[Ludi]

I have to point out that people felt the same way about forests ... and recent research proved them wrong (i.e. tropeical forests are not a good carbon sequestration option).

This is due to the tendency of trees to produce most of their biomass above ground, unlike tallgrasses. Tropical soils also don't hold humus (humified carbon) as well as temperate soils.

[nocar]

Devil and Ludi, thanks for the discussion, very educational.

But I got stuck on a sheep, beans and onions.

Devil wrote:

IMHO, you would be far better employed growing "organic" veggies and a sheep or two in your 5 acres. (whoever heard of veggies that weren't organic ). Perhaps not beans or onions, though, as they may be methane generators!

Sheep are no better than cattle, or beans or onions, are they? In terms of emitting methane.
Both sheep and cattle are ruminants, using the very efficient ruminant digestion system, which depends on methane producing microorganisms.

The statement that beans and onions produce methane is new to me. How? Why those two? What about other legumes like peas?

nocar

[Ludi]

The statement that beans and onions produce methane is new to me. How? Why those two? What about other legumes like peas?

(I think he was referring to the way beans and onions cause digestive gas. You're right about sheep of course, they are ruminants, and so they belch and fart like crazy.)

[EnergySpin]

I have to point out that people felt the same way about forests ... and recent research proved them wrong (i.e. tropeical forests are not a good carbon sequestration option).

This is due to the tendency of trees to produce most of their biomass above ground, unlike tallgrasses. Tropical soils also don't hold humus (humified carbon) as well as temperate soils.

True ... I only wanted to point out that the question has to be researched. DOE has an active biological carbon sequestration program (i.e. via tallgrasses). I have posted the link before ... cannot seem to find it at this moment.
The question about tropical forests was settled a few months ago ... it will take some time to settle the question for "below ground" CO2 sequestration. In the meantime ... the best carbon seq policy is not to burn carbon at all

[Ludi]

[In the meantime ... the best carbon seq policy is not to burn carbon at all

Oh I agree! Sequestration is pointless unless we also reduce our emissions.

Is this the program you're talking about?

DOE-EPSCoR University of Nebraska Carbon Sequestration Program

[Caoimhan]

Interesting stuff!

In a recent report I read about a long-term comparison between conventional farming methods (using large amounts of petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides) and organic methods, they found that organic methods replenished the soil's carbon content (humus) and after about 4 years, yields were nearly identical.

Seems to me that if carbon is being returned to the soil, this is a good thing, because not only is that carbon sequestered there, but its presence helps produce agricultural yields that do not rely as much on artificial petroleum inputs.

[Ludi]

Apparently artificially boosting the soil's fertility with chemical fertilizers actually increases its methane and CO2 production. This makes sense, because soils that are artificially fertilized generally become depleted of humus (carbon). This is the state of most agricultural soils in the US, they're essentially lifeless unless chemically fertilized.

Certainly there are organic methods of agriculture which return carbon to the soil, but not all organic methods do so to the same degree.

[EnergySpin]

[In the meantime ... the best carbon seq policy is not to burn carbon at all

Oh I agree! Sequestration is pointless unless we also reduce our emissions.

Is this the program you're talking about?

DOE-EPSCoR University of Nebraska Carbon Sequestration Program

Yeap this is the main DOE page. Click the http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/scienceman.html#enchancing for the research on terrestrial CO2 sequestration.
The cellulosic Ethanol for switchgrass program is actually a spin-off of both the Terrestrial Carbon Seq and the Biofuel Research program by NREL.
From the limited time I spent reading about all these things It appears a promising approach to both liquid fuels+long term storage (I recall a figure of 30+ years for the mean residence time of of CO2 within the rhizome of tall grasses but I'm suffering memory lapses).
However this research program cuts across at least 10 different scientific specialties , hence it will be extremely complicated to communicate.
The devil will be in the details .... and experiemts are needed. In the meantime , the prudent approach would be to get off the carbon crack

[Ludi]

However this research program cuts across at least 10 different scientific specialties , hence it will be extremely complicated to communicate.
The devil will be in the details .... and experiemts are needed.

Yes, this is a complicated endeavor, it's good to see there's research being done.

As you know, I find "getting off the carbon crack" problematical, because I'm dead set against nukes personally. I don't think my opinion about them is going to change. But that's a discussion for another thread!

[Judgie]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 10,00.html

Major carbon dump for SA
Article from: The Advertiser

* Font size: Decrease Increase
* Email article: Email
* Print article: Print
* Submit comment: Submit comment

CAMERON ENGLAND, CHIEF BUSINESS REPORTER

September 18, 2007 02:15am

THE world's biggest carbon dump being planned for the state's Outback could hold up to one billion tonnes of greenhouse gases.

This is more than twice the capacity first planned.

Adelaide-based oil and gas company Santos believes a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be stored in its depleted oil and gas reservoirs in the Cooper Basin, compared with an original estimate of 400 million tonnes.

In June, The Advertiser revealed Santos had applied to the Federal Government for $275 million in funding as part of an estimated $714 million first-phase investment, to demonstrate storing greenhouse gases underground worked.

That project was based on eventually pumping 20 million tonnes of CO2 underground per year, for 20 years, from as early as 2010.

This would make it by far the largest carbon sequestration project in the world, but Santos spokesman Matthew Doman said yesterday it could now be even bigger.



"It comes from several things – the existence of aquifers below the Cooper Basin which could also be used to inject and store carbon . . .the other is the fact that as you use CO2 to pressurise the field and get more oil out, the removal of that oil creates more space in the oil field itself so that increases by about 20 per cent the capacity of the oil field storage beyond our initial estimates," he said.

[nocar]

What does SA in the thread title stand for?

