Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Carbon Capture Storage Sequestration (merged)

Carbon Capture Storage Sequestration (merged)

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 30 Sep 2005, 15:01:56

I'm wondering if anyone has handy a figure for the amount of carbon produced by the average American family in a year. I'm searching for this information for some research on carbon sequestration.

Thanks.



eta: Ok, I found figures varying from 5.5 tons carbon per person per year to 6.8 tons carbon per person per year.
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Devil » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 04:14:04

Man, generally, is adding 5 Gt of carbon to the atmosphere each year from fossil fuels. If we assume that 26% of this is burnt in the USA, this is 1.3 Gt. If you divide this by a population of 290,000,000, this is, as a first approximation, 4.5 t/year/man,woman or child, which is somewhat less than your figures. However, the error is probably due to the 26%, which is really only for oil. The USA probably burns proportionally more coal than the average, so 5.5 tonnes is certainly plausible. Also, this figure does not account for the massive fossil CO2 emissions from calcining cement for concrete production.

However, IMHO, sequestration on a useful scale is absolutely pie in the sky: see http://www.cypenv.org/Files/sequest.htm for more details.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 07:00:09

Regarding sequestration on a useful scale being pie in the sky, I agree, it's very very unlikely to occur.

However, my research is for my own personal efforts to mitigate my per capita carbon emissions.

Taking the higher figure from above (which includes concrete production), I calculated I would need to plant about 15 acres of tallgrass in order to mitigate my household's annual carbon emissions. I don't have 15 acres of open land, but I should be able to plant about 5 acres, possibly a little more. The rest of the land is in trees, and I don't have the data for how much carbon trees are likely to sequester. Not much compared to tallgrass, probably.

If anyone's interested in the details of my calculations, I'd be happy to provide them.
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Devil » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 08:34:31

Ludi

You would have to add 15 acres each year and somehow prevent the previous years' tallgrass growth from decomposing to release the sequestered carbon back again into the atmosphere. :(

Also, have you thought that any of the grass falling onto damp ground may partially decompose anaerobically, causing the carbon to be converted back to methane, which is 20 - 50 times worse, as a GHG, than the CO2 it absorbed in the first place??? You may well do, on a picoscale, much more harm than good. :(

Your idea may appear as noble, but please think it through carefully, from cradle to grave, before committing yourself and actually causing environmental harm.

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 :roll: :roll: ). Perhaps not beans or onions, though, as they may be methane generators! :lol: :lol:
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 01 Oct 2005, 12:54:02

No, this is based on the amount of growth the plants produce annually underground, their enormous root systems, which stay underground. Tallgrasses are perennial, so they don't need to be planted each year.

I think your idea that I may cause environmental harm by restoring my local watershed and ecosystem is, well, frankly, extremely bizarre. 8O

I already grow vegetables, and plan to get a couple sheep and a couple goats. But those animals have to eat something you know - Hey! Maybe they can eat grass!
Ludi
 


Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Devil » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 05:08:58

Ludi wrote:I think your idea that I may cause environmental harm by restoring my local watershed and ecosystem is, well, frankly, extremely bizarre. 8O


Not at all. Any growth cycle that photosynthetically absorbs carbon dioxide and releases the carbon again as methane is negative as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. This is why, for example, the increasing areas of rice paddies is causing great concern as they make a very significant contribution to GHG production. Another indirect example causing concern is the increased numbers of cattle that convert a goodly part of the grass they eat into methane by enteric fermentation.

Chlorophyll in a leaf does not last for ever, not even in perennial evergreens. When a leaf no longer fulfils its purpose, it dies. So it is with perennial graminae. Rhizomous roots cannot expand indefinitely either. What will happen with your tallgrass is that it will absorb n kg/are for the first year and perhaps the second year, until it reaches saturation and becomes rootbound. There will then be an exponential decay of the absorbed carbon dioxide, as new growth will become limited. Old leaves will turn yellow as the chlorophyll diminishes and eventually die, the remains falling to the ground where it will decompose. Most of the carbon contained in it will be re-emitted as CO2 and, far worse, CH4. In a cycle of a few years, all of the first year's growth will have decomposed, releasing the carbon gases, including a proportion as methane. At the best, you will have gained a few years' suspension of the carbon in the atmosphere. At the worst, you will have caused an increase of methane and thus GHG loading, increasing temperature forcing.

