I think it is likely due to the Nitrogen fixing capabilities of legumes.  I
think it is logical to assume that fresh biochar acts like wood chips and will
absorb N from the soil, making it unavailable to plants until the wood chips
break down.  Wood chips can also store the N and prevent it from leaving the
site until they are ready to release it.  For this reason, compost made from
wood chips and fresh manure takes longer to mature but retains more N fertilizer
than composted without wood chips.

Legumes counter the initial N restriction and add more N to the soil, which
biochar might then retain for later use by the plants.  The biochar won't break
down as readily as the wood chips so the effects should be qualitatively
different over time.

This is actually a quite simple process, C plus N in balanced amounts are
required to break down plant tissues into compost, and the processes continue as
long as there is moisture.  So the process will pull in the necessary nutrients
until the process has changed to a new process.

Timing is important as well.  N will be released over time without something to
hold it back, either a biological process or a biochar or wood chip additive
should work.  Lots of work could be done here to test out different additions to
manure.  There is a point where the compost is ready and needs to be applied to
the soil for use by the plants before it evaporates into the atmosphere.

Likewise, we investigate adding N to biochar.  Urine, whether human or animal,
is generally sterile and is high in N.  The biochar keeps down the smell and
retains the nutrients for use by the plants.


Soil management is key.  Undisturbed or lightly disturbed soils with a perennial
cover crop will retain carbon and nutrients that tilled soils will not.  A broad
fork, or bio-fork, will loosen soils without damaging soil structure.

Drought is always destructive to soils.




Birgit




--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com, Alex English <english@...> wrote:
>

>
> He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
> However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
> include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
> calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
> effects on pH.

Letters: Climate after Copenhagen

After Copenhagen, we will have to engineer the climate

Alex (cc 2 lists):

1. Thanks again for good information - this time on soils. The results
for peas was spectacular (more than a doubling); Mr. Ken Allen should be
thanked a lot for doing such nice complete tests. He looks a little hard
to convince, so it will be great to hear his test results next year for
two new crops. I guess he only did two of his three possible rotation
tests (no tomatoes?)

2. While on the Burtgh site, I read your paper for the NE Biochar
conference. Also very nice. Anything else there that we should be reviewing?

3. You referenced Thomas Nussbaumer and I found some very nice material
from him on combustion - almost on pyrolysis. Did you hear his talk in
Canada that you referenced" [Here:
http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/Environment/EMEP/conference_2007/Nussbaumer_Thom\
as.pd

4. In googling, I also found this one:
[http://www.verenum.ch/Publikationen/Biomass-ConfOA6.4.pdf] which looks
good on theory - lots of dimensionless numbers for us to ponder. I am on
my way to the library to follow up on several leads in there. Do you
know of any similar references?

5. The plot of his that you gave at the NE conference and that you
referenced (my [4] above) seems to show conclusively a huge [two order
of magnitude in hydrocarbon release] advantage of a two-stage (primary
and secondary) air supply. Have you seen this plot anywhere else? It
seems to have applicability to the recent discussion of pollutant
release for rocket vs pyrolyzing stoves on the stoves list.

Ron


Alex English wrote:
>
> Dear Biochar users and researchers,
>
> We haven't yet done enough with our char but we did give it to an
> organic gardener with decades of experience. Read some brief pdf accounts;
> http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/450/
> <http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/450/>
> http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/451/
> <http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/451/>
>
> He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
> However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
> include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
> calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
> effects on pH. We did have soil tests done on the treated and untreated
> rows of peas, and no significant difference was quantified except for
> copper and one other trace element that escapes, what passes for, my mind.
>
> What I would like to suggest for some future biochar tests is that
> rather than compare biochar treated rows with untreated rows, we might
> explore splitting a biochar sample and ashing one half, then both
> plots/rows would receive the same amount of ash residue with only one
> receiving carbon char.
>
> As with anything, there are potential problems with this approach , but
> I thought the idea might at least generate some shots across the bow as
> we rearrange our chars on the deck of the Titanic.
>
> Alex
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.116/2580 - Release Date: 12/21/09
12:13:00
>
>

Dear all,

I thought you'd like to see a kind note from Dr Pachauri, IPCC chairman,
to acknowledge Peter Read's contribution to the scientific community,
which will be greatly missed.  He was tireless in his efforts to explain
and promote biochar techniques, as a form of "carbon stock management"
geoengineering to help the world avoid climate catastrophe [1].  Dr
Pachauri is persuaded that such techniques "to suck [greenhouse] gases
out of the air" may be necessary [2].

