On Mar 24, 1:25 am, "Don Libby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > It would seem to me that char produced by pyrolysis in Ontario would serve > the carbon sequestration purpose at least as well as biocoal produced by > hydrothermal carbonization in Namibia, no? >
No. Biocoal is, afterall, just high-grade coal. We know it will stay unchanged in the ground for millions of years. That may not be true of biochar. It certainly is not when applied as a soil amendment. See this survey report: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/node/578 The other problem is cost, primarily that of collecting the biomass and transporting it to the reactor (which might be hydrothermal carbonization, torrifaction, or pyrolysis). The costs in Africa will be substantially less than in Ontario. Do note that in my original post starting this thread, I provided several links regarding biocoal. One is to an article about a demonstation plant in The Netherlands which produces 75,000 tonnes per year. It doesn't appear that batch versus continuos is an issue. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
