Sorry 'bout that. Got it backwards. The article is correct, however.
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:59 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Advice for the Agent of Change on Geoengineering
From Alvia:
The limit on burning 27% of all crop waste is probably related to the fact
that is about as much as can be removed from the soil without reducing N and P
to unacceptable levels. A similar problem for ocean disposal of crop waste and
for its use as cellulosic fuel feedstock.
But in fact one can remove about 75% of surface crop residue; the rest the
Dept of Agriculture recommends leaving to prevent runoff etc. This is all
covered in Metzger & Benford, 2001. More is in a recent paper (attached).
Gregory Benford
-----Original Message-----
From: Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 3:02 pm
Subject: [geo] Re: Advice for the Agent of Change on Geoengineering
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081205/sc_nm/us_climate_biochar
I get to join A. Siegel in not being able to do simple math. It's 200Mt
carbon out of 8500Mt total for biochar effectiveness (2%). I got C and CO2
confused and was a little into the future as well. The supporters of biochar
also never seem to place any emphasis on the CO2 emissions from the fuel needed
to produce the charcoal. The limit on burning 27% of all crop waste is
probably related to the fact that is about as much as can be removed from the
soil without reducing N and P to unacceptable levels. A similar problem for
ocean disposal of crop waste and for its use as cellulosic fuel feedstock.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081205/sc_nm/us_climate_biochar
Scientist says ancient technique cuts greenhouse gas
By Gerard Wynn Gerard Wynn Fri Dec 5, 1:22 pm ET
POZNAN, Poland (Reuters) – An ancient technique of plowing charred plants
into the ground to revive soil may also trap greenhouse gases for thousands of
years and forestall global warming, scientists said on Friday.
Heating plants such as farm waste or wood in airtight conditions produces a
high-carbon substance called biochar, which can store the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide and enhance nutrients in the soil.
Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. Subsequently
storing that carbon in the soil removes the gas from the atmosphere.
"I feel confident that the (carbon storage) time of stable biochar is from
high hundreds to a few thousand years," said Cornell University's Johannes
Lehmann, at an event on the sidelines of U.N. climate talks in the Polish city
of Poznan.
Lehmann estimated that under ambitious scenarios biochar could store 1
billion tons of carbon annually -- equivalent to more than 10 percent of global
carbon emissions, which amounted to 8.5 billion tons in 2007.
Under a conservative scenario the technique could store 0.2 billion tons of
carbon annually, he said. That would still require heating without oxygen --
called pyrolysis -- some 27 percent of global crop waste and plowing this into
the soil.
Lehmann cited experiments on 10 farm crops suggesting biochar can also
increase yields by up to three times, because the organic matter holds on to
nutrients.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in November that global greenhouse
gas emissions were so out of control that avoiding more dangerous levels of
climate change depended on creating negative emissions later this century.
The energy adviser to 28 industrialized countries cited biochar as one way of
achieving that.
The technique rings alarm bells among some environmentalists worried it could
spur deforestation, but its chief problem may be that it is barely proven on a
commercial scale.
"It will remain theoretical without making demonstration plants on the
ground," Lehmann said.
Soils containing biochar made by Amazon people thousands of years ago still
contain up to 70 times more black carbon than surrounding soils and are still
higher in nutrients, said Debbie Reed, director of the International Biochar
Initiative (IBI).
The IBI was in Poznan to lobby for research funding for biochar. In Poznan,
187 countries are meeting in ongoing talks to agree a new climate treaty to
replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. They hope to finalize a deal next year.
Lehmann emphasized that the technique was not a substitute for fighting
climate change by curbing man-made greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon
dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
(Reporting by Gerard Wynn, Editing by Catherine Bosley)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alvia Gaskill
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: [geo] Advice for the Agent of Change on Geoengineering
I don't know how many people read this guy's postings, but however many it
is, it's probably too many. Like everyone else these days, he thinks he can
evaluate which geoengineering technologies are best and which are best kept
locked up along with their creators. He pretty quickly eliminates SRM, ocean
fertilization and air capture (without giving any reasons for the last one),
repeating the acid rain canard for stratospheric aerosols (because it's so easy
to remember: a-c-i-d r-a-i-n) with most of the demerits handed out for lack of
certainty as to impacts.
He then presents his own candidates for geoengineering technologies that
would solve the global warming problem:
1. Reflective roofing. Not wanting to go through all of this again; we
devoted a lot of space here already to this idea, he doesn't understand what a
watt is, let alone how many would have to be offset per square meter to reduce
the temperature back to pre-industrial.
2. Permaculture. A YouTube video forms the basis for this cockamamy scheme
to green all the world's deserts using mulch. Of course, I wanted to cover
them with plastic. The narrator fails to note and neither does Siegel, that
the area chosen for the experiment in desert farming is adjacent to a body of
water. Still, it might have some selected applications. The long term
effectiveness wasn't evaluated, thus failing one of Siegel's criteria.
