3 ms·

It's crazy that we've know how to create carbon negative energy for a hundred years now but no one seems to be aware. We were running cars off of wood-gas durin

It's crazy that we've know how to create carbon negative energy for a hundred years now but no one seems to be aware. We were running cars off of wood-gas during WW2. By gasifying unused woody biomass (wood chips, corn husks, walnut shells, pellets made from essentially trash, etc.) you can run an internal combustion, steam, Stirling or turbine engine and produce char ash (biochar a.k.a terra preta) which can be buried in the soil to enrich it, and also lock away the carbon for hundreds to thousands of years (depending on who you ask). This is carbon negative energy. Next time you go for a walk, look at all of the tree branches and burnable fuel all over. Think of all of the forests that went up in flames in Norther California. All fuel that could have been put to use. Plants are great solar accumulators. We should be putting them to work collecting energy and CO2.

bubblewrap 7y ago
Biofuels do exists, but afaik they were a net negative so far. You can't simply grow so many plants, and you also need plants to eat, not just burn.
- nanomonkey 7y ago
  I'm not talking about biofuels, I'm talking about Syngas, a.k.a producer's gas or wood gas. Gasification is the process to create these fuels, using pyrolysis (heat) to break down organic material into tar gases and carbon (charcoal). Then using the hot charcoal to reduce the tar gases into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The process is used for so called "clean" coal plants, but can be utilized on any organic material. All Power Labs and a few other companies are making small scale (20kW - 150kW) power plants, but mostly it's just used for running logging mills (off sawdust and end cuts) as it's a good source of heat and power. Note: one only utilizes the unused portions of the plant with gasification, so it doesn't affect the supply of edible plant components. If anything it causes the cost to go down, as your utilizing the waste components (corn cobs, walnut shells, etc.) to produce the power and heat to run your farm, or selling it to neighbors. Gasification also helps with removing the methane that would normally be made when these materials are composted. Methane is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Yeah I don't believe it is so simple, otherwise, why wouldn't people use it en masse? You assume the non-edible parts of farmed plants would be sufficient to provide all the energy we need. That seems unlikely to be the case. Why would it be different than Biofuel, which ended up costing rainforset for planting plants that could be turned into fuel?

bubblewrap 7y ago

Biofuels do exists, but afaik they were a net negative so far. You can't simply grow so many plants, and you also need plants to eat, not just burn.

nanomonkey 7y ago
I'm not talking about biofuels, I'm talking about Syngas, a.k.a producer's gas or wood gas. Gasification is the process to create these fuels, using pyrolysis (heat) to break down organic material into tar gases and carbon (charcoal). Then using the hot charcoal to reduce the tar gases into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The process is used for so called "clean" coal plants, but can be utilized on any organic material. All Power Labs and a few other companies are making small scale (20kW - 150kW) power plants, but mostly it's just used for running logging mills (off sawdust and end cuts) as it's a good source of heat and power. Note: one only utilizes the unused portions of the plant with gasification, so it doesn't affect the supply of edible plant components. If anything it causes the cost to go down, as your utilizing the waste components (corn cobs, walnut shells, etc.) to produce the power and heat to run your farm, or selling it to neighbors. Gasification also helps with removing the methane that would normally be made when these materials are composted. Methane is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Yeah I don't believe it is so simple, otherwise, why wouldn't people use it en masse? You assume the non-edible parts of farmed plants would be sufficient to provide all the energy we need. That seems unlikely to be the case. Why would it be different than Biofuel, which ended up costing rainforset for planting plants that could be turned into fuel?