4 ms·
What about biomass gasification? The fuel source is self replicating and solar powered (plants). It's carbon negative, as one of the byproducts is biochar, a.k
by nanomonkey 6y ago
What about biomass gasification? The fuel source is self replicating and solar powered (plants). It's carbon negative, as one of the byproducts is biochar, a.k.a. char-ash, which can be buried in the soil (terra preta) in a manner that not only locks away atmospheric carbon, but also improves the soil composition (more friability, absorption of nutrients and micro biodiversity). It also is a good use of dead standing biomass that would otherwise decompose into methane and carbon dioxide, or result in forest fires.
- acidburnNSA 6y agoIf your energy source works by combining C with O₂ to make CO₂, water, and energy, there will be a concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere that is incompatible with solving climate change, even if it gets pulled out at some later time. It's the equilibrium concentration that matters. Low-carbon, non-combustion sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, tidal) are the only way to go.
- nanomonkey 6y agoThe CO2 is pulled out of the air by plants, during gasification you convert some of this biomass into CO2, water and energy, by burning the syngas; and some you leave behind as biochar. This biochar gets buried into the soil, creating the equilibrium deficit that you're looking for. Biochar is also estimated to be stable for some 10,000 years...thus its pretty much the only reversal to mining coal that we have. Not using the biomass results in methane, which is estimated to be 86 times worse (as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2 alone) for our atmosphere than CO2 alone.