Grass as fuel

[Ahmed]

I think that the alternative between burning the lawn or cluttering the dump is the wrong problem. Since it is more grass than turf, why not propose it to a potential local grower who will make the most of it?

[chatelot16]

around my home there are calf and horse cow breeders who lack hay ... the previous season was bad, the stock is at zero ... using what the lawn mower does to feed the animals would be more useful only to burn to heat, especially that we arrive at a season where there is no need to heat

but whether it is to burn or serve as food, you must first avoid rotting ... and then the lawn mower grass starts to rot too quickly

but I'm going to stop chatting on the net ... I'm going to take my clipper and cut 2 or three tanks to give to my geese ... that will always be that which will not be lost today

[urok]

@lebonpolo: if we can assimilate the grass cut straw (but if someone could confirm or deny it I'm interested), it can very well be used as fuel, it seems to me easier than to aim the gasification (more complex and longer: fermentation time etc ...). The proof, there is straw boiler and it works very well.
@izentrop: I don't know if that's a misnomer on your part, but you say: "from my mowing I made hay for my goat". This partly responds to my previous idea: the grass would therefore be comparable to hay. What is the difference with straw?
You also say: "wood has a much higher carbon rate than grass and therefore burning grass pollutes". Straw boilers are not considered polluting and are on the rise (see the heating of a large city in Hungary: the city of Pécs). And here I agree with Lebonpolo's remark. In addition, straw has a better PCI (Lower Calorific Value) and a lower humidity rate than wood: it is therefore quite beneficial! On the other hand, it generates more ashes ...
@Ahmed: of course that we can valorize grass cut waste dumps other than by combustion to produce heat, that's not the problem! I'm only interested in this latest valuation and I want information on it.
@Chatelot16: actually rotting is to be avoided, unless one wants to evolve towards gasification, which is not the subject here. When I mow my lawn, I leave the cut grass scattered on my land. After only two days (in sun and wind), it is perfectly dry (provided of course that it does not rain but it is the period of the beautiful days so it limits the problem), so I think that c is a false problem.
In short, back to the basics: grass, straw, hay ... what differences?

[Ahmed]

Straw is only a good fuel because large quantities are available (as inevitable waste) in certain cereal regions due to the specialization of industrial agriculture and the fact that it is "on the rise". has no more significance than the massive use of lignite in Germany ...
The difference between hay and straw is the much higher carbon in the case of straw: ask a donkey what he prefers of both and you will be quickly fixed ...

urok, you write:

I'm only interested in this latest valuation ...

It is precisely this fixation that is questionable!

[Lebonpolo]

Hi,

it can very well be used as fuel, it seems to me easier than to target the gasification (more complex and longer: fermentation time etc ...).

Be careful, a gasification boiler is not a biogas digester! It uses the heat produced by the first combustion to release gases from the biomass that will burn with a second combustion (this is the double combustion). But to use this process with grass I think you will need wood to start and add the turf once the boiler temperature. And last details this type of boiler works by flaming: to obtain the best possible output, it is necessary to charge the boiler to the maximum so that it rises high in temperature and operate the double combustion. Small fires burn poorly and do not perform well.

What is the difference with straw?

Hay is dried grass used to feed animals, and straw is the stalk of maize-like crops, which is used primarily as litter for horses or cows. Regarding their qualifying power I am not informative

[PVresistif]

burning grass or anything else seems like an environmental offense .. .....
"freedom is to do whatever is permitted by law" dixit I no longer remember

[izentrop]

izentrop wrote:
to burn in one way or another is the same, right?

Hello,
Not at all: burning wood in the open air (eg old open fireplaces) pollutes a lot and does not heat up much compared to burning wood in a mass stove or a gasification boiler that rises very high in temperature, burns all the fuel

Better yield and less pollutants like fine particles and Nox, but equal amount burned, same amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere and this is where the bottom hurts.

If we want to solve climate change, CO2 is a key factor.

[Ahmed]

No! It's the pack that hurts!

If we want to solve climate change, CO² is a key factor.

But nobody wants to solve it, so CO² ...

[chatelot16]

that the grass rots or is burned, its finished carbon anyway in CO2

the only possible benefit is if we burn the grass in a useful way to avoid consuming a fossil fuel

it's the same for all biomass ... burning biomass is as much CO2 as burning oil ... the only benefit is when the use of biomass avoids burning oil

[izentrop]

that the grass rots or is burned, its finished carbon anyway in CO2

The difference is that his combustion will have benefited life and the soil in the first case, less in the second. With mulching, no rot.

the only benefit is when the use of biomass avoids burning oil

The problem in 2 cases is that since 1 century and a half we consume more than the planet can bear.

Ahmed ... and the COP ... 23 for the last one?

Burning straw has been mentioned, but it's not a long-term solution either, as the grain plains have the land that has lost the most organic matter in the past 50 years. As C Bourguignon says "The soils are dead".
It is urgent that these straws remain on the ground, not only to perpetuate it, but also to satisfy the initiative. 4 per thousand