But you may not know that Peter was also helping to promote "solar
radiation management" geoengineering [3] to save the Arctic sea ice,
having delivered an open letter to Dr Pachauri [4] at the Climate
Congess in Copenhagen, this March.  He was one of a handful of
scientists prepared to admit that our civilisation is in such a
dangerous situation that we have to resort to various geoengineering
techniques as well as emissions cuts.   The fact that Dr Pachauri
recognises the danger from Arctic sea ice retreat should give us hope
for appropriate action, with due urgency, in 2010 .

Seasonal greetings,

John

Chiswick, London W4

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/27/biochar
[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938298.ece
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
[4]
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html

“We are still in charge of our own destiny” is the hopeful message from Fred Pearce (“Why Copenhagen Matters”, in the 10-page special, 30^th November).  Pearce describes how civilisation has become critically dependent on stable climates and constant sea level, which the Earth’s climate system has provided for the past 8000 years or more.  The whole system is liable to violent disruption because of the colossal amount of CO2 that has been put in the atmosphere. Leaders from many nations are gathered in Copenhagen to agree actions to curb emissions and stop the amount of CO2 from growing, but (and this point is missed by most commentators) these actions will not halt the global warming arising from the existing CO2. Although our destiny in the long term depends on emissions reduction, it critically depends in the short term on avoiding certain effects from the existing CO2 – in particular two tipping points: the release of methane in permafrost, which has the potential to cause runaway warming, and the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, which has the potential to produce 7 metres of sea level rise.  The dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice (with an incredible 40% reduction for the past three years) could trigger these tipping points, through regional warming, as reflective ice gives way to sunshine-absorbing open water.   Our leaders seem blissfully unaware of this hazard, because their advisers have chosen to ignore this “elephant in the room” – effectively a weapon of mass destruction!   Probably the only way to save the Arctic sea ice, in the short time available, is through the emerging discipline of geoengineering, for example using stratospheric haze for regional cooling and marine cloud brightening for cooling the waters entering the Arctic Ocean.  A team of top scientists, engineers and economists needs to be set up to work out exactly what to do, and how quickly and safely it can be done.  And our leaders need to see that it gets done at top priority.  Otherwise we may lose control of our destiny and Pearce’s worst nightmares could become reality.

---

R K Pachauri wrote:
This message has been sent again as previous one bounced.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Nissen,

Thank you for your letter.  I agree with you that the Copenhagen Conference
of the Parties is a very important conference, and that we must act quickly
to address the threat presented by global warming.  I also agree with you
that carbon stock management, heat transfer and radiation management
present promising prospects.  This is why we have included geoengineering
for consideration in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Geoengineering
will be dealt with as a mitigation option.

With kind regards,

R. K. Pachauri
***************************************************************
R K Pachauri, Ph.D
Director-General, TERI
Habitat Place, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
Tel: +91 11 24682121 or 2122
Fax: +91 11 24682144 or 2145
www.teriin.org
************************************************************************

BIOCHAR FEATURED AT HS&T CONFERENCE 13, March 17-19, 2010
Northeastern University, Boston

A biochar session has been added to the program of an international conference
that over the years has fostered many advances and collaborations.

The Humic Science and Technology Conferences cover natural organic matter,
agriculture, water treatment, soil enhancement and C-sequestration. HS&T
Conference 13, to be held March 17-19, 2010 at Northeastern University, Boston
will feature a section on biochar research and applications. This will be a
great opportunity for cross fertilization of ideas on enhancing soil fertility
and C-sequestration.

You are encouraged to submit a paper for oral presentation and register for the
Conference. The deadline for abstracts is January 31, 2010. For full details,
see www.hagroup.neu.edu or call 617-373-2834.

We look forward to seeing you in March!

Geoff Davies and Elham Ghabbour
HS&T Conference Co-Chairs

--- On Tue, 12/22/09, peter ongele <peterongele@...> wrote:

> From: peter ongele <peterongele@...>
> Subject: Biochar
> To: biochar@...
> Cc: biocharfarms@...
> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 5:47 AM
> Following scientific  chemical
> behaviour effects of biochar in the soil to the plants,
> according  Folkes respond to my previous letter, this
> means  its still hard to transcend biochar in large
> scale to farmers for soil fertility enhancement in large
> scale. For the first time in my biochar trial in farmer
> participatory research approach programme, at the early
> stage of maize plants, about one month old- we experienced
> plants withering despite the continual rain which was there,
> but with the continual heavy rains the plants  picked
> up and turned to be the best in the yields of the year. What
> neutral advice, guidance or policy which should go to the
> farmers taking care exhausted inorganic and organic soils?
> Depleted, infertile and likely rich soils? Testing soil
> chemistry is very expensive, most farmed farms in Africa
> soil chemistry is not known, how would this be taken care of
> to avoid incorrect biochar applications which might be
> dangerous to the small
>  farms? Peter.
>
>
>      
>

