• Bendavisunlv6@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A biochar of spent coffee grounds.

    Not coffee grounds.

    If you don’t know what biochar is, it’s high carbon material that’s left over after burning organic matter (think:wood) slowly under low-oxygen conditions.

    Biochar requires energy and emitting gases.

    It seems unfair to say that we’re saving on CO2 and methane from decomposition without also counting the cost of the biochar combustion.

    • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It seems unfair to say that we’re saving on CO2 and methane from decomposition without also counting the cost of the biochar combustion.

      Biochar is still a pretty new concept, but results are promising as a potential overall carbon negative process.

      • Bendavisunlv6@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Carbon negative when applied to soil. Making it is still a carbon releasing combustion process

        EDIT okay I’m wrong they are including the production in their calculations.

      • thorndike@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Biochar has been used for 2000+ years, so it is NOT a new concept. Look up Terra Preta. This is biochar enhanced soil found in the amazon.

    • anon6789@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wish they had a bit about that in the article itself, but they did link another article about biochar creation and its byproducts. I linked it in another comment here.

      I feel there’s a lot of assumptions here that no one actually reads articles.

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Most of us are from reddit and unfortunately that “jump to the comments to argue” mentality seems to have followed a lot of us.

        For example, I haven’t read the article. Just clicked into the comments to see what it was, found out it was coffee.

        I’ll go read it now.

        I’m back, the other linked USDA article about pyrolysis is fascinating. It’s not really clear on how much energy the process takes but they did mention it could (possibly) be self-sustaining. Really cool stuff!

    • Malgas@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is there a difference between biochar and charcoal? Because that description of biochar sounds like it’s just charcoal.

      • anon6789@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bio Char vs Charcoal: 6 Key Differences

        Similar, but more refined process to achieve specific characteristics in the end product, like oil>kerosene>diesel>gasoline.

        This article hints at a lot of interesting things, but doesn’t really go into any of them. I’ve learned a lot trying to answer the comments here.