nding Global Warming via Biocoal Sequestration - globalchange

Message from discussion nding Global Warming via Biocoal Sequestration

Don Libby

More options Mar 24, 4:25 am

From: "Don Libby" <dli...@tds.net>

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:25:53 -0500

Local: Mon, Mar 24 2008 4:25 am

Subject: Re: [Global Change: 2485] Re: nding Global Warming via Biocoal Sequestration

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

From: "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <globalchange@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2485] Re: nding Global Warming via Biocoal
Sequestration

> Don Libby:

> First, biocoal is made via hyrothermal carbonization, basically a
> pressure cooker. So no Herreshoff Furnaces are used.

It's not clear to me what advantage biocoal batch production via pressurized
hydrothermal carbonization would have over continuous char production via
fast or slow pyrolysis for the purpose of landfilling or soil amendment.

For example, here is a company with a continuous fast pyrolysis process
developed to the point of early commercialization, which produces char as
well as liquid and gaseous fuels from a variety of feedstocks:
http://www.dynamotive.com/ .

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?

Thanks,
-dl

Reply to author Forward