environmental concerns

[Matt]

First, apologies to those getting this post as an unwanted email; you
can change your settings for email delivery on the Google page. I
think an online discussion is the best way to handle this (and other
topics) and Google unfortunately spams the Duke EWB Charcoal list with
every post. It certainly keeps you informed...
~~~~
>From Antal: "If produced and used renewably, biomass would make no net
contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide."

>From Mochidzuki (with Antal as a co-author): "Because of pollution
associated with inefficient carbonization processes, the charcoal fuel
cycle is among the most greenhouse-gas intensive energy sources
employed by mankind." (Referencing Smith in a 1999 paper).

I thought these statements were rather contradictory until I
recognized the context of Mochidzuki's claim -- he's discussing
charcoal production specifically from trees while Antal is not.

We would then have a positive environmental impact by replacing tree-
derived charcoal with biomass-derived charcoal. This represents one
rationale behind the project. Another is that biomass charcoal could
act as a cheap and much-needed cooking fuel in deforested regions.

More from Antal: "Biomass charcoals contain practically no sulfur, and
less nitrogen than coal and oil...Consequently, we anticipate fewer
emissions problems with the use of these renewable feedstocks." Do
the group's chemists agree? Is there little sulfur because
carbonization burned it off?