Dear Biochar users and researchers,

We haven't yet done enough with our char but we did give it to an
organic gardener with decades of experience. Read some brief pdf accounts;
http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/450/
http://www.burtsgh.com/index.php/download_file/-/451/

He wisely expected that legumes might fare best in the first year.
However the ash components of the char might well be the reason. They
include some readily available nutrients after all. Likely oxides of
calcium and potassium top the list, Then there are the immediate
effects on pH. We did have soil tests done on the treated and untreated
rows of peas, and no significant difference was quantified except for
copper and one other trace element that escapes, what passes for, my mind.

What I would like to suggest for some future biochar tests is that
rather than compare biochar treated rows with untreated rows, we might
explore splitting a biochar sample and ashing one half, then both
plots/rows would receive the same amount of ash residue  with only one
receiving carbon char.

As with anything, there are potential problems with this approach , but
I thought the idea might at least generate some shots across the bow as
we rearrange our chars on the deck of the Titanic.

Alex

• Your previous  use of organic fertilisers improved the amount of mycorrhizal fungi in your soil. When you added char,  those fungi flourished and increased the cooperation with the plants , which in turn improved the plant production which in turn improved the myccorizal fungi ... and so on
• Your uncle had impoverished the fungal life in his soil by using  inorganic fertilizers. (The plants got nutrients without 'paying' for it with sugar from their production). Thus, the fungi population decreased. When he added char, he couldn't get very much effect because the fungi hadn't the chance to react, because they weren't there! Adding compost tea or other sources of fungi, and feeding them with some sugar (20 kg/ha, or 2 grammes per sq.m) would increase the rate of recovery.
• 45 kg char per sq.m  in one instance is very much. Consider, it is like putting 450 tonnes per hectare!
  Char has a good affinity for nitrogen. This amount of char would probably remove a lot of nitrogen from the soil  water solution and 'hide' it for the plants. When the fungal biomass increase, they will probably get it back, but it will take some time (see above)

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Howes (vegan)

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 6:06 PM

Subject: [biochar] Re: Trees!! Damn them all! NYT 20 Dec 2009

 

Geralyn,

I assume you like the taste of cow and won't give it up even to save the human species and yourself. Are you American by any chance? (Americans are renowned for eating two pound steaks) (but they are not the only ones).
***
All I am doing is pointing out what we have to do to survive. If you don't like it then that is your problem.
***
I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain that God does not exist.
***
I've just eaten, by pure coincidence, Brussels sprouts.
***
I am not trampling on anything, just writing some good advice for any that will listen.
***
I am all for a diverse ecosystem, not millions of acres of fields full of cows.
***
The new forests will, along with the contiguous old forests be full of animal life (which you can go and shoot, club, strangle, slash or electrocute to you heart's desire)(it's your karma).
***
And by the way, my name is Howes, not Howe.
***
And it hardly matters what I say if my words are ignored by those who put themselves before all others.

Have a nice life.

Cheers,

Bob
***

--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com, back40 <back40@...> wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps have mercy on those poor Brussels Sprouts and the endless
> holocaust they endure<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html>
> .
>
> On 12/21/09, Geralyn D <palmtreepathos@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind =-)
> >
> > but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > ~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need"
> > cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse
> > tastes nice to a cat.~~~
> >
> > You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob. Some who say that the Bible shows
> > that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even
> > made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission
> > to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out
> > laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous
> > than God, Bob, can you?
> >
> > You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of
> > various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it! Do you
> > advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
> >
> > I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed for
> > your attention,
> >
> >
> > http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx,
> >
> >
> > and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle
> > and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. http://vimeo.
> > com/8239427 <http://vimeo.+com/8239427>
> >
> > You really seem to think your view is superior to the other reasonable
> > posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU
> > enough credence...
> > *
> >
> > Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > *~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need
> > to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle
> > and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
> >
> > Bob, can you give just a little? Geralyn
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Jones
>

Geralyn,

I assume you like the taste of cow and won't give it up even to save the human
species and yourself.  Are you American by any chance? (Americans are renowned
for eating two pound steaks) (but they are not the only ones).
***
All I am doing is pointing out what we have to do to survive.  If you don't like
it then that is your problem.
***
I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain that
God does not exist.
***
I've just eaten, by pure coincidence, Brussels sprouts.
***
I am not trampling on anything, just writing some good advice for any that will
listen.
***
I am all for a diverse ecosystem, not millions of acres of fields full of cows.
***
The new forests will, along with the contiguous old forests be full of animal
life (which you can go and shoot, club, strangle, slash or electrocute to you
heart's desire)(it's your karma).
***
And by the way, my name is Howes, not Howe.
***
And it hardly matters what I say if my words are ignored by those who put
themselves before all others.

