Andrew and list cc Dr. Nackley, as a courtesy.
Three comments on your message; I supply some detail, so as to save
others time:
1) (The problem I worry about here is not Andrew’s fault)) This
“cab” direct site may be the least helpful website I have encountered.
Although it is identified as producing ebooks, the main message is that we
should alert our library to the book (not the chapter or an ebook). Direction
to the book was not so difficult to find - but then only for a hard copy,
whereas below (but not at the CAB website) is advertising an ebook (which I
would consider at the right price). There is an emphasis on chapters - but as
near as I can tell, e-chapters are not available separately.
2) I finally (much difficulty) found an ebook version through a
Google-book search - and a good bit of the promoted Chapter 9 was readable (and
seems well done). $118 here for an e-book version is not much price reduction
- but some geo list readers might find it helpful if interested in invasive
species removal. See:
https://books.google.com/books?id=MJf0BgAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&dq=google+Bioenergy+and+Biological+Invasions:+Ecological,+Agronomic+and+Policy+...++By+Lauren+D+Quinn,+David+P+Matlaga,+Jacob+N+Barney&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AZYAVdGPFJHSoATumYDYDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=google%20Bioenergy%20and%20Biological%20Invasions%3A%20Ecological%2C%20Agronomic%20and%20Policy%20...%20%20By%20Lauren%20D%20Quinn%2C%20David%20P%20Matlaga%2C%20Jacob%20N%20Barney&f=false
3) I was delighted to read the abstract below, with its endorsement of
biochar for the investigated task (See the highlighting I have added below).
Working with invasive species is difficult as one is trying to stamp out the
very resource you are exploiting. I still (not having the chapter) haven’t
fully understood the rationale for biochar, but fortunately, I was able to find
quite a few closely associated (but not behind a paywall) papers by Dr. Nackley
at:
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/lloyd-nackley/
These are mostly on invasive species and not on biochar. I will look
for a library copy of the book.
Ron
On Mar 10, 2015, at 2:09 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20153042847.html;jsessionid=98784A3E9418959E14AF74D12DBC5800;jsessionid=9850C5C2B9FC1B55523494ADD208A91F;jsessionid=72E3FEA9E91CF43404C62E18C2B19237
>
> Good intentions vs good ideas: evaluating bioenergy projects that utilize
> invasive plant feedstocks.
>
> Authors
> Nackley, L. L.
> Editors
> Quinn, L. D.;Matlaga, D. P.;Barney, J. N.
> Book
> Bioenergy and biological invasions: ecological, agronomic and policy
> perspectives on minimising risk 2015 pp. 134-153
>
> ISBN
> 978-1-78064-330-4
> DOI
> 10.1079/9781780643304.0134
>
> http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20153042847
>
> Abstract
> This chapter evaluates the sustainability of using naturalized or cultivated
> invasive plant species as feedstocks for bioenergy, including electrical
> power, liquid biofuels, and chemical substitutes. The evaluations apply a
> sustainability framework that recognizes economic and social development, as
> well as environmental protection. The necessity of using a sustainability
> framework is illustrated by revealing how historical bioenergy developments,
> which did not consider multiple aspects of sustainability (e.g., only
> economics), fell short of providing socially acceptable and environmentally
> neutral/beneficial bioenergy. There are two divergent issues regarding the
> use of invasive plants in bioenergy: (i) dedicated energy feedstocks that may
> foster biological invasions; and (ii) harvesting existing invasive plant
> biomass for bioenergy conversion. Fertile dedicated feedstocks are shown to
> be a less sustainable option than sterile species with no history of
> invasion. No species with a history of invasion should be used as a dedicated
> energy feedstock. Harvesting existing invasive populations is shown to be
> economically unsustainable if the bioenergy conversion process is dependent
> on the invasive plant population. When invasive plant populations represent a
> small portion of the overall energy supply (<10%) there are possible
> synergies available for thermal energy conversion processes (e.g.,
> bioelectricity, or syngas production), but not for liquid biofuels, which
> currently cannot tolerate a heterogeneous feedstock mix. Lastly, invasive
> plant-based biochar is deemed the most suitable option, because it meets all
> sustainability criteria. The value generated in improved ecosystem services
> (e.g., carbon sequestration, improved soil fertility, improved crop
> production, substitute for fossil fertilizers) would greatly outweigh the
> costs of a simple biochar oven. This report is important because it provides
> a useful tool for policy makers who are challenged with decisions regarding
> which bioenergy technology to support. Additionally, by using the sustainable
> development framework, this is the first work to highlight the potential for
> invasive plant-based biochar.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
