3 ms·
This seems like a nice improvement for processing biomass waste - less of the input energy wasted compared to traditional charcoal production. - retains coal
by jabl 7y ago
This seems like a nice improvement for processing biomass waste
- less of the input energy wasted compared to traditional charcoal production.
- retains coal advantages compared to less processed biomass, namely higher heating value meaning cheaper to transport, and easier to store (doesn't rot if it sits in a pile outside)
However, as a side note I'm very sceptical wrt bioenergy. Using biomass waste for energy is fine if there's no other use for it, but growing biomass for energy production really isn't. Next to climate breakdown, the most serious ecological problem we're facing is biodiversity loss, largely due to conversion of wilderness to farmland. We really need to get past the idea that every hectare of land has to be put to "productive" use. Much better to produce our energy with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear, and rewild nature to the extent possible.
- reaperducer 7y agoWhile I don't disagree with you, it's worth noting that wind, solar, and hydro all have major impacts on nature. As long as everything goes to plan, nuclear seems to have a limited impact on nature. I'm not sure about geothermal. I wonder how the potential energy output of a solar farm compares to a biomass farm.
- adrianN 7y agoCovering about 2% or so of the world with solar panels and wind turbines would provide for our energy needs. Biomass would require a lot more land.
- layoric 7y agoMain problems with bio fuels of any kind is hard to avoid bad actors finding externalities and just burning non waste, and it’s still burning. I non market or very mature regulation would be needed to make it a good alternative but even then the scale of energy is very small last I read. I’m still skeptical on nuclear due to its low risk but severe outcomes when it goes wrong, build time and end of life issues/economics (solar might have end of life issues too, less so wind it seems). Solar and wind imo still winning on real world offsetting thanks to their relative simplicity for rolling out at scale. A hydrogen based economy would also marry nicely with excess production at peak times.
- Smoosh 7y ago> nuclear seems to have a limited impact on nature I mostly agree, but don't forget about the mining operations: https://phys.org/news/2019-05-uranium-heart-kakadu-cleanup.html https://phys.org/news/2019-05-uranium-heart-kakadu-cleanup.h... https://goo.gl/maps/8NVrpwSy7mCmJzq69 https://goo.gl/maps/8NVrpwSy7mCmJzq69 https://goo.gl/maps/ZdKKHc4jHBBrMcio8 https://goo.gl/maps/ZdKKHc4jHBBrMcio8 And in the USA: http://cleanupthemines.org/facts/ http://cleanupthemines.org/facts/
- jabl 7y agoEven including uranium mining, nuclear power has lower material throughput than, well, pretty much any energy source including wind and solar. With wind and solar you're harvesting a pretty diffuse energy source so lots of (mostly) steel and concrete needed per unit of energy produced over the lifetime of the plant. Also, with a closed nuclear fuel cycle we could reduce the amount of fuel mining by a factor of 100 or abouts. Heck, we could shut down mining for a couple of centuries while we burn all the uranium we have already dug up. So far there's little interest in that, though, as uranium is pretty cheap.
- reaperducer 7y agoHeck, we could shut down mining for a couple of centuries It seems to already be heading that way. Last week it was announced that the uranium mine in Grants, New Mexico will not reopen because the price of uranium is so low.
- jabl 7y agoHigh intensity biomass farming requires an order of magnitude more land area than solar. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12433 https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi...