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.
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.
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.
Biochar is still a pretty new concept, but results are promising as a potential overall carbon negative process.
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.
we should turn food waste into biochar instead of letting it turn into methane in landfills
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.
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.