Isn't the forestry industry already doing this -- except they are storing the carbon in buildings, paper, etc.
They make money out of this -- so who would pay them to chop down trees and simply dump them? Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Albert Kallio wrote: > In the long run, I think the only reliable way to store carbon is to set > up carbon sequestration forests and then plant and cut these and place > the wood mass in old mines, coal or gravel pits. Though, I can't see how > coal-fired power stations could sequester economically carbon this way. > I think it is very efficient in locking carbon away, but costly. > > Wood can be also stored almost indefinitely in deep waters and there are > many areas in Arctic where some lakes could be made to act as carbon > sequestration log warehouses > > I think crop residue and hay harvesting is 'too easy way out' here, > although water logged peat bogs do store carbon, something similar would > have to take place. On the other hand, melting permafrost (i.e. warmer > future climate) will intensify decay and placing hay or crop residue to > water-logged, or burying hay in permafrost, do not work in future if the > climate is much warmer. Otherwise, hay-burial in permafrost would be an > attractive option. > > In my mind this leaves good storages for carbon-sequestration > logging such as the sea, lakes and man made coal and gravel pits where > the logged wood can be put safely to salt carbon dioxide away from the > athmosphere. > > Someone should make estimates how much this kind of forestry would > cost by doing it where it could be done cheapest. May be initially, by > just cutting off trees and planting new ones. Later when best sites have > been done away, sites that require planting and fertilisation would be > looked at. > > Initially, the idea of carbon sequestration logging would be just to get > as much carbon salted away as cheaply as possible, perhaps also making > this as some sort of employment generation social programme. > > So, lets go boys for the old gravel pits and seasides... > > Rgs, > > Albert > > > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:57:35 +0000 > > Subject: [geo] Re: CROPS paper > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > > > > > I already suggested methane recovery. Methane from landfills is a > > rather unreliable technology, and involves significant leakage. You > > can accelerate production with a 'flushing bioreactor' design, where > > water is pumped through. However, bearing in mind the fill would be > > 100pc crop residue, the landfill (plus all the complex layering and > > piping) would just collapse in a big wet mess - belching out huge > > amounts of methane into the air as it did. > > > > Far better to use anaerobic digestion if you wish to recover methane. > > You can then use this methane for grid gas. I don't know if you use > > natural gas (methane) in the US but in Europe it's piped to most > > buildings for heating and cooking. > > > > A > > > > 2009/2/4 Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]>: > > > Stuart and I also discussed the possibility of disposing of the > crop residue > > > in abandoned coal mines. At the time you said you were concerned about > > > oxidation there and if the environment were anoxic, conversion to > methane. > > > KABOOM! I proposed coal mines, since they would not involve ocean > disposal > > > (obvious) and might be closer to the fields. > > > > > > The issue of oxidation time is, I believe, not trivial. While it > would be > > > desirable to have the carbon gone forever, as in the case of deep ocean > > > disposal, a storage time of 100 years would be attractive as well. > If one > > > believes that major technological advances are going to be made in > the areas > > > of renewable energy and also in air capture of carbon dioxide > within the > > > next 100 years, then placing the residue in an environment where it > would > > > slowly decay might be acceptable also. The carbon credits could then be > > > priced and prorated to reflect storage lifetimes. > > > > > > Example: a ton of unbaled wheat straw will completely oxidize to > CO2 in a > > > field in 3 months (my estimate). The same ton baled up next to the > field > > > will last for 5 years (another made up estimate just for the purpose of > > > comparison). Storage in an arid environment might extend the > lifetime to 25 > > > years. As for the methane issue, why not cover some of the crop > residue and > > > collect the methane for use as fuel for transportation of the > residue to > > > deep ocean or other disposal locations? This would not require any > complex > > > technology as this is how methane is collected from municipal waste > > > landfills. Methane from landfills is a proven use of stranded > energy and > > > could be applied to crop residue disposal as well. If the methane > cannot be > > > directly used to provide fuel for transportation of the crop > residue, it > > > could be sold and the funds generated used to purchase diesel fuel. The > > > cost of diesel fuel appears to be the single greatest cost of the CROPS > > > strategy and reducing that cost with stranded energy generated by the > > > process seems like a win win plan. