Hi I'm aware of the limitations of crop waste as a fuel, but there are already moves afoot to engineer processes which convert poor quality biomass to high quality fuels. For one example of a solution to the 30pc problem, see newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn11364-hydrogen-injection-could-boost-biofuel-production.html
Despite the drawbacks of biomass as a fuel, there is still a large and expanding agro fuel industry. Ultimately, it seems likely that biomass energy with carbon capture and storage will prove more desirable than disposal of the unburned material, even if additional fuel improvement technology is needed to make this viable. Further, the difference between CROPS and biochar appears to be the absence of transport cost and the soil improvement benefit of the latter. I'm afraid that, whilst the CROPS scheme seems possible, closer scrutiny of the economics suggests that the case is far from watertight, even if the serious legal issues can be resolved. Other suggested solutions still appear far superior to my mind. A On 11 Sep 2010 02:26, "Gregory Benford" <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote: Andrew: Quick answers: 1. Burning crop waste doesn't pencil out. It burns at low temperatures, is mostly cellulose and lignin. That's why farmers don't sell it to biofuel burners. But it has plenty of carbon and few nutrients. 2. There are no useful air capture technologies, and not likely to be any soon. The APS report about to appear spells out why: it's a huge energy sink. 3. There are not legal restrictions on dumping organic farm matter at sea. Industrial, yes, but with broad exceptions there, too. 4. In the deep ocean, hydrate deposits don't form from decaying matter. Farm waste, as the studies going on now off Monterey CA show, goes slowly into solution. It won't return to the air for at least millennia. The Strand & Benford calculations show it's cost efficient and carbon efficient. Gregory Benford On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Andrew Lockley <and...@andrewlockley.com> wrote: > > > > Isn't the main problem with CROPS that you're burying something which is > flammable, at the same ... > > Finally, an issue which appears not to have been studied in detail is the > risk of the CROPS scheme causing large g In the deep ocean as hydrate > deposits, which are then later destabilized as the oceans warm. This could > potentially create a forcing far greater than that of the avoided CO2. > > > > > > Hopefully someone can calculate these effects, as I don't know how to. > > > > A > >> > >> On 10 Sep 20... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