Have a nice life.

Cheers,

Bob
***

--- In biochar@yahoogroups.com, back40 <back40@...> wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps have mercy on those poor Brussels Sprouts and the endless
> holocaust they endure<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html>
> .
>
> On 12/21/09, Geralyn D <palmtreepathos@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind   =-)
> >
> > but Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > ~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need"
> > cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse
> > tastes nice to a cat.~~~
> >
> > You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob.  Some who say that the Bible shows
> > that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even
> > made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission
> > to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out
> > laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous
> > than God, Bob, can you?
> >
> > You trample on the evolutionary view that what has evolved(cattle of
> > various types) in the ecosystem is in fact a vital part of it!  Do you
> > advocate that man can safely remove from nature what has EVOLVED?
> >
> > I don't recall you commenting on the very thoughtful article directed for
> > your attention,
> >
> >
> >
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx,
> >
> >
> > and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle
> > and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way. 
http://vimeo.
> > com/8239427 <http://vimeo.+com/8239427>
> >
> > You really seem to think your  view is superior to the other  reasonable
> > posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU
> > enough credence...
> > *
> >
> > Bob Howe(vegan) says...
> >
> > *~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need
> > to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle
> > and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647
> >
> > Bob, can you give just a little?   Geralyn
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Gary Jones
>

Thank goodness BobHowe(vegan) believes in forests... the real kind   =-)

but Bob Howe(vegan) says...

~~~We need trees in the true sense of the word "need". We do not "need" cows and sheep. We value them simply because they taste nice, as a mouse tastes nice to a cat.~~~

You trample on the beliefs of many, Bob.  Some who say that the Bible shows that when God created the earth and it's systems he created cattle. He even made them domestic animals as opposed to wild ( even giving his permission to eat them after the flood). He (one who is opposed to abuse) even set out laws for sustainability and humane treatment. You cannot be more righteous than God, Bob, can you?

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Grass-Fed-Meat-Benefits.aspx,

and very provocative Video from Gary(back40) on the vital use of cattle and livestock of all sorts to replenish the soil in an amazing way.  http://vimeo. com/8239427

You really seem to think your  view is superior to the other  reasonable posters who try to interact with you....You say that we are not giving YOU enough credence...

~~~As I have said many times, but hardly anyone takes any notice, we need to replace cows with trees. A trillion trees for the billions of cattle and sheep etc.~~~ biochar/message/9647

Bob, can you give just a little?   Geralyn

Ron,
The website is clearly an eco tourism site.
The owner is
Dr Peter Schleifenbaum
Haliburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve Limited
RR #1
Haliburton, ON  K0M 1S0
Email:  halforest@...

I don't know him,yet.  He is an adjunct faculty member of the University
of Toronto. My understanding is that 40 some years ago he switched from
the standard forest "management" practice of high grading to low grading
harvest and that only recently are they starting to harvest quality
timber. They have two sawmills and produce log homes. The gasifier (from
India) for power production is being installed and they expect to yield
some char. Student/s? at U of T have begun to work on its role in
silviculture and I have a small role in  trying to provide them with
some suitable char made from their maple chips as they wait for their
gasifier to come on line.

I took a trip up last fall with my biologist kin to do their canopy
tour.   Basically walking the plank between pine trees half way up. The
story goes that they had a previous tour site that blew down in a
tornado. The local bed and breakfast and other accommodation providers
began to call with concerns about cancellations. Within three weeks they
had an entirely new one built at a new location. No small feet. It gives
you a good idea of the difference between public and private enterprise.

Anyhow it inspired me to build my own version, a rope ladder based on a
sailboats ratlines, to take me up into the canopy for a birds eye view
of my private natural surrounds. My son in law calls it the stairway to
heaven and that makes me, at 225 lbs, the led zeppelin.

