists decomposition, perhaps for hundreds or thousands of years. Not as long as solid coal buried deep underground, but for a long time. See:

A few years back they pulled up from the bed of the Thames the wooden supports of a Pre-Roman docking platform. The buried section had been deliberately charred before being punded into the mud, and was very well preserved (they could still be used for dendro-chronological as well as radio-carbon dating. So, around 2,000 years old.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, charcoal resists decomposition, perhaps for hundreds or thousands of years.

Hundreds of years would be long enough to fix global warming. By the time hundreds of years pass, I am sure people will devise other ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. I recommend growing trees and burying carbon, but perhaps a better method will emerge 100 years from now.

People have proposed machines to do this. I don't like that idea because I don't like to see millions of machines making noise, taking up space, and costing money. I prefer to see trees. They do the job for free. Also, most of those mechanical methods sequester CO2, oxygen as well as carbon, and that greatly increases the mass of sequestered material. They have to mix it into concrete or something, which increases the mass again. More mass means more work, more holes, more disruption.

Perhaps a better mechanical method will be found, that removes only carbon and produces nearly pure lumps of carbon. They can be buried or shipped to Mars if there is a market for it.

Of course there is some market for carbon, and for lumber for that matter. With my tree-to-charcoal method, you don't have to bury all of the charcoal. Use as much as you like for other purposes. The cost would very low. You can use some to improve the soil as described above. I guess you can use some to make carbon filament for airplanes and bridges, and maybe even houses and cell phone cases with 3-D carbon filament printing.

Some people have misunderstood what I propose. I am not suggesting we should remove every last ton of deadwood. Some number of rotting trees are essential for the ecosystem. However, modern forests in the U.S. and Japan have too much deadwood. (I don't know about Europe.) It shades out some species, and causes hot forest fires. In the past, there were periodic forest fires in North America that kept deadwood from piling up. We don't allow forest fires these days, so we need to remove the deadwood by other means. The forests at state and national parks are open and easy to walk through because the deadwood has been removed. We should make more forests like that.

We should also use these robots to remove invasive species, such as English ivy in North America.

English Ivy (Hedera helix)

Quote from Alan Smith

A few years back they pulled up from the bed of the Thames the wooden supports of a Pre-Roman docking platform. The buried section had been deliberately charred before being punded into the mud, and was very well preserved (they could still be used for dendro-chronological as well as radio-carbon dating. So, around 2,000 years old.

The opposite has been happening in New York City. In the 1970s they built pedestrian boardwalks along the Hudson River. The Hudson was terribly polluted back then, with low oxygen and not much life. Since then, water quality has improved a great deal. Fish and microorganisms have returned. Oysters are being seeded and they are coming back in numbers not seen since the 19th century. It is great news, but it means the pilings for the boardwalks are rotting away. They are being replaced with steel or treated wood, I think.

The Sumida river in Tokyo has also been cleaned up. They are seeing large numbers of fish and many species that have not been there since the Edo period.

It goes to show, we can fix problems. Not completely. Not 100%. But we can make things much better than they are, often at a moderate cost. Often at no cost -- at a profit! Property owners will pay you to thin out forests and remove deadwood. Tourists will come when rivers are cleaned up and pleasant walkways installed.

From the 'Times of India'. short article.

Charred piles and posts used for Greek and Roman bridges and foundations have been found in almost perfect condition after more than 2000 years. That’s a pretty effective record without chemicals I would say. An argument could be made that charring might be a possible lumber option aimed at the sensitive green building market in lieu of chemically treated lumber. I would think it easy to adapt the existing drying kilns and machinery to perform this process.

Quote from Alan Smith

An argument could be made that charring might be a possible lumber option aimed at the sensitive green building market in lieu of chemically treated lumber. I would think it easy to adapt the existing drying kilns and machinery to perform this process.

That is an interesting idea. Charcoal is made in a low oxygen chamber. In ancient times it was big pile of wood with dirt over it. The charred walls on Japanese buildings are made with open flames.

I think existing drying kilns could not reach high enough temperatures to char wood.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think existing drying kilns could not reach high enough temperatures to char wood.

Quite right they couldn't - anyway most modern kilns use very little heat, but cryo-dehumidifiers which work out almost as fast and cheaper to run.

If I was to design a modern method for charring lumber I would be tempted to experiment with red-hot powered rollers that simultaneously charred the timber and propelled it through a tunnel. A smart colour sensor system could adjust the speed of the rollers to ensure reasonably uniform charring. Using a system like that would be much more controllable than naked flames- and the wood would be heated very briefly when in contact with the rollers. It could be cooled with a blast of air after leaving the rollers to avoid problems when handling or stacking.

