2 ms·
Why not just do a partial burn and reduce the remainder to charcoal? It would be much cheaper, require no chemicals, and the end product is pure carbon, which w
by marcusverus 6y ago
Why not just do a partial burn and reduce the remainder to charcoal? It would be much cheaper, require no chemicals, and the end product is pure carbon, which would be easier to store. You could literally dump it in a pile and deal with it later.
- idiotsecant 6y agoMaking charcoal is not energy-positive and still only results in about 50% carbon capture, best case scenario. Burning it in a biomass plant with good carbon capture does better and displaces carbon-emitting generation processes at the same time. As an added bonus biomass plants are excellent 'baseload' type plants, a feature that wind, solar, etc are missing without expensive storage and complex management schemes.