3. Biochar. I nominate this as the most overhyped term of 2008. Even
ahead of change. Realistically, about 200Mt carbon could be sequestered per
year as biochar, not enough to make much of a difference in a 40,000Mt/yr world.
4. Use stranded wind in the Arctic to make ice. This one has been talked
about here also. At best you would create stranded wind farmers, waiting to be
rescued.
In general, I agree with his win-win-win goals. But those have to be
tempered with reality-reality-reality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/change-obama-can-change-t_b_149292.html
A. Siegel
Posted December 8, 2008 | 12:26 PM (EST)
Change. Obama Can Change the Path of Climate Change
Read More: Agrichar, Ammonia, Biochar, Climate Change, Geoengineering,
Global Warming, Terra Preta, White Roofing, Green News
Change.
Climate Change. That is change that we don't want to believe we face, that
many refuse to face, but it is change that is occurring, driving many through
the stages from denial to determination.
In the face of Climate Change, how much Change can Barack Obama deliver?
And, in fact, does he and the building team for the next administration
recognize the extent of the necessary Change? Change to the Planet? And, that
there might exist geoengineering solutions as part of the path toward necessary
Change?
Setting the stage
While America's news cycles are focused on how Americans' 401(k)s are
transitioning to 101(k)s, the growing numbers of unemployed (but, sadly, not
enough about the faces and stories and realities of those millions creating the
statistics), poor store sales, and a dog stuck in a tunnel, planetary news
bulletins are becoming ever more worrisome, too frequently suggesting that we
need to reset our thinking with analysis showing another 'tipping point' having
passed. We have climate change, we are living it. It is hard to understand how
to define "catastrophic" when there are already species going extinct,
communities having to be moved, and the very existence of nations threatened.
But, the crossing of tipping points is redefining "catastrophic" on, virtually,
a daily basis.
Let us be clear. We have exactly as time as required to avert utter
catastrophe, as long as we start today. With each minute of the Bush
administration, "utter catastrophe" was redefined in worse terms with each
passing day, as we have failed to confront global warming directly and make
even a shadow of necessary Change.
We, however, face a Change to the dynamic.
Come 20 January, we will have a president to believe in in the Oval Office,
a president who has committed to taking serious action to Change our reckless
path into catastrophic climate change.
Not in the public agenda, however, are concepts for geo-engineering, to
seek to shape the planet to redefine 'catastrophe' to something less
disastrous. With the ever-more concerning (terrifying) news from the scientific
community, we might not have a choice other than to embark on some form of
geo-engineering.
About geo-engineering
In the face of the potential for catastrophic climate change and global
warming, "geo-engineering" is an arena getting a little attention and some
press, such as W Broad, NYT Times
Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a
large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability".
One can argue that all efforts to control carbon emissions (to reverse past
emissions) falls within GeoEngineering, but that is not the general context of
consideration, which often focuses on efforts that would, somehow, have a
direct impact on Earth's temperatures (and not, necessarily, on carbon loads).
One step back question, which does not necessarily seem to occur in many
conversations, is what principles should guide Geo-Engineering efforts and
prioritization of their potential.
Some thoughts as to _Principles_
The core principle should be: win-win-win.
A proposal that, in a systems of systems effort, provides multiple wins and
does not solely address temperature.
Thus, a proposal that offers real potential for improving economy, reducing
carbon, and contributing to reduced temperature (both directly, somehow, and
indirectly through reduced carbon loads or carbon capture) would seem to merit
greater prioritization than high-cost efforts that would solely impact
"temperature" but not impact (or worsen) the carbon load equation.
Risk factors must be placed into the equation.
a.. How "known" are the system-of-system implications?
b.. Does it create other problems while "solving" (or ameliorating or
delaying) temperature challenges?
c.. And, can the response be done quickly, affordable, and in a
distributed fashion?
These seem to be some questions that can be asked to see whether
'win-win-win' is possible.
Looking at Geo-Engineering options: Five "traditional" proposals
Wikipedia provides five examples of GeoEngineering
a.. Mirrors in space: proposed by Roger Angel with the purpose to deflect
a percentage of solar sunlight into space, using mirrors floating around the
earth in orbit.
a.. Stratosphere sulfur-spraying: proposed by Paul Crutzen with the
purpose to modify the earth's albedo with reflective or absorptive materials
spread over portions of its surface.
a.. Nourishment: proposed by Ian Jones with the purpose to fertilize the
ocean with iron to encourage algae growth.
a.. Cloud-seeding: proposed by John Latham and Stephen Saltner with the
purpose to spray seawater in the atmosphere to increase the reflectiveness of
clouds.
a.. Artificial Trees: proposed by Klaus Lackner with the purpose to suck
carbon out of the atmosphere.
While each is interesting (even intriguing) in its own way(s), these seem
to (across the board) fail the "win-win-win" equation process (although, to be
honest, the artificial trees are rather interesting to consider).
