Malcolm, Yes, I've heard it said that the best C sink is to "deep six" whole logs. Or as they say in Jersey; "give 'em some concrete gollashes". But the loss in biodiversity may offset the benefits.
I still think the best solution is to stop pumping it into the air in the first place. David On Jan 14, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Malcolm McCallum wrote: > thats really what I was asking! > However, would it not be better if the plants (corn etc) was not > burned > and re-released into the air? That would create a negative instead of > neutral effect! > > Also, CO2 has many uses in itself, even if not converted to baking > soda! > > Just some thoughts (sort of prodding here!). > > On Mon, January 14, 2008 4:24 pm, David Bryant wrote: >> Malcolm, >> >> Disclaimer: Please don't take any of this tirade personally. I am >> venting my frustration with the press more than anything. >> >> This statement that biofuels are combustables, and therefore give off >> CO2, is a commonly promoted oversimplification, oft stated by less- >> than-knowledgeable reporters. The carbon in biofuels WAS in the >> atmosphere last winter/growing season (depending on your latitude) >> and therefore biofuels are technically C neutral from the perspective >> of the C Cycle. Just like the rain/snow that falls on us today was >> in the ocean days/weeks before and does not contribute to the sea >> surface level rise. >> >> Also, the technology for "C sequestration" from fossil fuels is still >> very much in the R&D stage and has yet to be proven. Whether the CO2 >> will stay where its put and whether it's deep injection either to the >> lithospere or ocean beds will cause unforeseen consequences is >> debatable. >> >> Other "promising" technology to "sequester" C from fossil fuel power >> plants suffer from similarly glib myopia. I am speaking of capturing >> emissions in biomass (algae) and using it for biofuels. This will, >> at best, only serve to marginally increase the efficiency of >> electrical generation and do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. Just >> like the ethanol from corn/stovers/switchgrass/ or manure was in the >> atmosphere last year, this CO2 was in dinosaurs, tree ferns and >> primordial ooze millions of years ago. Therefore growing then >> burning coal-fed algae will only slightly delay the release of >> fossil C. >> >> Some of you may also note that I am not monolithic supporter of >> biofuels and this should not be taken as support for unsustainable >> production of biomass => fuel programs. >> >> David Bryant >> >> On Jan 14, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Malcolm McCallum wrote: >> >>> Ultimately, biofuels are still combustables and undergo a combustion >>> reactioin to give us energy, albeit no all give the same amounts of >>> energy, but they all give off carbon dioxide. Better to have >>> electric >>> cars and all combustion in a single factory that can be easily >>> regulated >>> and monitored than in 50 billion combustion engine cars. Also, the >>> emissions can be captured at these factories and used in other >>> processes >>> or disposed of/neutralized in a environmentally friendly manner. >>> >>> The general combustion reaction is: >>> CHO + O2 => H20 + Co2 + energy >>> >>> Combustion of Methane: >>> CH4 + 2 O2 => Co2 + 2 H2O + Energy >>> >>> Combustion of Ethanol: >>> CH3OH + O2 => CO2 + 2 H20 + Energy >>> >>> Combustion of Octane: >>> 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 => 16 CO2 + 18 H20 + Energy >>> >>> So are biofuels really the answer to climate change emissions? >>> They may slow it down, but they are still producing two key climate >>> change >>> gases, carbon dioxide and water. >>> >>> malcolm mccallum >>> >>> >>> On Mon, January 14, 2008 1:19 pm, William Silvert wrote: >>>> The British Royal Society has issued basically the same warning >>>> this >>>> morning, and it has received quite a bit of press coverage. It was >>>> the >>>> lead >>>> story on BBC World for example, and will have a signaficant effect >>>> not >>>> only >>>> in Britain but throughout the EU. >>>> >>>> Bill Silvert >>>> >>>> January 14, 2008 >>>> Biofuels 'do more harm than good to environment' says Royal Society >>>> Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter of The Times >>>> Biofuels will cause more harm than good to the environment unless >>>> strict >>>> controls are imposed on how they are grown, the Royal Society has >>>> cautioned. >>>> >>>> While they have the potential to help reduce the greenhouse gas >>>> emissions >>>> that are driving climate change, biofuels will devastate forests >>>> and other >>>> habitats unless controlled, scientists said. >>>> >>>> The Royal Society report of a 14-month inquiry was published as the >>>> European >>>> Union announced that its targets for biofuels are to be re-examined >>>> because >>>> of fears of their impact on the environment. Stavros Dimas, its >>>> Environment >>>> Commissioner, said that the environmental consequences of boosting >>>> biofuel >>>> production and the effects on poor communities were bigger than >>>> originally >>>> thought. >>>> >>>> The misgivings followed increasing anxiety about forests being cut >>>> down >>>> and >>>> savanna and other habitats being dug up to make room for biofuel >>>> crops. >>>> Communities living on the lands often had little say in the >>>> decisions and >>>> there is rising concern about the competition for agricultural land >>>> between >>>> biofuels and crops to feed the expanding world population.... >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Nadine Lymn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:28 PM >>>> Subject: ESA Press Release: Nation's Ecological Scientists weigh >>>> in on >>>> biofuels >>>> >>>>> Biofuels Sustainability >>>>> Nation's ecological scientists weigh in on biofuels >>>>> >>>>> The Ecological Society of America, the nation's professional >>>>> organization of 10,000 ecological scientists, today released a >>>>> position >>>>> statement (www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/#energy) that >>>>> offers the >>>>> ecological principles necessary for biofuels to help decrease >>>>> dependence >>>>> on fossil fuels and reduce carbon dioxide emissions that >>>>> contribute to >>>>> global climate change. The Society warns that the current mode of >>>>> biofuels production will degrade the nation's natural resources >>>>> and will >>>>> keep biofuels from becoming a viable energy option.... >>>> >>> >>> >>> Malcolm L. McCallum >>> Assistant Professor of Biology >>> Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology >>> http://www.herpconbio.org >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > Malcolm L. McCallum > Assistant Professor of Biology > Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology > http://www.herpconbio.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
