Well, the article appears to just quote the inventor:
There’s no smoke and no sparks. It’s zero-carbon, he says.
This indicates he has no idea how climate change occurs. I don’t think him leading a carbon reduction effort is a smart idea.
Using trees, it wouldn’t even be Carbon Neutral, unless the harvesting and processing of the trees also used Carbon Neutral energy, and only if the trees were already going to be harvested instead of just left to live.
Now the sugar cane could be, depending on how they are currently disposing of the “chaff”. If they were just burning it, then yes, Carbon Neutral or possibly Carbon Negative (meaning producing less atmospheric carbon than consumed, not “less than zero” carbon). But if they were burying it or using it for mulch, then no.
Actually his mistake was saying “Carbon Zero” instead of “Carbon Neutral” which quite a lot of people make, so I wouldn’t hold that against him …
Wrong on TWO accounts:
(1) If you are required to really understand something before you are allowed to work on it then you would have to send 99% of the work force home …
(2) He isn’t actually “leading” anything, he is inventing a more efficient wood powered steam engine.
As a side note: burning wood at higher temperatures has previously been done. During the Second World War when petrol was in short supply especially farmers converted trucks and tractors for using wood. At the high temperatures wood is broken up into gas (basically methane etc) and completely burned into carbon dioxide and water (plus some nitrate and phosphate oxides etc).
The downside is that it required heating up for half an hour to reach the required temperature.
So if he invented a more efficient burner than has been done before him then kudos to him. Whether that is the case remains to be seen, but using leftovers that just decompose instead of coal or oil is always desirable.
Well, good for you then that coal and oil just miraculously appear in your tank and oven …
Sorry, but I can’t stand these “non-arguments”.
The important point is that wood is sustainable and if handled properly (certainly not like in Brazil) adds little to the atmosphere, while fossil fuel isn’t sustainable and adds a LOT.
Maybe this indicates you have no idea how climate change occurs?
