5 ms·

My favourite approach is to make biochar. You heat the wood in an oxygen free environment and so can control the amount of hydrocarbons you extract. The carbon

My favourite approach is to make biochar. You heat the wood in an oxygen free environment and so can control the amount of hydrocarbons you extract. The carbon left over is fairly inert and so relatively easy to store long term. You can get enough hydrocarbon out of the process to pay for it. If we redirected the bulk of our wood waste through a process like that - rather than it all being burnt (and so releasing all of the carbon in the wood) - we could probably sequester a few percent of global emissions.

jvanderbot 3y ago
Yeah I never understood why this wasn't more talked about. I suppose that leftover "char" is just a little to close to coal for everyone's comfort. This is how charcoal is made, after all.
- peteradio 3y ago
  Its also a large component of terra preta. I think you could sell it as soil amendment and flip the perception on its head.
  - extraduder_ire 3y ago
    Honestly, if you can make material that's soil-like enough out of things that would otherwise be process waste, it'd be a handy way to directly combat rising sea levels. Just dump it somewhere and reclaim the land.
blkhawk 3y ago
there is a natural gas variant of that where instead of using steam in the steam reformation process to generate hydrogen and CO2 you use more of the energy contained in the gas to cook it off into atomic carbon and hydrogen. you can then bury the carbon. I think it would be fabolous if you could use up all the natural gas that way. If you want to know more Google "natural gas pyrolysis".
- junofan 3y ago
  Depends on how demand plays out. It’s possible China will oversupply green hydrogen, leaving blue hydrogen a stranded asset. I do wish hydrogen were a bigger part of the conversation today, and I think down-only emissions policy makes balancing supply and demand for emerging resources simply too hard. The $3/kg subsidy in the IRA would’ve gone a lot further if applied to grey hydrogen.
  - blkhawk 3y ago
    blue hydrogen is an abomination. I don't count pyrolysis derived hydrogen as blue because I can actually see some chance that the carbon gets sequestered. The pessemist in me sees the resulting carbon being sold to coal plants tho :P That said hydrogen as a direct fuel replacement for individual transportation is something I am very much against. I simply see that we will need hydrogen for some applications but most have nothing to do with transportation whatsoever.

jvanderbot 3y ago

Yeah I never understood why this wasn't more talked about. I suppose that leftover "char" is just a little to close to coal for everyone's comfort. This is how charcoal is made, after all.

peteradio 3y ago
Its also a large component of terra preta. I think you could sell it as soil amendment and flip the perception on its head.
- extraduder_ire 3y ago
  Honestly, if you can make material that's soil-like enough out of things that would otherwise be process waste, it'd be a handy way to directly combat rising sea levels. Just dump it somewhere and reclaim the land.

blkhawk 3y ago

there is a natural gas variant of that where instead of using steam in the steam reformation process to generate hydrogen and CO2 you use more of the energy contained in the gas to cook it off into atomic carbon and hydrogen. you can then bury the carbon. I think it would be fabolous if you could use up all the natural gas that way. If you want to know more Google "natural gas pyrolysis".

junofan 3y ago
Depends on how demand plays out. It’s possible China will oversupply green hydrogen, leaving blue hydrogen a stranded asset. I do wish hydrogen were a bigger part of the conversation today, and I think down-only emissions policy makes balancing supply and demand for emerging resources simply too hard. The $3/kg subsidy in the IRA would’ve gone a lot further if applied to grey hydrogen.
- blkhawk 3y ago
  blue hydrogen is an abomination. I don't count pyrolysis derived hydrogen as blue because I can actually see some chance that the carbon gets sequestered. The pessemist in me sees the resulting carbon being sold to coal plants tho :P That said hydrogen as a direct fuel replacement for individual transportation is something I am very much against. I simply see that we will need hydrogen for some applications but most have nothing to do with transportation whatsoever.