• Magrath
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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 (She/They)@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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