3 ms·
There is one aspect of biomass generators I always thought was overlooked. The process is very similar to making charcoal. If we used wood as a fuel source, he
by dec0dedab0de 4y ago
There is one aspect of biomass generators I always thought was overlooked. The process is very similar to making charcoal.
If we used wood as a fuel source, heated it enough to release methane and other violitile gases to power a generator, but not enough to release the majority of carbon, that would leave us with charcoal.
Instead of trying to extract the remaining energy from the charcoal, we could bury it. Which would sequester the carbon, and be fertilizer. Growing clovers or legumes would add nitrogen.
I am sure I have something wrong, and maybe a better answer is to just not do it with dedicated crops as the article suggests. Maybe we could grow corn for food, but cram the stalks into the generator and sequester the remaining carbon?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- habitue 4y agoSeems like an idea worth trying to pencil out on paper to see if the numbers are in the right ballpark. A couple of questions I have: How much carbon could be captured this way, vs other carbon capture methods? How are cornstalks etc dealt with today by farms? Maybe they're already doing something efficient with it
- snewman 4y ago> Maybe we could grow corn for food, but cram the stalks into the generator and sequester the remaining carbon? This is a thing; it's called "BECCS". You can also sequester the carbon without trying to burn it first; see, for instance, https://charmindustrial.com/ https://charmindustrial.com/.