111–120 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the part about only needing to fill it once.
I don't follow this
[1] https://www.groasis.com/en/planting/what-is-capillary-water-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permaculture don't work with modern tools, it works well in your garden, but require so much labor that you are economically doomed at scale.
Sorry, this is patently false. Permaculture isn't about "going back in time" its about re-jigging things so that you are not having to put in a tonne of nutrients only to take them out again/let them be blown away. For example in wide open pastures it can be as "simple" as planting trees for nuts/fruit/lumber widely spaced to cut down on wind. not only that but it cuts down on the need for water because. This makes u…
It's not clear to me what the source of water is relative to the size of the forest, because IIUC, in dry regions like Egypt (and California, Israel, etc), unless you use drip-irrigation with targeted crops (which won't grow a forest), agriculture requires a huge amount of water compared to domestic water consumption, so the wastewater stream from the latter intuitively can't be nearly enough to support a forest. Per…
The point is to get rid of the wastewater safe/cheap/efficient rather than grow the forest. Water consumption isn't the concern. They certainly wouldn't be doing drip irrigation with wastewater because wastewater would clog the equipment. Evaporation is expected and desired. Treated human waste is full of pharmaceuticals and phosphates from detergents. It should not be used to grow food unless it is feed for animals.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your water needs might drop significantly once the forest is established. Depending on the trees, the established canopy might drop the evaporative losses dramatically.
True, but I think the GP's danans overall point still stands. Household water consumption (and waste) just isn't that much. It takes a lot of households to support a pretty little forest. Maybe a mature canopy increases your efficiency by 50% or more, but you're still working with a pretty small volume of water.
Under the current models we send most of the rainfall immediately back into rivers + oceans. By creating inland forests we get mini little "oceans" to evaporate and move water for a 2nd rainfall. Each cycle the plants + ground hold onto a little, but mostly it can be evaporated and re-rained again and again. Deserts have the issue that they have little to hold onto the water, and to reevaporate it for subsequent rainfalls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is to get rid of the wastewater safe/cheap/efficient rather than grow the forest. Water consumption isn't the concern. They certainly wouldn't be doing drip irrigation with wastewater because wastewater would clog the equipment. Evaporation is expected and desired. Treated human waste is full of pharmaceuticals and phosphates from detergents. It should not be used to grow food unless it is feed for animals.…
> It should not be used to grow food unless it is feed for animals If the potential toxins on the crop are the concern, these animals can also then not be for human consumption (directly or indirectly). In a lot of cases they probably can't even produce things for human consumption. There's not a whole lot of use left once you eliminate those use cases.
Also, eating food irrigated with waste sludge is a great way to catch e-coli. Treated waste is aerated and anaerobic pathogens like that largely neutralized, but it could still happen. If a hog is sick/dies, it's not as big a deal as a human.
Is this a good thing? I mean it’s certainly interesting but as others have pointed out the desert is a natural ecosystem and it makes a lot more sense to reforest areas of previous growth than doing this. That’s not really my problem with it though. Surely from a climate change perspective this is really just introducing a fairly large carbon sink that will eventually release the carbon in short order if the irrigati…
Yes, it is. The Sahara was green some 15000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
[1] https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-saha...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evaporate the brine and sell it as artisanal sea salts?
Already there is a backlash against sea salt in the artisanal-product-buying community because it has more microplastics than certain mined sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It should not be used to grow food unless it is feed for animals If the potential toxins on the crop are the concern, these animals can also then not be for human consumption (directly or indirectly). In a lot of cases they probably can't even produce things for human consumption. There's not a whole lot of use left once you eliminate those use cases.
It depends on what is in your wastewater of course, but most toxin typically concentrates in the leaves rather than the beans/corn. From there, the toxin remaining concentrates mostly in organs which can be discarded, rather than the meat. Each step in the food chain acts as a filter. You do not want to consume the crop directly and have buildup in your organs. Also, eating food irrigated with waste sludge is a great…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a solid method of producing biochar without any infra at a small scale. I'd be willing to do the lab and field work if somebody wants to help build experiments and test theories. So far I don't see any negatives to where I have applied biochar. The positives could be anything but my guess is the trial needs to be long term. Hit me up on YouTube or my contact page on my blog (link in my profile). YouTube - http…
Have you seen Cody's Lab's "Will it Charcoal" series, also on YouTube? Might be interesting to compare your approach: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhDkilF5o68NFFy5p5nM... Anyway, gave you a sub and liked the video on fresh salsa. Home grown salsa is incomparable to any other.
You could think of charcoal as a "substrate" or "substrata" which living organisms can live on and with in.
My process is a simple fire pit, filling over the period of a couple hours from the bottom up (it's fun you can cook on it too) and at then end once the pit full top you douse the entire thing with water. This is the stereotypical dug in, campfire.
During this process material is placed on-top of the burnt material, which slows it's burn (due to lack of oxygen) and the material will transition to charcoal but not further to ash.
There is very little smoke and the coals stay very hot all throughout the process. Due to the lack of oxygen, the syn gases are instead burned fully instead of going into the atmosphere.
Anyways, I can create a 5 gallon bucket of charcoal in a couple hours.
The next step is charging the charcoal, since it has nearly infinite microscopic holes in the material, it acts as a sponge with immense surface area. The charging process fills the holes slightly with goodies for microbiology to utilize, for example nitrogen.
Eventually the charcoal itself starts to be break down (over tens, hundreds, and potentially thousands of years) and serves as a "battery" to fertilize plants and other higher life forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a solid method of producing biochar without any infra at a small scale. I'd be willing to do the lab and field work if somebody wants to help build experiments and test theories. So far I don't see any negatives to where I have applied biochar. The positives could be anything but my guess is the trial needs to be long term. Hit me up on YouTube or my contact page on my blog (link in my profile). YouTube - http…
Have you seen Cody's Lab's "Will it Charcoal" series, also on YouTube? Might be interesting to compare your approach: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhDkilF5o68NFFy5p5nM... Anyway, gave you a sub and liked the video on fresh salsa. Home grown salsa is incomparable to any other.