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stuart Strand" > > > <[email protected]> > > > To: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" > <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:22 PM > > > Subject: [geo] Re: CROPS paper > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought I explained the methanogenesis issue pretty well > previously and I > > > don't understand your reasoning in the first paragraph below. The > > > oceanographers I have talked to agree generally with my analysis, > so I think > > > I'll leave it at that. > > > > > > Temporary storage of crop residues in the river basin is a good idea. > > > Probably at local depots, away from flood prone areas. > > > > > > = Stuart = > > > > > > > > > It methanogenesis starts, it can fairly quickly undo a lot of your > > > work. Even if it doesn't directly reach the atmos. any effect on > > > partial pressure may affect exchange with the atmos and thus raise > > > methane concentrations in the atmos. Even if the methane is oxidised, > > > all that CO2 is eventually going to cause you problems. > > > > > > Open storage in the desert should be possible. Here in England we > > > have massive warehouse-sized towers of straw bales. They take ages to > > > rot, even in our rainy weather. Fire is the biggest problem. > > > > > > As regards carbon content, it's not readily available for various > > > different kinds of straw, husk, cob etc that you might be dumping. I > > > assume it varies between plants? > > > > > > The purpose of pyrolysing to char is to reduce bulk, enhance > > > consistency and reduce bioavailability. I wasn't intending to use it > > > as an energy recovery process. Surely a few hundred kgs of char > > > powder is easier to handle and sequester than a ton of damp straw? > > > > > > A > > > > > > 2009/2/3 Stuart Strand <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> 1. Significant methane production seems unlikely, but it may be > possible > > >> in deep deposition sites. Anaerobic metabolism in ocean sediments is > > >> dominated by sulfate as the electron acceptor, not CO2, as in > freshwaters. > > >> We expect crop residue mineralization under anaerobic conditions > inside the > > >> bale to be slow, so sulfate in surrounding waters would have time > to diffuse > > >> into the bales. But if the bales are stacked too deep sulfate will be > > >> exhausted and methanogenesis will start. If methane is produced it > will not > > >> be as bubbles (which could penetrate the thermocline), but as > dissolved > > >> methane, due to the pressure. Dissolved methane will be oxidized as it > > >> diffuses up through the sediment and the water column where > aerobic and > > >> anaerobic methane oxidation occurs (the latter coupled with sulfate > > >> reduction). So methane from the crop residues is unlikely to reach the > > >> atmosphere. > > >> > > >> The above is our working hypothesis, but this is a question that > must be > > >> answered with experiments in situ, which would also provide data > to estimate > > >> parameters needed for modeling and design. > > >> > > >> 2 and 3. I am working on comparisons to pyrolysis now and I have > > >> discussed first impressions previously on this group. > > >> > > >> 4. readily available info, Andrew > > >> > > >> 5. see above > > >> > > >> 6. C Lossy. Andrew, biomass is a poor energy source, whether you make > > >> methane, ethanol or biochar from it. > > >> > > >> 7. Not as safe as the ocean I would judge. But it is something we > could > > >> do temporarily, while ocean research and the expected political > wrangling on > > >> CROPS is done. But transportation costs to and from deserts and the > > >> landfilling operations to try to keep moisture would be costly and CO2 > > >> productive. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> = Stuart = > > >> > > >> Stuart E. Strand > > >> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 > > >> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 > > >> skype: stuartestrand > > >> http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ > > >> > > >> Using only muscle power, who is the fastest person in the world? > > >> Flying start, 200 m 82.3 mph! > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham > > >> Hour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record > > >> 55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first! > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [email protected] > > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:05 AM > > >> To: [email protected]; geoengineering > > >> Subject: [geo] CROPS paper > > >> > > >> > > >> I've read through your paper in detail and I note the following. (I > > >> may have missed some things of course) > > >> > > >> 1) You don't discuss anaerobic decomposition to methane in the ocean. > > >> Is it a risk? Outgassing may be immediate or by clathrate > > >> destabilisation. > > >> 2) You don't discuss pyrolysing the waste to char before > sequestration. > > >> 3) You consider burying the waste, but you do not consider creating > > >> biochar and burying that to create terra preta > > >> 4) You reject the idea of burning crop residues and using CCS, but do > > >> not provide a quantitative analysis of the carbon content of biomass > > >> by % compared to other fuels, so it cannot be determined whether > > >> burning is relatively more efficient than for other fuels. > > >> 5) You do not directly consider the production of char by pyrolysis > > >> then onward transport of the fuel to be burned in sites suitable for > > >> CCS. It may be that thermal and industrial inefficiencies preclude > > >> this, but this cannot be assumed. Further, char is likely to be > > >> compatible with existing coal plant, when raw crop waste is not. > > >> 6) You do not consider anaerobic digestion of the crop waste to make > > >> methane gas for power generation or large-vehicle transport fuel. > > >> This technology is used extensively in the UK for food waste, albeit > > >> on an emergent scale. > > >> 7) You do not consider the alternative of storage of waste in the > > >> desert. If transported by rail to the desert, crop waste could dry > > >> naturally and then be sealed with plastic in bales. This is an > > >> obvious alternative destination for the waste. > > >> > > >> A > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
