The point of carbon sequestration logging is that in many Arctic regions trees are growing too far from paper factories and mechanical wood processing plants to be of any value to transport away. Furthermore, the paper production is extremely power intensive and increase in paper manufacture will mean increase in emissions as well. When paper comes to its end of life, the paper containing waste is often sent to incineration plants to be burned when the last bit of carbon is released back to the athomosphere. Therefore, the paper manufacture or mechanical wood processing does not count as a suitable carbon sink. Wood cut for housebuilding and scaffolding is often burned in stove, fire place or even in sauna boiler, this again releases all the carbon stuff back into the air. In the Arctic, there are millions of lakes in Finland alone 187,000, and tens of thousands of kilometers of rivers running into the Arctic Ocean, as well as 20,000 miles of sea shore from the Pacific (the Ohotsk Sea) to the rim of the Arctic Ocean where also carbon sequestered wood stuff can be conviniently dumped. The importance is the proximity of the dump to the site where trees are cut down and new samplings immediately planted. Like humans, the trees do have optimal growth age, after that their growth slows down. The idea is to keep forests growing biomass at their optimal rates and then dumping the stuff in nearby water logged sites. The key question is Jim Hansen versus Mike, I mean, Hansen says it is not enought just to stop digging coal but to reverse. So, just buring wood is not answering this question. Also, the forests that I propose to be considered for carbon sequestration logging are the ones that are in far away places with no markets to consume all that procude. I also think it viable that some coal fired facilities could stay where they are, especially if they are near users, and there is a coal pit nearby. It will also take enormous energy to cut the logs in Siberia and then send them to China to be burned on power station. I hope this clarifies my point why we need intensive carbon sequestration logging to reduce ocean acidification and GHG accummulation in the athmosphere. Regards, Albert
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:14:01 -0500Subject: [geo] Re: CROPS paper >> So, lets go boys for the old gravel pits and seasides...From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected] remain confused about this proposal—if one is going to go to all of the effort to harvest and sink the wood, why not use the wood for fuel and not mine and burn the coal?MikeOn 2/5/09 4:14 AM, "Albert Kallio" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, The forestry in the Arctic is only cutting what are needed for paper, much of it being recycled. Paper decomposes and releases things back rather easily and waste is often burned. So conventional forestry does not act as a carbon sink. Huge areas of Arctic are never forested and it is these areas where there might be potential. Rivers carry water to Arctic Ocean where any logs would sink to sea bed Rgs, Albert> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:49:26 -0700> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]> Subject: [geo] Re: CROPS paper >> So, lets go boys for the old gravel pits and seasides...> > > 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> > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail, Messenger, Photos and more - all with the new Windows Live. Get started! http://www.download.live.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
