Jump to content

Talk:Biochar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Charcoal Particle Size .

It's logical to think that the size of charcoal particles in the soil is important . If the particles are of the smallest size they must have the greatest surface area which is crucial for maximising the Cation Exchange Capacity . Also , if the particles are small then worms can ingest the charcoal and intimately mix it with mineral and organic matter , continually bringing it to the surface in their wormcasts , so that it becomes part of the living topsoil . I imagine that worms are capable of crushing the charcoal into even smaller particles in their digestive system . If the pieces of charcoal are too large they would slowly migrate deeper into the subsoil as topsoil is deposited ontop . Comments welcome . Flumstead (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL "well-known global brand name and US registered trademark Agrichar"

This might just be a piece of self promotion. It is definitely unsourced, has no place in the lead and would best be deleted immediately. 124.169.62.198 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could well be; ideally someone who knew something about this would fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarify please

Quoting the first line: "Biochar is a charcoal produced from biomass that can store carbon."

IMO this is confusing because I think biochar, charcoal, and biomass all "store carbon".

Does this sentence mean:

a) that biomass (which stores carbon) can be used to produce charcoal. Such charcoal is called "biochar."

or b) that biomass can be used to produce a type of charcoal (called biochar). Biochar stores carbon.

or something else?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between biochar and regular charcoal anyway? As far as I understand there is none regarding the way it is produced, and regarding chemical and physical properties. The only speciality of biochar seems to be the usage. It's not primarily used as fuel but as fertilizer and for soil improvement, and the positive side effect of carbon storage. Is that correct or am I wrong? --Tetris L (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Biochar treatment of sewage

BBC Radio had an article 16 March 2009: "Environment analyst Roger Harrabin reports from a sewage plant in Germany and explains how biochar works." any further information for this article? Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7945000/7945415.stm 217.43.48.229 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pyrolysis units

Following pyrolysis designs should be added to article: http://www.bioenergylists.org/taxonomy/term/9 http://www.feasta.org/forum/files/ravi_kumars_pyrolysis_unit_184.gif

focus on non-fume releasing units —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.176.136 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Usage

perhaps it can be mentioned that biochar sources are best sources from dead material (eg fallen off leaves, needles, ...) as using living trees (eg in plantations for biochar) collect co² themselves; where dead material desintegrates and releases co²/methane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.203.223 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This huge link farm was tagged four months ago and nothing has been done about it. I've moved it here. Please do not insert anything from this list into the article as an external link unless you're sure it conforms to all Wikipedia policies, especially external links (WP:EL). --TS 10:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-Added again 25 Jan 2010

Would this comment be correct?

Is this comment correct in it's form? 

 http://diyaquaponics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=101&t=815&start=10

Quote: "The natural biochar is an entire ecosystem made up of many different organism's. Without these organism's it is charcoal. By adding charcoal to the soil with the addition of composts and manures the charcoal is innoculated with these organisms it will become biochar. But it will take many years to become anything like the naturally. Occurring biochar. All that is happening is you are dumping charcoal on your dirt."Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.173 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What does it mean?

I read the article. I expected to be told what Biochar actually is. I am none the wiser. This information ought to have been in the first paragraph.

-A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.233.59 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

on 'History' 'Uses' & essence of biochar

I want to point out that the article for Terra Pretta says one thing and the article for Biochar says a conflicting thing on the subject of 'history' and 'uses' of biochar.----

Saying that native indians are believed to have used biochar as a way of soil enhancing is basically extending the term 'biochar' to every substance that contains carbon. Considering the article also goes into the benefits for the environment in CO2 capturing, I find it hard to believe that 'burning agricultural waste' as the indians did is a way to benefit the environment and to 'capture' CO2 coz the CO2 was already captured in the agricultural waste before it was burned.

Perhaps we should change the article on 'slash and burn agriculture' into one that also hails it for its environmental friendliness.

The way biochar is defined and described in the article make it a very environmentally unfriendly product. Burning stuff to make what is basically charcoal???? It would only make sense if the biochar is derived from CO2 before it was emitted and it was CO2 coming from an existing process that previously released its CO2.

Somehow I get the impression that the entire article goes no further than saying that 'hydrogen cars are the future coz you only need water for that' or that electrica cars are better for the environment 'coz an electric car has no exhaust gasses'

In noway will the burning of any biomass be 'carbonegative'(withdraws more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases) as the article states.

