WF Biomass briquettes were created earlier

  • Thread starter Deleted member 123260
  • Start date

Deleted member 123260

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_briquettes

Biomass briquettes are a biofuel substitute to coal and charcoal. Briquettes are mostly used in the developing world, where cooking fuels are not as easily available. There has been a move to the use of briquettes in the developed world, where they are used to heat industrial boilers in order to produce electricity from steam. The briquettes are cofired with coal in order to create the heat supplied to the boiler.

The manufacturing process is rather simple and easy (often being made by housewives and farmers in the developing world). Furthermore, there have been experiments done with different mixtures that have discovered that briquetting coal and biomass while mixing it with molasses makes the end result suitable for modern industrial use.

What if people discovered briquetting earlier before the 1900s? What effect would this have on the development of technology?
 
Less biomass going to farming, less coal dependence. Maybe you ending swap early modern chemistry priorities and we goes with better fertilizers and a poorer petrochemical run.
 

Deleted member 123260

Less biomass going to farming, less coal dependence. Maybe you ending swap early modern chemistry priorities and we goes with better fertilizers and a poorer petrochemical run.

Could you extrapolate on this?
 
I feel like this question is based on a false premise.

People have been burning biomass as a primary source of heat and cooking for...well, since fire was invented. Nor was wood the only thing burned. Peat, rice husks, animal dung, any number of other things...only people living in an industrialized economy can afford to be wasteful and not, e.g., burn coconut husks.

Your article also seems confused about whether or not charcoal counts*, but use of charcoal is naturally occurring and was likely also used since time immemorial as well, and deliberate human production of charcoal goes back tens of thousands of years.

When people started switching to coal to fire their steam engines, it wasn't because they didn't know about biomass, it was because it was cheaper and hotter. Cofiring, like the article suggests, did occur, but often wasn't worth it. And trust me, if there was something cheaper to burn than coal, then 19th Century British and American factory owners would have burned it. If burning live cats together with Irish babies had been the cheapest method, they would have done it. And in places with no coal, it wasn't burned. A lot of industrialization was wood-fired in places with lots of trees and little coal. Wide-scale production of non-wood biomass flammables is usually expensive except as a by-product of some other industry.

Yes, it's neat to try and use more sustainable energy, especially at the expense of fossil fuels, but this sort of "technology" is more a return to old standards than anything new.

*Frankly, that article reads like it was written by someone trying to promote the product but who doesn't really know what they're talking about
 

Deleted member 123260

@Minchandre

While I admit that I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject, I'm referring specifically to these kinds of biomass not charcoal and within the article it does say that specific biomass has alot of advantages over coal.

I'm also under the impression that it was first found in developing countries due to the conditions and constraints placed upon them.
 
Briquetting was around a lot earlier than the 1900's , Charcoal , Peat and Sawdust ones as well as Coal are at least as old as the Industrial revolution. As for the benefits they are limited. Straw for instance used to make a Briquette is straw not used to make bricks, feed livestock etc. Biomass is a nil sum game , anything you do with it, means you did not use it for something else. Don't know why you exclude charcoal, its biomass just like the others , just burns hotter and gives more energy for weight. Only reason coal took over was it burns even hotter and is even more weight efferent.

It was not really found first in developing countries, its just the poor areas tend to be the ones with no coal/oil/firewood so have to use something else making it more visible.
 
@Minchandre
I'm referring specifically to these kinds of biomass not charcoal

Yes; like wood, peat, animal dung, or rice husks. Hay (like the article mentions) was seldom burnt because it was more valuable as animal feed (or mattress-stuffing, or for bricks, or...). Also, as I said, the article makes it unclear if charcoal counts.

and within the article it does say that specific biomass has alot of advantages over coal.

It has 2 main advantages: availability, and carbon footprint (most biomass is "almost carbon neutral", because the only carbon released was also absorbed from the atmosphere very recently). The second part is meaningless before people started noticing and being concerned about global warming. That's an interesting TL, actually - when is the earliest we can get awareness of global warming?

I'm also under the impression that it was first found in developing countries due to the conditions and constraints placed upon them.

Only inasmuch hunter-gatherers in Africa were in developing countries.

The article is about a modern method being used in a modern economic context. It doesn't make much sense in the before 1900 forum.

EDIT: more uses of hay
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 123260

@Minchandre

If the steam engine was created first by the ancient Greeks or if Muslims discover how to properly distill and use oil (they were close OTL), then global warming will come along much quicker than before.

In regards to availability that could be a possible advantage that would give it edge over other sources of energy.
 
If the steam engine was created first by the ancient Greeks or if Muslims discover how to properly distill and use oil (they were close OTL), then global warming will come along much quicker than before.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room that the massive cold periods of 6th century AD and the Little Ice Age were in your dramatic predictions.
 
About global warming accelerated compared to OTL. It will have to work against natural LIA conditions, which is kinda harder than assisting in warming up after one.
 
About global warming accelerated compared to OTL. It will have to work against natural LIA conditions, which is kinda harder than assisting in warming up after one.
Not only that, but biomass briquettes don't extract new carbon from the ground, unlike fossil fuels, so their carbon emissions are only temporary before being locked up again in trees and other biomass.
 
Top