The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post will appear after it is approved by moderators
 |
From: "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Mar 24 2008 1:24 pm
Subject: Re: nding Global Warming via Biocoal Sequestration
On Mar 24, 1:25 am, "Don Libby" <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
> ...
No. Biocoal is, afterall, just high-grade coal. We know it
> 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? 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
Do note that in my original post starting this thread, I
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||