Design royalties in cash please. ,

@Jed, Curbina

I think you guys are missing the point about Biochar. It's my understanding that in the rain forest it naturally occurs that most of the fertility is in the forest canopy. The soil has very little due to the persistent rains. Charcoal has excellent properties for removing and retaining minerals. So, it's no surprise that the Biochar has stored and accumulated minerals related to fertility for those 7000 years. What is interesting is the ability of crops to access those minerals.

Here, where I live, this place was under a mile of ice some 12000 years ago. Since the ice melted the fertility of the soil has built up (six inches of soil only). So, this area has a fragile ecosystem. That's why I am concerned by removing too much fertility from the forests.

By the way, when a forest burns the ash remains, so fertility is preserved.

Quote from GRMattson

What is interesting is the ability of crops to access those minerals.

Research shows they access the nutrients indirectly via a fungal/bacterial biome the co-exists with the root hairs. Curbina probably knows a lot more about this fascinating eco-niche.

Some people (even NASA) claim that the Amazon Basin is fertilised by dust from the Sahara desert. Some researchers are obsessed with the transport of minerals, through atmospheric dust, around the planet. The link below suggests Amazon dust comes from lots of places. But what if the "mysterious phosphorus" was actually created in situ (through biological action)?

Dust arriving in the Amazon basin over the past 7,500 years came from diverse sources - Communications Earth & Environment

Mineral dust deposited over the western Amazon region through the Holocene is not limited to a Saharan source and instead has diverse origins, according to…

www.nature.com

The transport of minerals by dust and other means around the world is a fascinating topic. I worked with Russ George in my lab for a couple of years. Russ is a major but often controversialcontributor to this field currently working in the USA. He pointed out something I found interesting, every year perhaps a million tons of Pacific Salmon migrate up rivers in Canada to spawn and die, thus bringing key minerals to the interior.

Quote from GRMattson

I think you guys are missing the point about Biochar.

I have not discussed biochar's ability to fertilize, or improve forest quality. I do not know anything about that. I'll take your word for it. The only thing I have addressed is the ability to sequester carbon. It seems that biochar lasts for hundreds of years, or possibly thousands of years. Buried coal or charcoal lasts for millions of years. But, in this case, thousands of years would be fine. As I said, people should solve the problem permanently long before thousands of years elapse. A 1000-year "temporary" fix is fine.

In the New York Times article I quoted in my paper, the guy from the UN remarked:

"Trees can quickly and cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere today. But when companies rely on them to offset their emissions, they risk merely hitting the climate 'snooze' button, kicking the can to future generations who will have to deal with those emissions. . . ."

I wrote: "That is true." I added a footnote:

"True as far as it goes, but excessively pessimistic. If we planted mainly oak trees, which are the dominant species in North America, we would press the snooze button for 300 years, the lifespan of many oaks. Surely this would give our descendants time to find a more permanent solution."

@Jed

If you want to solve the carbon problem, solve the China problem.

Quote from GRMattson

solve the China problem.

Wait for SarsCoV ++++

Quote from GRMattson

@Jed

If you want to solve the carbon problem, solve the China problem.

Why not the US problem?

The US still produces far higher per capita carbon emissions than China

China is only the biggest polluter if population size is not taken into account.

www.newstatesman.com

SearchMe

Well, we have to protect the rest of the world from China. More seriously, I would be happy to stop burning wood if they would extend the natural gas service the three miles to my house. Of course, they're now talking about an impending natural gas shortage. Well, that would reduce the national U. S. carbon foot print.

Quote from Alan Smith

Research shows they access the nutrients indirectly via a fungal/bacterial biome the co-exists with the root hairs. Curbina probably knows a lot more about this fascinating eco-niche.

Does the biome have a particular attraction for the Biochar or is it normally found in soils?

A great deal of modern agriculture in the U. S. uses large amounts of fertilizer (raising corn, for example), which can result in pollution of water resources. I wonder if adding Biochar to the soil could lower overall costs, maintain yields, and reduce pollution.

Quote from GRMattson

I wonder if adding Biochar to the soil could lower overall costs, maintain yields, and reduce pollution

All three.

Quote from GRMattson

If you want to solve the carbon problem, solve the China problem.

China is making rapid progress converting to renewable energy. Their consumption of coal as a percent of total energy is falling rapidly. They have installed more wind and solar than any other country in recent years. See p. 22:

https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a5f208e9-f66b-4d31-b5af-87d581b70c18/Coal_Information_Overview_2020_edition.pdf

The U.S. and Europe are also making good progress.

Now that wind and solar are cheaper than coal, the transition will speed up. Money is the best incentive.

Quote from GRMattson

Does the biome have a particular attraction for the Biochar or is it normally found in soils?

There is a biome almost everywhere, rare in deserts, but it still exists. There are endigenous bacteria in the deepest holes and the deepest oceans. They have survived on the outside surface of the space station.

The biochar dnels a distictive Biome of its own of course, but the important part is the interface biome, between the char and the roots. That is an important 'transit camp' for minerals and salts that assist plant growth.