So I've been doing the production per acre math on switchgrass vs. cordwood and it looks significant. If switchgrass yield is 5-7 tons/acre and
sustainable northeast cordwood selectively cut is 1 FACE cord -- or even 1 cord! -- per acre per year, which is 1/3 - 1 ton ... that's a big difference! And even if you weren't using switchgrass but ordinary junk
hay full of goldenrod and whatnot, that's a ton per acre, so equal to forests. And then there's the notion that maybe we
should be letting our forests sequester
carbon long term, while a good hay field is at least sequestering *some* in the soil through
root shedding as it goes, even though you're taking the bulk of the topgrowth ... well. So it might make sense.
BTU's per ton are equal.
As I understand it, we don't usually burn hay for the following reasons:
* it's a smoky mess. Which in theory a good hot rocket firing ought to at least partially correct, no?
* it burns up very quickly. Which in theory good mass storage ought to solve, though one might get sick of having to reload every 5 minutes throughout a firing.
* it's awkward to handle and store. Which would be the problem I'm soliciting brainstorming about, I suppose. I know there is such a thing as hay pellet machines and hay briquette machines, but that's extra machinery and expense, which only makes sense if you were doing it commercially for all your neighbors too. (Some people are.) I'd be interested in ideas for it to work with minimal processing though?
Or is there some reason it's just a terrible idea? I haven't seen anyone else ask this, and I'm not sure why.