I would like to offer two suggestion. There is growing use of Biochar in china at the consumer level through this type of product. http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/singfieldgas Close evaluation of that trend may prove insightful to the Biochar issue. Please note that this type of reactor is leaky, difficult to keep at optimal performance and trash is often used as a fuel.
Separation of the different GE aspects is probably best for general public understanding of the different concepts. Emergency response type of projects, like particulate stratospheric injection, should be a clearly separate issue in the minds of the public and policy makers. Longterm concepts, such as Biochar, should be judged and evaluated by the public/policy makers through completely different means along the lines of longterm carbon cycle management. Projects like direct point source CCS/transportation emission reduction should also be clearly separated in the minds of the public/policy makers. Thus, I propose the adoption of the following terminology; 1) *EGE*: That which is used to manage *E*mergency associated with abrupt climate change, thus, *E*mergency *G*eo *E*ngineering. 2) *LGE*: That which is used to manage the *L*ongterm anthropogenic use of the natural carbon cycle, thus, *L*ongterm *G*eo *E*ngineering 3) *RGE*: That which is used to produce *R*emedial effects related to the current use of fossil fuels, thus, *R*emedial *G*eo *E*ngineering Clearly, these 3 divisions can not be viewed completely separate from each other and gray areas will exist. However, they each need the focused consideration they individually deserve. Thanks, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