The space mirrors would be tremendously (prohibitively) expensive and do
nothing about carbon loads (and, potentially, actually worsen them). The
Sulphur risks more acid rain for a limited gain in slowing warming trends. The
Iron Seeding seems to have limited results in testing and has uncertain
long-term prospects. Cloud-Seeding, again, is a net carbon cost (the energy to
run the system) with some uncertainty over the impact.
Each of these merits more attention than one summary paragraph can provide,
but to summarize: these are not win-win-win strategies.
Do Geo-Engineering Win-Win-Win Spaces Exist?
Okay, I've set out a few ideas on principles, created a challenge. Is it a
challenge that can realistically be met? Simply put: yes! Here are several
paths to help contribute to dealing with temperature levels that go to a
positive space in other arenas.
Reflective Roofing: A typical 'asphalt' shingle/such roof, with a very low
albedo factor (reflectivity) absorb substantial amounts of solar radiation
through the year. Shifting to a reflective roofing material can send much of
that solar radiation back to space. It is also highly cost effective because it
can reduce air conditioning loads and increase roof longevity. Some payback
analysis suggests that, when compared to 'traditional' roofing, reflective
roofs can pay back the added cost in just a few weeks. Now, what about the
heat/cooling impact globally?
The Earth has an albedo of 0.29, meaning that it reflects 29 per cent of
the sunlight that falls upon it. With an albedo of 0.1, towns absorb more
sunlight than the global average. Painting all roofs white could nudge the
Earth's albedo from 0.29 towards 0.30. According to a very simple
"zero-dimensional" model of the Earth, this would lead to a drop in global
temperature of up to 1 °C, almost exactly cancelling out the global warming
that has taken place since the start of the industrial revolution. A
zero-dimensional model, however, excludes the atmosphere and, crucially, the
role of clouds. [But!] It would be interesting to see if more sophisticated
models predict a similar magnitude of cooling.
As much as 1 degree centigrade via white roofing! Perhaps it is time to
start changing building codes and reflecting some sun back to space.
White roofing could be a Silver BB to slay global warming,
Globally, roofs account for 25% of the surface of most cities, and
pavement accounts for about 35%. If all were switched to reflective material in
100 major urban areas, it would offset 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases
That is from, I believe, the direct cooling effect. Of course, high-albedo
(highly reflective) roofs will lower carbon loads through energy efficiency and
reduced roofing replacement requirements in out years. And, another win
element: this can be done by almost any organization, any government, any
individual ... now. And, they will save money while helping to save the
planet's habilitability.
Permaculture: We can reclaim deserts through inexpensive but quite
thoughtful practices, reducing the heat loads in these areas, capturing carbon,
and fostering economic activity. Don't believe me? Take a few moments to watch
this.
Again, permaculture can be used for good effect almost anywhere, at low
cost with a high benefit. And, of course, the can be used as a carbon sink.
What are we waiting for?
Agrichar / Biochar: Very simply, we have the potential for a
carbon-negative fuel that could, over time, also foster improve fertility in
soil. Very simply, gasification of biomass can be combined with agricultural
practices to create energy, have the waste plowed back into the soil to improve
fertility (while reducing fertilizer requirements), and have some of the carbon
from each of these cycles captured in the soil.
[T]he great advantage of biochar is the fact that the technique can be
applied world-wide on agricultual soils, and even by rural communities in the
developing world because it is relatively low tech.
Agrichar could, potentially, make humanity carbon neutral and set the path
toward reversing the seemingly inexorable growth in atmospheric CO2 levels.
This is a highly promising arena that is getting attention, but perhaps not
enough. For some additional discussion, for example, see: Energize America
(also); Biochar: The New Frontier; The pay dirt of El Dorado; International
Biochar Initiative; Birth of a New Wedge; Terra Preta for Carbon Reduction;
Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030; Terra Preta
Bio-Energy List; and the comments to an earlier version of this post. [Note,
for a related approach see Engineer Poet's Going Negative.]
Roaring 40s: Remember the ice cube being dropped in the ocean to solve
Global Warming in Futurama? Maybe this wasn't total lunacy. The Roaring 40s in
the southern hemisphere have tremendous wind resources, wind resources that are
Stranded Wind. Wind farms, perhaps floating wind farms, can be set up in these
great winds to make ammonia to be used for fuel (and perhaps hydrogen and
perhaps be used to support industrial processes in these areas). The process of
making this ammonia will remove heat energy from the oceans and, voila,
contribute to ice formation.
Win-Win-Win
Geo-Engineering is staring us in the face. But, we can pursue
"Geo-Engineering" along win-win-win paths, such that they will more than 'pay
for themselves' while helping to moderate temperature through the decades
(centuries) of abnormally high carbon loads in the atmosphere.
a.. Climate change
b.. Global Warming
[Image Removed]
[Image Removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to 350+ music, sports, & news radio stations – including songs for the
holidays – FREE while you browse. Start Listening Now!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
