• Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Okay? And how are we supposed to deal with the emissions currently in the atmosphere? Even if we abandon all technologies that generate greenhouse gases overnight, we still have shit in the atmosphere warming the planet.

    The most compelling strategy I’ve heard is biochar. You immolate organic matter in a medium like nitrogen so you don’t get carbon dioxide, and then you bury the char or use it as fertilizer. The char is relatively stable so shouldn’t create much in the way of carbon dioxide once it’s formed, and because you make it in an oxygen-less atmosphere you don’t get more greenhouse gases from making it.

    • bentropy@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Absolutely, I also think Biochar is very promising as one way to recapture atmospheric CO2 and to compensate further emissions.

      While I understood the production process to be a little different, the benefits of Biochar can’t be ignored.

      • low in energy consumption
      • low in recourse cost
      • very good scalable
      • no hidden science or process
      • the stored carbon can be used as a soil amendment
      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        The process may be a bit more complex than I understood, but my understanding is that the gist of it is to “burn” plant stuff in a way that doesn’t create carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One way of doing that is to use a chamber flooded with nitrogen or similar inert gas. No oxygen means carbon can’t bind to two oxygen atoms to create carbon dioxide.

        • Surdon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m confused, how can you ‘burn’ anything without oxygen? Burn literally means to oxidize