Soil Combustion - To get a fire you need three (3) ingredients; ignition, fuel and oxygen. In the soil nitrogen is always present (ignition), bring in raw material (fuel), air follows (oxygen), and without smoke, it all burns up.
what happens if charcoal absorbs nuclear radiation? anti-radiation or even keep radiation longer? which if a disaster occurs all farmers must dispose of their charcoal that has been planted for decades at a very high cost.
I'm trying to understand this biochar thing, but isn't it true that burning is always involved? Will someone please explain how all that smoke in the air can be a good thing? What am I not understanding? How can you burn up rice hulls or tree trunks or whatever and actually benefit the planet? How is the tera preta any different than the slash 'n burn destruction in the Amazon today? Anyone?
The difference is that when a piece of dead plant matter, like a fallen tree, is left on its own, most the carbon is returned through decomposition by bugs and microbes. If it's turned into biochar, then some is returned to the atmosphere through the burning, but much more is locked in the biochar than compared to just leaving it alone. Additionally, the heat from the charring process can be used as part of a thermal power plant
You're not burning this stuff, or most of it: you pyrolyze it, cook it in the absence of oxygen, and gather and use the volatiles that would burn if you let air reach it. You burn the gasses that cook off that won't condense to run the pyrolysis process: they are mostly hydrogen so you make mostly water vapor burning them. You can burn the rest of the gasses much more cleanly than open-burning slash, to generate electricity, you are left with 20 to 50 percent of the original mass as char, and you could scrub the particulates and CO2 out of the exhaust: Innovator Energy has an affordable technology to do that. Or you can condense the heavier gasses into pyrolysis oils, from which you can extract many of the chemicals we now get from petroleum; or burn them in an oil furnace, replacing petroleum fuel oil. Any way you do it, it is much cleaner than open burning, much less smoke, and a chance to capture and sequester some or all of the carbon in the biomass, which is mostly carbon.
When I see something being promoted like this I follow the money. The people that are promoting this are the same people that that promoted the use of: synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, GMOs, mega monoculture farms (Frankenfood factories) and things like that. The results have been negative.The land, water and food has degenerated but that is okay because the promoters have made enormous profits and that is what it is all about. Charcoal is made from organic matter. Organic matter is needed to make the best fertilizer and it is natural fertilizer. What will be used a fertilizer if all available organic matter is made into charcoal? Here the plot thickens. Rock phosphorus is getting scarce and another source has to be found. There is phosphorus in organic matter. Make charcoal and Phosphorus trioxide is formed. Presto a renewable source of phosphorus to make synthetic fertilizer. There are usually two reasons why people do things: one which sounds good and the real one. Would you support converting organic fertilizer into charcoal if they told the truth?
eph5121 Jamie Holland is an oldhuman technology.. Developed as many indepedently in different societies.. At different times. No tag is assignable as to where this or that comes from.
Good talk. Josiah is a great ambassador to charcoal amendments.
Help save the world and get paid for it is very smart and it is cool to see how he's implemented it to change our world.
I agree with Sri Ram, talk is amazing but cameraman failed to capture the presentation which would have added much to the talk.
Soil Combustion - To get a fire you need three (3) ingredients; ignition, fuel and oxygen.
In the soil nitrogen is always present (ignition), bring in raw material (fuel), air follows (oxygen), and without smoke, it all burns up.
Excellent!!
Great!💛
lazy or distracted camera man couldn't get the whole presentation wit slides but concept is amazing
😊🎉
what happens if charcoal absorbs nuclear radiation? anti-radiation or even keep radiation longer?
which if a disaster occurs all farmers must dispose of their charcoal that has been planted for decades at a very high cost.
I'm trying to understand this biochar thing, but isn't it true that burning is always involved? Will someone please explain how all that smoke in the air can be a good thing? What am I not understanding? How can you burn up rice hulls or tree trunks or whatever and actually benefit the planet? How is the tera preta any different than the slash 'n burn destruction in the Amazon today? Anyone?
The difference is that when a piece of dead plant matter, like a fallen tree, is left on its own, most the carbon is returned through decomposition by bugs and microbes. If it's turned into biochar, then some is returned to the atmosphere through the burning, but much more is locked in the biochar than compared to just leaving it alone. Additionally, the heat from the charring process can be used as part of a thermal power plant
Also, very little to no smoke is produced if the biochar is made properly, as there is very efficient combustion of only the wood gas part of the wood
You're not burning this stuff, or most of it: you pyrolyze it, cook it in the absence of oxygen, and gather and use the volatiles that would burn if you let air reach it. You burn the gasses that cook off that won't condense to run the pyrolysis process: they are mostly hydrogen so you make mostly water vapor burning them. You can burn the rest of the gasses much more cleanly than open-burning slash, to generate electricity, you are left with 20 to 50 percent of the original mass as char, and you could scrub the particulates and CO2 out of the exhaust: Innovator Energy has an affordable technology to do that. Or you can condense the heavier gasses into pyrolysis oils, from which you can extract many of the chemicals we now get from petroleum; or burn them in an oil furnace, replacing petroleum fuel oil. Any way you do it, it is much cleaner than open burning, much less smoke, and a chance to capture and sequester some or all of the carbon in the biomass, which is mostly carbon.
We know how they did it.
smarten up
Only carbon remaining ?
Charcoal is charcoal
Good salesman
What?? It's not a magic bullet? Sounds like a godawful amount of hard work. Count me out
When I see something being promoted like this I follow the money. The people that are promoting this are the same people that that promoted the use of: synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, GMOs, mega monoculture farms (Frankenfood factories) and things like that. The results have been negative.The land, water and food has degenerated but that is okay because the promoters have made enormous profits and that is what it is all about.
Charcoal is made from organic matter. Organic matter is needed to make the best fertilizer and it is natural fertilizer. What will be used a fertilizer if all available organic matter is made into charcoal? Here the plot thickens. Rock phosphorus is getting scarce and another source has to be found. There is phosphorus in organic matter. Make charcoal and Phosphorus trioxide is formed. Presto a renewable source of phosphorus to make synthetic fertilizer.
There are usually two reasons why people do things: one which sounds good and the real one.
Would you support converting organic fertilizer into charcoal if they told the truth?
I don't trust people with fish print shirts.
Charcoal is 10 dollars
Its the same thing
this is an old polynesian trick.
eph5121 Jamie Holland is an oldhuman technology.. Developed as many indepedently in different societies.. At different times. No tag is assignable as to where this or that comes from.