1

I have been thinking about how to make a carbon negative BBQ.

The idea would be, use sustainably grown wood (so you start nearly carbon neutral) and pyrolyse some of it, and bury the resulting carbon.

There are some fairly simple examples of home pyrolysis of wood on youtube, using two nested steel barrels. The wood inside the inner barrel is pyrolised, initially using heat from fuel in the outer barrel, and once it has got started, by combustion of the gases given off by the heated wood.

The idea would be to incorporate this into a barbeque that anyone could do. IE, set it up, light it, cook over it, and then bury the resulting charcoal.

It sounds fairly easy to experiment with, HOWEVER I am concerned about whether larger volumes of carbon monoxide would be emitted making such a setup less safe than a normal barbeque. Reading around, a normal barbeque emits around 8% of its gas output as CO, which is why you need to be very careful not to use one in a confined space. So fairly simple precautions can deal with some CO. But the point of pyrolysis is to heat wood in a low oxygen environment, so I'm concerned that a more CO-rich, and hence more dangerous, gas mixture might be emitted.

Most home-pyrolysis setups seem to involve leaving the setup to do its thing, whereas you obviously need to stand over a barbeque with the burgers etc so it needs to be sufficiently safe.

Is there a way to do a back-of-envelope calculation of the CO emissions of such a setup, and whether the concentrations would reach dangerous levels? Or a safe way to measure it?

ealdwulf
  • 11
  • 1
  • Plenty of safe ways to measure...as simple as not being around, all the way down to old clunky scuba diving gear ;) - once you have your measurements, you should be able to tweak the design until it's safe to be around- the tweaks may defeat the purpose of your pyrolysis, or you might find the carbon neutral answer you seek. As for calculations, it should be possible to make pressure and temperature tables for the reactions you are looking for- theoretically derivable with a good enough model of entropy and energy, but should also be easier to experimentally derive. – Abel Aug 29 '23 at 01:50
  • Hi @Abel, Ok so lets say the answer so not to be around, the question is, how far away is good enough? I've found a paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231009003033 which gives an empirical model for the concentration of CO around a point source in outdoor air. But it needs as input the source emission rate. Do you know a simple way to upper-bound the emission rate of wood pyrolysis? I mean one could assume that all the carbon was instantaneously converted into CO but that seems like it will be excessively conservative. – ealdwulf Aug 29 '23 at 10:56
  • More generally, the end goal is a setup that a naive user could use. It's not clear to me that one could gain confidence in a setup purely by experiment, without some theoretical argument for how much the results generalise. – ealdwulf Aug 29 '23 at 10:56
  • A better estimate for CO rate would be two times the rate of oxygen molecules being consumed by your pyrolysis chamber. I still suspect you'd run into an energy balance problem aiming for carbon neutral. Your main source for energy is C+O2=CO2... – Abel Aug 29 '23 at 11:41

0 Answers0