Alex







Ron Larson wrote:
>
>
> Alex and list:
>
> I found the Haliburton site but nothing on harvesting, much less
> "gasification and biochar are in their plans". Anything more you can
> add? Any idea of the intended annual yield (per hectare)?
>
> I have had some discussions a year or so ago with the Menominee
> forest in Wisconsin (Native American owned as a mixed species forest
> with a present day standing forest and yield higher than existed more
> than one-hundred years ago. Everything around them has been cut down.
> I have talked Biochar with them. but no idea if they have any plans for
> it. Apparently a beautiful forest that one can barely tell is
> intensively managed for maximum profit (leave the tallest and
> straightest and take out the weakest, I am told - with annual (?)
> measurements and decisions on every tree (in a huge forest). No use of
> clear cutting. One can read more at :
> http://mtewood.com/menominee_forest_background.htm
> <http://mtewood.com/menominee_forest_background.htm>
>
> I think we promoting Biochar need to learn more about these sort of
> successes - and learn as well from Prof. Heinrich. I am sure that we
> can prove that Biochar will help keep these sorts of forests from being
> lost.
>
> Ron
>
> Alex English wrote:
>  > Mark,
>  > As a former hopelessly selective horse logger and farmer and current
>  > nature enthusiast with biologists for children, I am entirely
>  > sympathetic to these sentiments. There are a struggling few, like the
>  > Haliburton Forest, www.haliburtonforest.com who try to find a
>  > comprimise. Among other thing, gasification and biochar are in their
> plans.
>  >
>  > To the best of my knowledge, Prof Heinrich's wife is Rachel Smolker a
>  > researcher with Global Justis Ecology Project who are in league with
>  > Biofuelwatch. It will be interesting to see how the budding Vermont
>  > biochar movement find common cause with the biologists.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > Alex
>  >
>  >
>  > Mark Ludlow wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >> *OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR*
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Clear-Cutting the Truth About Trees
>  >>
>  >> *By BERND HEINRICH*
>  >>
>  >> Burlington, Vt.
>  >>
>  >> THE Copenhagen climate-change summit meeting is behind us, and did not
>  >> achieve what was hoped for. There was no lack of good intentions, but
>  >> they generated conflicts rather than solutions, and the product was a
>  >> weak agreement to disagree in the future. Forests were part of the
>  >> discussion, and several things were understood: carbon dioxide is a
>  >> potentially world-altering lethal pollutant, fossil fuels are the
>  >> problem, biofuels are part of the solution. But exactly how to pare
> down
>  >> the use of fossil fuels and switch to energy sources derived from plant
>  >> material? That is the problem.
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------
>  >
>  > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ----------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  > Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2576 - Release Date:
> 12/19/09 12:40:00
>  >
>  >
>
>

Does anyone not agree that we do a poor job of using biomass waste that is
available on a daily basis?

Do you agree that it defeats the purpose to create more biomass by harvesting
either trees (forest) or food crops?

Why do we not ask for and get more tax breaks and subsidies like solar and wind
to develop the infrastructure for more biomass use?

Do you agree that after we have all the wind and solar we need, we will still
need to eat and find a way to use/dispose of biomass?

Anyone willing to put their pocketbook up to match their beliefs?

I have been reading posts for awhile and lately this has become a group
dedicated to one upping itself, hence my joining.  I would ask that we be more
about substance than who is right.  Just because your right, doesn't mean you
need to say "I told you so".

Does anyone not agree that we do a poor job of using biomass waste that is
available on a daily basis?

Do you agree that it defeats the purpose to create more biomass by harvesting
either trees (forest) or food crops?

Why do we not ask for and get more tax breaks and subsidies like solar and wind
to develop the infrastructure for more biomass use?

Do you agree that after we have all the wind and solar we need, we will still
need to eat and find a way to use/dispose of biomass?

Anyone willing to put their pocketbook up to match their beliefs?

I have been reading posts for awhile and lately this has become a group
dedicated to one upping itself, hence my joining.  I would ask that we be more
about substance than who is right.  Just because your right, doesn't mean you
need to say "I told you so".

Thailand could likely provide a significant proportion of its energy needs
by pyrolyzing empty PET water bottles which are ubiquitous, rural and urban.
It's a beautiful country but totally trashed. (3-dozen visits in 12 years).
The King is...well...old! (But rightly admired and respected.)
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Ron Larson
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:26 PM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com; henry buehler
Subject: Re: [biochar] Thai

Henry - can you give us more information on this plant (name, location,
size, etc). After condensation, do we know if and how the exhaust gases
are flared? Do we know if any of the char is being placed in the ground?

Thanks for anything more you can provide.

Ron


henry buehler wrote:
>
> The wood processing plant is a tribute to sustainability, one of King
> Bhumibol's most popular themes. Pieces of wood from trimming the
> trees, dead wood and branches are converted into charcoal in the
> factory kiln. Smoke from the kiln is cooled to collect the condensate,
> which is later distilled into wood vinegar that is used to protect
> trees and plants from insects and to reduce farm smells among other uses.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.116/2578 - Release Date:
12/20/09 12:35:00
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links