“What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.”
I agree, Michael. We need sales to show utility. It seems whatever simple idea works, experts can’t t sell it, instead want to immediately add more good thoughts to the initial idea instead of actually selling the first good simple idea to get it working in real life with real people buying in, not demonstration sizes, but actual real volume.
Examples of steps needing political sales:
1. If large amounts of biomass were burned in a big trench flame cap method and quenched or snuffed, it would be a good thing. Cutting, chipping, picking up and distribution to managed fire trench would all be a good sell, reduce volume, store carbon. Just leave it in the ground, build another trench once filled. Repeat.
2. Once established, some trenches could use quenching liquids from feed lots with sanitary costs charged. This combination, choosing feedlot urine for example and making the feedlot pay for distribution and safety disposal. Sell that idea. Some trench’s left alone with char for other uses.
3. Once that is established and working, trenched product could be mined and sold with organic labeling instead of trying to compete with inorganic chemicals by testing everything, I would only test for toxic metals and toxic organic screen, make sure finish mix is below minimum levels. Sell the idea of safe organic material, use material in city lots and take pictures before and after, continue selling to people the idea, the reality of the existing steps. Tours with school children. Talks with slides to nursing homes, an underused group. Captive audience, workers bored, even half page picture flyers next to droolers, O’s and Q’s are read by visiting family gratefully. My congresswoman and her two sisters visit every nursing home and sing old songs for 10-15 minutes. It is unbelievable how effective that is with family just to know she came. We need to sell each small idea one at a time, and share feedback.
4. Methane capture for fueling trucks that pick up the original biomass for trench burning could be added and that good idea sold to our body politic as a good thing replacing diesel on trenching equipment.
Realistically, at best each of those steps would take a minimum of 3 to 5 years to get appropriate land, equipment, manpower, supervision and safety, and have continued free advertising to sell each existing process well before introducing some possible next add-on step. Each of these steps if halted would still be a good thing.
We need to learn to sell, bite size. Each worker in the plant needs to be sold on what a good thing they are doing.
Great if you could get it to go in NYC. My previous experience with the City Council, neighborhood politics, etc. leads me to think that this is another great possibility that the City will not be able to handle.
Spent years trying simply to reach Bloomberg, the most daring and forward looking mayor since LaGuardia, to propose biomass energy from the City's dead trees. Currently all collected and chipped. Some used as mulch. Almost $20 million worth landfilled.
Too radical for NYC, environmental and cost savings notwithstanding.
This is, I think, the real challenge we face. Like you and Mike and many others on this list, we know char works and we know that the tech isn't rocket science. What remains beyond our reach is the organizational and political savvy to move people to action.
In our Region there is a reasonably simple yet efficient plant that uses “dry” digestion facility that generates CH4 for the national pipelines and electric generation from the domestic food waste … supporting a population of nearly 1 million people
60000 ton of green waste become 8,5 million kWh and 2 million cubic meters of CH4 and fully digested and stable compost for the vineyards
For an aerial view of the plant
Da: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Inviato: martedì 20 novembre 2018 06:57
A: biochar <biochar@...>
Oggetto: Re: [biochar] Re: The Pros and Cons of New York’s Fledgling Compo st Program: NY Times
And generally produces a lot of it, as do many ill-managed "composting" operations.
Here is another great idea with serious "negative externalities" if the potential risks are not accounted for in design.
Considering the CH4 and NOx emissions even of good composting, we might want to reconsider the climate consequences of composting all of the City's garbage unless we can design a system better than that in place at its current landfill destination.
Waste food can be used for producing methane. Yours Karve
The short answer.......create a market for food residue compost before creating capacity to make it.
Market creation.......As a way to improve urban storm water management, one could propose to increase the Soil Organic Matter (SOM) content in every green space in and around the city to greater than 15%..... Increasing the SOM also increases water holding capacity and results in less runoff....... Start with Central Park.......
Also change the language used from waste to resource...... Words have power......