SA = Saudi Arabia
SA = South Africa
SA = South America
SA = South Australia?

I think acronyms are used too often

nocar

[Tanada]

My objection for this is the same as all the other CO2 sequestration schemes, how much extra energy will we need to produce in order to seperate, refridgerate, and pump in all this CO2 they plan on storing? Those items are not a free ride, someone has to put energy into the system for those to occur.

Producing CO2 from air is easy enough, with a decent compressor and a good refridgeration system, but both need energy to work. Pumping the liquid CO2 and making sure it stays below the critical temperature and above critical pressure also takes energy coupled with moderate knowledge.

Injecting it into an old oil field or aquafer also has some challanges because of the pressure/temperature requirements, but nothing spectacularly difficult, but again requires energy for pumping and monitoring.

According to the EPA the USA generates 26 million tons of food waste per year. That would be about twice as much CO2 sequestered as the Adelaide project if it were high density packed into steel drum and dropped into the abyssal plain on the sea floor!

And you would not have to worry about an Earthquake releasing it back into the atmosphere, or a faulty plug in a well casing turing it back loose in the future either.

[BrazilianPO]

Since they will pump CO2 into an old oil field to increase pressure and output, much like the nitrogen thing PEMEX is doing in Cantarell, then it has some purpose. That is the only reason I see for it. Global Warming is not good enough, specially with China completing a new coal thermoelectrical plant every 10 days.

Given the limited information that I have, my verdict at this moment is "thumbs up for this project! "

[Judgie]

Since they will pump CO2 into an old oil field to increase pressure and output, much like the nitrogen thing PEMEX is doing in Cantarell, then it has some purpose. That is the only reason I see for it. Global Warming is not good enough, specially with China completing a new coal thermoelectrical plant every 10 days.

Given the limited information that I have, my verdict at this moment is "thumbs up for this project! "

Thanks for everyones perspective's, it's much appreciated. I too agree that for the moment it's a good thing, giving us that little bit of extra time to prepare/study alternatives or what have you. It's not surprising after you brought it up that the real reason they're doing it is to conveniently up pressures to get the last of the NG out.....

[alokin]

This is for Ludi, you mentioned in another thread no till agriculture.

They are talking of no-till, Permaculture, food forests, agroforestry, mulch agriculture, than there is this Japanese guy Fukuo....

Who follows one of this principles?
Are there traditional societies using one of the mentioned methods or anything similar?
What are the differences?
Which method is suitable for which climate?

And how are these methods carried out practically?

It is said that tilling releases heaps of Carbon Dioxide, how much I don't know.

[vtsnowedin]

At the risk of starting a agriculture/permaculture debate.(its winter and have the time), I'll put forward the following just as a point of discussion.

Tillage has its place. In organic farming where no herbicides or insecticides are used it is the major tool against weeds and some insects. A properly set up and operated plow will turn each furrow completely over leaving the grass or cover crop upside down from ten to sixteen inches deep and with weed and root free soil at the surface ready to be disked and planted. The grass mat deprived of light will die and begin to rot releaseing its nutrients into the soil just as the planted crops roots reach down towards it. In addition insect larva and eggs that were at the surface get buryed deep enough so that most do not survive along with the weed seeds that are on or near the surface. Rain or irrigation water will soak down through the surface soil and get soaked up by the rotting root mat where it can be drawn from by the crops roots.
All in all a very profitable process. It would take a tremendous amount of hand weeding and the application of heavy mulch to accomplish as much or the application of chemicals.
It does have its drawbacks and cautions. Plowing exposes the soil to erosion by both wind and water and the root free soil is more subject to compaction. Contour plowing, strip farming with cover and green manure crop rotation and equipment pass rotation can all be used to guard against these.
Tillage has been practised for ten thousand years or so because it works.
Now I'm going to jump into my fox hole and close the lid before the first flaming bomb hits.

[alokin]

Come out of your fox hole (I (still) have got only a backyard and I am hoeing unless convinced of other methods.
If something is a proven technique for a very long period it must have some advantages. But was it practiced all over the world or are there cultures which did agriculture without tilling? I know that in Australia tilling meant a loos of topsoil and salinity (hope I am right). Maybe it's a question of scale and if there are hedgerows in between the fields.
Is tilling maybe a more cold climate practice?

[hardtootell]

I have given some thought to the till/no till debate and I have a small conclusion to offer. Like most things, overdoing it is a bad idea. If tilling was done in long narrow strips (if you have lotsa land), most potential damage (soil erosion) should be limited by the green buffer on both sides of the strip. If this was combined with best practices of mulching/composting, fallowing, green manuring and crop rotation, I don't see a problem. The exception may be in high iron clay soils, which can develop hardpan so hard they can't be broken by a pickaxe.

just my $0.02

[vtsnowedin]

Is tilling maybe a more cold climate practice?

It was until recent years pretty universal from rice paddys plowed with water buffelo to dryland farming on the prairies. One of the original definitions of an 'acre' was the amount of land you could plow with a yoke of oxen in a day. If you are hoeing or spading you are tilling just in a less efficent way.
As obvious as it might seem the full effects of wind and water erosion were not fully understood until the dustbowl of the American southwest in the 1930s. Practices are much improved now but annual losses are still significant. Also some of the improvements in soil retention have come by replaceing tillage with herbacides which brings its own set of problems.

[alokin]

What backdraws do these mulch Fuku.. (this Japanese guy I can't remember the name - one straw revolution) have? Does any serious farmer use it?
And how about those nice theories like agroforestry, forest farming or food forest? Are there farmers using this technique? And did traditional societies farm that way? (I always ask for the traditional systems, as this seems to me proven methods and maybe useful post PO)