Described as it is in the article, its use to enhance depleted soils is nothing else than: 'lets burn some more forest to use the leftovers to enhance soil were we burned forest and depleted the soil before'

The only way in which biochar can be beneficial is as said if it draws from CO2 coming from 'necessary' burn processes

Truthfully the entire article is a mesh of 'green' slogans that make no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.148.107 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Is it bothering anyone else that most of the lead for this article makes no sense at all? Rumiton (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The first three sentences as it is written now I can follow, but the last sentence which rambles on about oxygen makes no sense: "Carbon dioxide capture also ties up large amounts of oxygen and requires energy for injection (as via carbon capture and storage), whereas the biochar process breaks into the carbon dioxide cycle[clarification needed], thus releasing oxygen as did coal formation hundreds of millions of years ago.[citation needed]" I think this is referring to the basic chemistry of the carbon cycle, but oxygen shouldn't be the main point here. We're talking about carbon sequestration, and the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is what is important; no one is running out of oxygen. Unless I'm missing the point here, I would remove this sentence from the article entirely. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the part and optimized the intro http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biochar&diff=443310379&oldid=443310283 Gise-354x (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Section on Animal Feed

I don't want to delete it, but if it is false it shouldn't be in the article. It should be cited or proven wrong and deleted. Just saying the claim is dubious in the section doesn't fix the issue. Tempust (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the part. Gise-354x (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Crop Yields, Soil Erosion and Biochar as Fertilizer

This needs it's own section and writing. Gise-354x (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Biochar is not terra preta

Terra preta is soil that contains char and other ingredients. Biochar is one of the raw materials for making terra preta. It is incorrect to equate the two. Jojalozzo 14:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio in Emerging commercial sector

I removed a paragraph from Biochar#Emerging commercial sector that was added here from the cited article in Nature (447) "A Handful of Carbon" until someone has time to rewrite it. Jojalozzo 15:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How is Biochar different from Charcoal?

I do not see anything in the definition of biochar that does not precisely describe charcoal. My impression is that the term "biochar" is a recent coinage meant to provide a particular socio-ecological cover for charcoal (and therefore appears to be at least a little deceptive).

Mukogodo (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

One possible distinction is that charcoal is usually defined as being produced from wood, whereas biochar can be made from any biomass. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

One other distinction is that charcoal is compleatly carbonized but in char charbonizitation is not compleated.Seniorsag (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

nonsense concept?

How much sense does it make to char plants to offset the CO2 emissions while we dig up coal and burn it? Wouldn't it be more effective to burn wood instead of coal where this is possible and leave the coal in the ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darsie42 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Burning coal gives better furnance efficiency than burning biomass, that is why you made charcoal from wood before burning in metalworking since you get more heat and can reach melting point for iron! (Reason: you get less fluegases since there is no chemically bound "water" and thus lose less heat in the fluegases)Seniorsag (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Media, and Source Publications

The link for (citation) ^Laird 2008 , "Journal of Agronomy" Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).   (in the 'References' Section [Database 1]) is not accessible for me. Can anyone add a bit of WikiMedia Viewer?  24.246.236.191 ( L Tischmann)

  . L Tischmann — Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Top

This page should include a link to "Wood Gas". The pyrolysis of wood produces a solid; the charcoal, and also gasses; the "wood gasses". These are all related concepts. I haven't figured out how to add links or I would do it myself. Alexander SelkirkAlexselkirk1704 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would tell us how to make biochar at home. Is low temperature 150 degrees c or 1000 degrees c? How can we capture the gases and vapors to avoid poluting the atmosphere? Ccpoodle 23:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the Terra Preta Discussion List in the Further Reading section. The discussion archives contain a lot of information on making biochar, on both a home and industrial scale. Chuck Y (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Biochar seems to be produced somewhere between 400-500 celcius in the EPRIDA process , some people call it low temperature some medium temperature . But basically charcoal produced at any sort of temp. is useful in the soil , all char performs most of the functions that it's supposed to , it's just some char last longer in the soil than others and is slightly better at holding on to nutrients . Flumstead (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The presence of condensed woodgas aka wood vinegar in low/medium temp charcoal is a critical distinguishing characteristic of biochar from high temp char and its subset, activated charcoal. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By condensed woodgas/wood vinegar do you mean bio-oil ? Also , if bio-oil is the important factor in bichar , would it be a good idea to add the bio-oil that separates out in pyrolysis to the charcoal ? It would be useful if there was more info about this . Flumstead (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


