seattle.politics

Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote in message


> >> That's the key -- and the answer thus far appears to be No.
> >>
> > That's only because no one has bothered to do it. I envisioned portable
> > gasification systems that would be trailered out to the forest. Trees
> > that were cut wouldn't be stripped of limbs where they fall but would be
> > instead dragged to the central location. That plant material would then
> > be suitably aged and prepared and gasified. The resulting ash would be
> > spread back on the area where the trees came from, like a slash burn.
> > The only process, the energy for it, would be driven by the wood that
> > was now currently just wasted, not used.
>
> If you "trailer" something into the woods, doesn't that consume fuel to do
> that? These "portable" gasification system would not use fuel?
>
They would be run off of the forest products residues. These residues
are currently unused, currently create a problem because they can't be
slash burned like before. So I envision the effect of a slash burn
without the smoke and the fuel value is conserved for resale.


--
"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and
very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is
what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria
Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling"