Consider using producer gas from pyrolysis in a fuel cell.

Traditional electricity generation is inherently wasteful. More than half the energy content of the fuel escapes from the power station's cooling tower as waste heat. In addition, more than 5% of the electricity generated is lost in transmission in the journey from grid to end user.

An alternative approach is to generate electricity within homes and commercial buildings using a device called a fuel cell – essentially a large battery with a replenishable fuel source. In Manchester, Mike Mason advocated fuel cells that use solid-oxide technology. These can run on natural gas, ethanol or various other fuels, including the gases produced when making biochar. Mason described domestic fuel cells that can produce electricity from gas more efficiently than even the best modern power stations – and at a lower cost. As a bonus, because the generation happens at the point of consumption, transmission losses are minimised and any heat created can be used for hot water and radiators. . .

Domestic solid-oxide fuel cells are about the size of a dishwasher. A 2KW system can already be produced for as little as £3,000, with prices expect to fall as manufacture is scaled up.

I suspect that there may be some mess and bother involved in using producer gases since they are a complex mix of compounds, and that this would increase costs. And, I suspect that the £3,000 price tag does not include the infrastructure needed to actually employ waste heat. Such pyrolysis and fuel cell systems seem unlikely for urban domestic use, but they may be of use in more rural locations which have a larger supply of feedstock, a ready use for the biochar, larger energy needs, and so incur more transmission losses and outages.

As usual, the activists miss the point.

Mason estimates that a typical British home with such a device would save 2.8 tonnes of CO2 each year, compared to consuming electricity from a modern gas power plant and hot water from a gas boiler – a cut of 35%. Compared to generating electricity in a US coal plant, the device could save as much as 12 tonnes of CO2 per home.

CO2 is irrelevant. The issue is energy efficiency and, in the case of pyrolysis, soil improvement. No progress will be made on climate, energy, the economy or the environment (soil) until the dim and halt grasp that CO2 emission limits and CO2 consciousness is a distraction from useful tasks and destructive of the very things they claim to care about.