The story is a bit biased. What you create is charcoal and you bury that to 'store' carbon in the earth. At the same time we draw fuel from the earth to burn that. So actually what we do with biochar is to burry fuel while we are digging it up somewhere else. So, although it is a good thing to reuse any kind of material, including carbon, biochar is hardly the solution for global warming, even if indeed greenhouse gasses would be the culprit. Ed August 14-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.132.159 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous is not quite true, What you make char from is not good fuel and you get some fair liquid and gaseous fuel and CHAR. You also get rid of harvest refuse (which you are not allowed to burn in the fields any more), that means you save some energy in preparing the field for planting. Plowing in the refuse is not as good since it takes more energy in plowing and sometimes you have to stop to clean the plow and it decomposes (fast in the tropics slower in temperate climate but still it goes in a few decades, char lasts) releasing nutrients when there are no crop to use it so it leakes out in the drainage.Seniorsag (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Biochar is not simply *any* charcoal. It refers to a specific subtype of charcoal made under a certain set of temperature/oxygen conditions that is *much* more effective than normal charcoal at improving soil fertility and has longer-lasting effects (Terra Preta patches exist dated over a thousand years old and still fertile). Thus the first sentence is drastically inaccurate- it is not simply "charcoal", it is a *subtype* of charcoal. The description needs to somehow be qualified or people will think that it's simply referring to charcoal off their BBQ grills (which won't have the desired effect if added into soil). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.12.147 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biochar. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Acidity levels

Just a matter of curiosity, but is it not possible to produce char that can be used in neutral or alkaline soils? I know that there are charring techniques that remove much of the acid content of the result, and if the char can be made low-acidity, would it not be a good supplement for low-acidity soils?98.197.193.213 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Biochar a scam?

Why is it that burning the Amazon forest or other forests is bad ecology but burning wood to create "biochar" is "good"? I wonder whether "biochar" is marketing-based rather than science-based.

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that simple burning emits all co2, while if you burn it to biochar, some amount of the co2 is stored in this biochar. If you let all the fumes go (thus without carbon capture & storage), some co2 is still released (dough less than with simple burning).
It isn't a scam. Charcoal does not easily decompose in most environments. That means the carbon becomes sequestered for a decent period of time. It might be flaky concept if you are burning oil to char the wood, but that is another issue. The term "biochar" is a gimmick because charcoal production wouldn't get the same investing interest. Burning huge patches of the Amazon has a bunch of issues beyond climate change as you are destroying habitat for plants and animals, including Humans. Unlike charring scrape wood.Tempust (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing "biochar" for $200 for 55 lbs. I make 10 wheellbarrows of it at home for nothing by simply picking up all the deadwood from our oaks & burning a roomsize bonfire. My char makes beautiful grill charcoal & it crumbles right into the ground. Mankind has been doing this for about 5000 years now, "Biochar" IS a scam Isobel Chaveh (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Monbiot article dead link

The article cited in the 'Critism' section, 'Woodchips with Everything' by George Monbiot, is a dead link. The version of the article published in the Guardian is here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/24/george-monbiot-climate-change-biochar Danylstrype (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Monbiot article in 'Criticism' section

Monbiot's journalism has made important contributions to advancing the public debate on climate change, but his writing often lags well behind the science, and reflects strong confirmation biases (eg biofuels are an inherently bad idea). It needs to be pointed out that the Monbiot article cited in the 'Criticism' section is from 2009, and most it's contents were rebutted that same year in Guardian response articles:

Monbiot has a well-known antipathy to the very concept of "biofuels". The "Woodchips with Everything" article mostly consists of his well-rehearsed criticisms of "first-generation liquid biofuels", criticisms he's been pulling out since the late 90s to make strawman arguments against any project that involves using any kind of "biomass" to yield energy. As usual, these arguments are only peripherally related to biochar, specifically corporate geoengineering proposals based on the general concept. He only makes one referenced claim that actually relates to biochar as a technique, "in some cases charcoal in the soil improves plant growth, in others it suppresses it". That claim was based on a 2009 by two researchers associated with BiofuelWatch. In 2011, they released a report that updated the article. In a nutshell, it says a) that the "biochar" concept covers a wide range of practical techniques and chemical compositions, b) the peer-reviewed literature related to biochar was based on a relatively small number of short-term studies, and c) there is a lack of clear evidence that biochar has the benefits associated with it by proponents: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2011/a-critical-review-of-biochar-science-and-policy/ Danylstrype (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biochar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Independently

