I question how much energy will be wasted in converting it to charcoal and how much lost as in reducing the biomass to charcoal there will be gases given off that could be used for heat.

Is not energy wasted converting all matter into a more usable form of energy? Of course a lot of energy is wasted. Possibly some of the gases released could be captured and used. I will have to research what those gases are for cellulose to charcoal, also how polluting they are, and the cost benefit ratio. The individual family would lose some advantage of scale, but a small community might not need to . With a higher tech approach the family might be more efficient than a coal plant. They would only have to move their raw material a few hundred feet, or maybe a few miles, rather than a a thousand miles. Also there would be no line or waste heat loss as in coal plant to electricity.

The most wasteful conversion is probably turning petroleum pumped from the Middle East to the surface, transporting it to a ship, to a refinery thousands of miles away, then shipped to your gasoline station, to be pumped into your gasoline tank, and then burned in an internal combustion engine where 80 percent of the energy is totally wasted in heat. More, considering the friction from tires to the ground, and the energy in making and marketing the tires. I forgot manufacturing the car. Then another 95 percent of the remaining 20 percent is used moving a three thousand pounds of vehicle around containing a 150 pound person. Of course this issue has probably never had a scientific study made of it, because it has been profitable to a many industries, and people love their cars. Me included. I would appreciate some more accurate figures, if anyone would like to think about it. Please make me a formula and plug in your own numbers.

I am not anti car! I have pumped a lot of gas, enjoyed driving a lot of miles, and plan to enjoy a lot more. I would like to do it in an efficient way though. Hundreds of millions of new vehicles are going to be made where people have never had cars , let's make them as efficient as is reasonable, without losing too many of the creature comforts.

On a large scale what you are talking about is all ready being done. Here in Baltimore the garbage collected is burned for fuel after recyclable materials are removed. Steam lines are used to provide heat in the winter to the large buildings down town and during the summer generate power. But they burn it in its raw form they don't reduce it to charcoal. On a small scale I question whether a home owner creates enough trash and garbage to warrant the size of furnace that it would take to burn their refuse or reduce it to charcoal. Would be nice if every could to reclaim some of the energy from the stuff we throw away on a daily bases to reduce their fuel cost. Just need to come up with a way to covert it that is practical and economical for the individual.

Fine carbon dust is verrry explosive if it's suspended in air.

There is a fair bit going on in this area, Pyrolysis. The NSW DPI is involved. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope The Charcoal produced as a byproduct is called Agrichar. The claim is that it is an efficient way to "sequester" carbon and to improve soil fertility and structure.

The pyrolysis process is supposed to utilise the gasses for energy extraction and leave the char which is somewhat different in approach to how we normally regard efficient combustion. Try Googling Agrichar and Pyrolysis.

The claim is that char was used as fertiliser in South America thousands of years ago and the char is still in the fertilised soil to this day. The topic was covered by the ABC TV program Catalyst a few months ago. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm

Thanks for the link. I am aware of terra preta, which is the result of using agrichar. I like the new name. Might sell better to some farmers. There is a movement toward advanced farming practices. I hate to see farmers tilling on windy days, when you see billows of topsoil just blowing all over. Some farmers are using "no till" techniques, and locally treated sewage is used. Unfortunately millions of tons of nitrogen rich soil fill our rivers, reservoirs and coastal deltas. A lot of people in Gulf waters, have gotten severe infections from the soup being created. Also we have a huge dead zone there. If better practices are not used, we will diminish our greatest resource.

I think that engineers could lead the way with appropriately scaled technology that lures farmers and industrialists to use wastes to increase their profits, help the environment and reach full energy independence with distributed energy. Agrichar could be a big part of this. It can be used for energy or soil amendment. in soils it sequesters carbon for hundreds of years, and encourages earthworms and useful bacteria.

My late and great mate Lou once told me how his sons were getting a crop from his old farm using zero tillage in drought conditions that would have caused complete failure using the old methods he knew. His only regret was that the technology available when he was farming.

One of the few benefits I can see from Genetic Modification is transferring legume like nitrogen fixing properties to other crops. Unless that type of technology is developed by an organisation like CSIRO it won't get a guernsey. Can you imagine Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont et al reducing the farmer's dependance on Nitrogen fertilizer and other fossil fuel based chemicals?

I intend to fiddle about with charcoal in the garden (based on the Terra Preta idea) it is already great for the orchids.

I agree with poster #1, but also wonder why we dont just do back to burning all combustible trash in our furnaces. We could if we all put on appropriate means to clean the stack; but of course that would require us to spend more money. Besides, we like the convenience of relatively clean fuels. Too bad we dont all heat with electricity and have the electricity produced by nuclear power.

My point is that in the US at least, everyone has a say about what we want. Some want less CO2 emissions, some dont want nuclear waste, etc, etc. If the government stopped cow-towing to special interests, the energy/emissions/and virtually every other problem would be solved. That said, I give it little hope.

When I was a teenager there was a political group called the Technocrats. They wanted to let the engineers and scientists run everything. (probably a communist front group.) I went to a lecture. Any political system is theoretically good. I just think we have the best.

I am all for burning every bit of trash in a plasma process, but not for more nuclear plants until there is a way to dispose of that radioactive trash, they buy their own liability insurance, and get no subsidy. The problem is it is not distributed and leads to more monopolies. I fear terrorists too much. I might even settle for the existing facility if they could ever get the congress to agree to use it.

Might be more CO2 neutral for those who care about it.