I mention this because I think the carbon sequestration is significant, and the water/nutrient holding capacity is critically important, and equally valuable on (many, many) small city lots, as it is on acreage. This form of biochar, while non-toxic and natural, may not be optimum, but letting the 'perfect be the enemy of the good' can be self-defeating, perhaps :)
Tom Rodgers wrote:Does the crushing pressure of compressing briquets not collapse the very porous nature of the charcoal thus working against the very idea of surface area which in its part makes the value of char so high? I am sure the longevity is still there, but 1 gram of char can have the surface area of 2 tennis courts or more, and I would think that a visual microscopic inspection should provide a observation that at least leads in a direction of an answer.
Hi Tom. If you were to crush it to single walls then you will loose the micropores, but not the nanopores that reside within those walls. This will reduce the water holding capacity within the Biochar, but the nutrient retaining and redox properties of the Biochar will remain. Not ideal, but still quite useful.