In the first paragraph we read "Independently, biochar can increase...". What is that word "Independently" doing there? 86.132.221.189 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Some source here:

I won't add from them myself, as they relate to work done by Donna Udall at Coventry University, where I am Wikimedian in Residence. The latter paper is open access. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HIGHTEE.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mliao2. Peer reviewers: Dparida7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs section on controversies to improve objectivity

This story appears rather biased to me. I don't know the ins and outs of this subject but it seems strange that such a long and detailed article doesn't contain any critical information. Especially for a subject related to anthropogenic climate change AND geoengineering. Searching the internet on biochar + controversies yields many links to reputable sources. It's also strange that a few other people have raised this issue here already but apparently without avail. I think an extra paragraph mentioning controversies / critique / discussion about biochar would be in place. It will make the article more balanced. As said, I'm far from an expert on this issue and don't have time to research it now. Hope somebody can. I did find some references to peer-reviewed articles on the uncertainty surrounding soil organic carbon persistence in soils in general, and biochar in particular:

- Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kogel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D. P., Weiner, S. & Trumbore, S. E. 2011. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478: 49-56.

- McHenry, M. P. 2009. Agricultural bio-char production, renewable energy generation and farm carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty and risk. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 129: 1-7.

- Wardle, D. A., Nilsson, M.-C. & Zackrisson, O. 2008. Fire-Derived Charcoal Causes Loss of Forest Humus. Science, 320: 629-.

- Steiner, C., Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., de Macêdo, J., Blum, W. & Zech, W. 2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant and Soil, 291: 275-290.

--M. van Geelen (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MvanGeelen. And I offer this article[1] which provides some criticism of biochar. It rebukes claims that biochar is an effective method of carbon sequestration. The article cites external sources. -- JoeyTwiddle (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Like JoeyTwiddle, I also agree with M. van Geelen. In fact, I'll go a little further and say this article comes across as pro-incineration propaganda bolstered with published sources that are not acknowledged as peer-reviewed scientific journals and clearly biased toward incineration in general. Just because something is posted on the internet doesn't make it true or a reliable source. This is as far as I'm willing to go on the subject: If you live in a mud home with dubious ventilation and no gas or electric stove and no chimney, a "biochar" rocket stove that outgases fewer carcinogens and smoke might be less objectionable than the practice of cooking on in indoor open wood fire pit. Realistically, there is no paper that has objectively proven that this "special" form of charcoal is any better than any traditional cultural charcoal creation methods the world over at sequestering carbon into the ground, assuming you'll bury rather than than burn it as fuel. I defy anyone to prove that biochar as a soil amendment will bind carbon in the soil for a thousand years. That's not how any of this works. Lastly, the term "Biochar" comes across as a fancification term to whitewash the burning of organics and compostables so proponents can pretend what they're selling is wholesome. There's a whole world of anti-incineration organizations out there who will be happy to produce papers that counter the information in the bibliography for this article. For me, this is the camel with its nose in the tent. Clearly the next step is convincing people that incinerators are good. And they're just not. [2] Gr33nman (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think "controversies" is a rather vague section heading. Perhaps put the problems in the existing sections? Or have a better new section heading. I have added a sentence doubting scaleability. Anyway feel free to amend the article further if you have recent reliable sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The second reference listed here below ( The Waste to Energy Myth) has nothing to do with the concept of biochar, It's about normal waste incineration (residential, industrial,...).
Differences:
Waste incineration: burns everything (including all sorts of materials made from crude oil). Biochar: uses only biomass, especially such with a high C content ("rather wood than leaves etc.")
Waste incineration: burns everything until only ashes (only Mineals on no Carbon) remains. Biochar: first seperates light contens (Hydrogen etc.) in the form of gas from carbon, then burn only the gas
Waste incineration: combustion as hot as possible to avoid hazardous compounds. Biochar: optimal process temperature for separation to gas and char4o
Waste incineration: Due to the origin of the fuel, raimains need safe and controlled deposits. Biochar: charcoal can be sequested in soil or can be used as addition into animal food CatronV (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2018/05/biochar-technology-factsheet/
  2. ^ The Waste to Energy Myth


Cite error: There are <ref group=Database> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Database}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biochar/Archive_1&oldid=1224910119"