[GSBN] Straw Bale Construction Found to Be Better Carbon Capture Than Biochar in Study

[Derek Roff]

Hi, Laura, and GSBNers,

One of the foundational assumptions for the study is completely wrong- that there is any reason for biochar and strawbale building to be in conflict.  Of course, the creators of the experimental design would probably say that they weren't assuming resource conflict, just wanting to compare two emerging technologies.  Some of the assumptions arise from our societies, where proving one thing is better usually leads to discarding the other.  But to deter climate change, it is wiser to pursue all promising avenues of carbon reduction.  

Looking more into the details, strawbale building doesn't consume 10% of waste straw production in North America, and I suspect it is less than 1%.  It's probably similar elsewhere.  And straw is less than 10% of the readily available inputs for biochar.  Again, probably less than 1%.  So the impact of strawbale building on biochar resources is somewhere between 0.01% and 1%.  

It will take years before biochar advocates begin to utilize even a few percent of the available biomass.  In the same time period, if we could double the number of strawbale buildings built each year for a decade, we still wouldn't be using all the waste straw produced.  So while it is interesting to see how each approach helps sequester carbon, society should be developing and encouraging both technologies, rather than neglecting or discouraging either one.  

Of course, humans have a talent for fighting over scraps, while surrounded by abundance.  It's possible that our highly inefficient market system will succeed in putting these two uses into conflict, even though that is unnecessary.  I hope that a spirit of collaboration and reason will prevent that from happening.  

Derek

On Oct 17, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Laura Bartels wrote:

> I wanted to share this that popped up on my Google Alert for straw bale construction. Can anyone who is working more closely with these kinds of assessments comment on the validity of this study and the assumptions made?
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001188
> 
> Laura
> 
> Laura Bartels
> GreenWeaver Inc.
> 520 S. Third St., Suite 5 
> Carbondale, CO 81623
> 970-379-6779
> www.greenweaverinc.com
> 
> <clip_image002.jpg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN


Derek Roff
derek at unm.edu




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20121019/3a1c5346/attachment.htm>