• Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Okay? And how are we supposed to deal with the emissions currently in the atmosphere? Even if we abandon all technologies that generate greenhouse gases overnight, we still have shit in the atmosphere warming the planet.

    The most compelling strategy I’ve heard is biochar. You immolate organic matter in a medium like nitrogen so you don’t get carbon dioxide, and then you bury the char or use it as fertilizer. The char is relatively stable so shouldn’t create much in the way of carbon dioxide once it’s formed, and because you make it in an oxygen-less atmosphere you don’t get more greenhouse gases from making it.

    • bentropy@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Absolutely, I also think Biochar is very promising as one way to recapture atmospheric CO2 and to compensate further emissions.

      While I understood the production process to be a little different, the benefits of Biochar can’t be ignored.

      • low in energy consumption
      • low in recourse cost
      • very good scalable
      • no hidden science or process
      • the stored carbon can be used as a soil amendment
      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The process may be a bit more complex than I understood, but my understanding is that the gist of it is to “burn” plant stuff in a way that doesn’t create carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One way of doing that is to use a chamber flooded with nitrogen or similar inert gas. No oxygen means carbon can’t bind to two oxygen atoms to create carbon dioxide.

        • Surdon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m confused, how can you ‘burn’ anything without oxygen? Burn literally means to oxidize

    • Magrath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t understand. Biomass already isnt CO2. Why do we take an extra step?

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because when biomass rots, it creates CO2. By charring it you’re making the carbon more stable and less likely to become CO2 in the future. It also won’t rot when charred.

        • Magrath@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          So how do we produce biomass? Plant more trees? Which we already do. Then in how many year we cut it down and biochar it instead of using it reporposing it for something else? I’m kind of failing to see the benefit. Just seems like an alternative that isn’t really any better than some of the other good alternatives.

          • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Make algae ponds, harvest the algae, dry it, char it, bury it. Algae sucks up carbon dioxide like crazy, the downside being that it releases the carbon when it starts to rot. By charring and burying it, you’re helping to make sure that carbon doesn’t re-enter the atmosphere.

            • Magrath@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ah. I didn’t think of algae. Might be a good reason to harvest all the algae blooms from the fertilizer run off.