Charring works I agree but it retains only 50 percent of the biomass carbon. Half-charred idea: how about pressing the micro-algae for their oil and then charring the press-cake to make charcoal? If pressing retains 60% of the carbon, the whole process could sequester 80% of the captured carbon!
BTW, are we set on high yield salt water micro-algae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture for the CO2 capture? It seems less fuss than macro-algae (seaweeds), and can be grown anywhere on the ocean surface not just in shallow areas. As I said if it turned out to be more economical we could also harvest the open sea phytoplankton (which we could re-seed to help natural reproduction), using floating multi-km2 fine-mesh nets. Wouldn't it be nice if a self-powered harvesting/processing supertanker departing empty from a middle east port could arrive full at a US port? :) Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "vortex-l" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize >I see your point Nick, harvesting algae using a floating horizontal fine-mesh >seine > as an algae pond to sequester atmospheric CO2 followed by charring the algae > is > a seine idea. > Since Michel is closer to the Seine.... and you are closer to Branson. :-) > > The millions of acres in the US that are in "set aside acreage" that are > brush-hogged so the farmer can collect up to $30.00/acre (or are > brush-hogged to keep the place looking good) that oxidize releasing > CO2, could be covered with a fiberglass mat or such to generate > "slash-and-char > bio-char in situ. > > Fred > > http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-55516.html > > "Slash-and-burn, which is commonly used in many parts of the world to prepare > fields for crops, releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. > Slash-and-char, on the other hand, actually reduces greenhouse gases, Lehmann > said, by sequestering huge amounts of carbon for thousands of years and > substantially reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from soils. > > "The result is that about 50 percent of the biomass carbon is retained," > Lehmann said. "By sequestering huge amounts of carbon, this technique > constitutes a much longer and significant sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide > than most other sequestration options, making it a powerful tool for > long-term mitigation of climate change. In fact we have calculated that up to > 12 percent of the carbon emissions produced by human activity could be offset > annually if slash-and-burn were replaced by slash-and-char." > > In addition, many biofuel production methods, such as generating bioenergy > from agricultural, fish and forestry waste, produce bio-char as a byproduct. > "The global importance of a bio-char sequestration as a byproduct of the > conversion of biomass to bio-fuels is difficult to predict but is potentially > very large," he added. " > > Nick Palmer wrote: >> >> >> Here's three more websites (particularly the first one) that extol the >> apparently huge benefits of bio-char charcoal in > soils. If the char was >> created from pyrolysed algae that was fattened on fossil fuel sourced >> CO2, we could be on our way to a share of $25 million! >> Can anyone do some numbers? >> >> http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm >> >> http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-55516.html >>> http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/05947/EGU05-J-05947.pdf >>
