[Terrapreta] Making charcoal in a barrel

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Dave K,

Well, Dave, I don't know about any of that?  It sure seems like it would be hard to quantify those kinds of "opportunity costs" or "opportunity savings".  I can't quantify any of them either.

I lean towards not making what looks like a bad first step.  In an isolated analysis, open burning and open air charcoal production just have too many demerits for me to consider it as useful.  Doing it on a massive scale just seems like more of a bad idea to me.

Consider this a somewhat educated opinion.  Ignore it at your will.  If you participate on a grand scale doing it, I think others than me might be looking more closely at your production methods.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: code suidae<mailto:codesuidae at gmail.com> 
  To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Making charcoal in a barrel


  On 9/24/07, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> wrote:
  > I said this guys heart is in the right place, but his methods are not
  > clearly thought out.  He should not propose the simplicity of making
  > charcoal in a barrel, outside, will save the world.  On a massive scale,
  > actions taken like this will plummet the world even faster.

  Are you sure? If small-scale (relatively 'dirty') production were done
  on a massive scale, for the purpose of increasing the productivity of
  the soil to grow food non-commericaly, one would expect an equally
  massive, but (hopefully) sustained, reduction in GHG-producing
  activities associated with the commercial production of food. One
  might imagine also huge numbers of surburbanites so busy putting up
  tomatoes from their gardens or learning new recipes for their fresh
  produce that they spend less time driving around looking for stuff to
  buy to fill up all their free time.

  My point is that the calculation to determine if the GHG's released by
  somewhat inefficient small-scale production of biochar seems much more
  complicated than simply GHG's released vs. carbon sequestered. There
  is an associated change in behavior resulting in a sustained reduction
  of GHGs that might mean that the net effect is positive, even
  considering the poorly-controlled charing process.

  You are asserting that it is, in fact, self-defeating. I'm just
  looking for some justification that this is true, beyond your honest
  word that it is so.

  > As for the nom-de-plume; do you think I should adopt "ArrogantSOB" ?

  Lol, no, too obvious :*) Try something with a little cynical humor.

  DK
  -- 
  "Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." -
  M. King Hubbert

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070924/0a152ece/attachment.html