This is not fantasy, but hard fact. Read the essay I referenced earlier. Sequestration by plants does not work, other than delaying the effects, and is harmful to the environment if methane is produced as part of the cycle.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 07:44:30

Devil, carbon sequestration using perennial tallgrasses does work, the carbon is put permanently underground. With tallgrass, 60% of the plant's growth occurs underground. When the grass is grazed or harvested,or goes dormant in winter, a portion of the root system dies, that portion leaving its carbon permanently underground (unless plowed).

Annual plow agriculture is a major contributor to loss of soil carbon, so I don't know why you think it would be more beneficial for me to grow vegetables on 5 acres than tallgrass.


There are so many benefits to growing tallgrass in this region which used to be home to tallgrass prairie. Our watersheds have been badly damaged due to overgrazing, and now droughts and floods are much more severe. Springs and creeks which used to run all year now only run during floods. We're losing vast amounts of topsoil due to flooding. This could all be reversed with the restoration of tallgrasses.


Do you see allowing continued desertification to be the answer to global warming? Because if plants are seen as the enemy, the Earth will quickly become a desert.


carbon in prairie soils
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Devil » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 09:30:42

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The root system is also evolving continually with herbaceous perennials and new roots grow as old roots die off and rot, producing methane. Sequestration would work only if new plant growth, either below or above ground, were permanent (by permanent, I mean with a folded-e life of several centuries or even millennia before it was reconverted to gas form). Only carefully preserved hardwoods could approach this criterion.

I never said plants were an enemy. Far from it. All I said was that long term vegetable carbon sequestration to counter anthropogenic carbon emissions is a myth, so please don't try and put words in my mouth.

I agree with you that man has caused much harm to the biotopes, including prairie land, by one means or another. If you try to restore the original vegetable growth, then well and good, I'm all for it (although a few acres is hardly going to make much difference) but, please, don't believe you will be contributing to improving the carbon loading that you are adding to the atmosphere, because you won't. And remember that natural prairie land is not a single species but at least 50 types of plants with natural fires every so often, bison and deer grazing, birds eating the seeds, insects and other small animals proliferating, including some you would probably consider as pests. Monoculture does not constitute a biotope.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 09:47:50

Ludi wrote:Regarding sequestration on a useful scale being pie in the sky, I agree, it's very very unlikely to occur.

However, my research is for my own personal efforts to mitigate my per capita carbon emissions.

Taking the higher figure from above (which includes concrete production), I calculated I would need to plant about 15 acres of tallgrass in order to mitigate my household's annual carbon emissions. I don't have 15 acres of open land, but I should be able to plant about 5 acres, possibly a little more. The rest of the land is in trees, and I don't have the data for how much carbon trees are likely to sequester. Not much compared to tallgrass, probably.

If anyone's interested in the details of my calculations, I'd be happy to provide them.


If you truely want to sequester that carbon gathered by the tallgrass and trees you would need to gather up the leaves and mow the grass collecting all the clippings, then dense pack the resulting carbon containing matter in weighted steel barrels. Once you do that you store the barrels in the barn, or you dump them someplace like a dessert storage facility or the Mississippi Delta where they will be undisturbed for the forseeable future.

Otherwise the carbohydrate materials will decompose over a few short years and they will release the CO2 back into the air.

Has anyone calculated how much carbon the average american could sequester by simply taking his daily newspaper and junk snail mail and putting it in long tern secure barrel storage? I bet it is a lot more than you would think just from guessing.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 12:03:24

Devil, so you are saying I should take your word over that of professional soil scientists? I'm sorry, but I don't know your background, why should I believe you? If you have the qualifications to be making these recommendations, I may take your opinions into account, otherwise, not.



DEADLY GRASS THREATENS PLANET!

Image

Beginning tallgrass restoration on my place.
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 02 Oct 2005, 14:55:42

Devil, I want to add that I'm not intending to be disrespectful. Just that I find all these references to carbon sequestration in prairie and other unplowed soils, versus the document which you provide which takes a simplistic look at carbon sequestration via plants. It doesn't even touch on carbon sequestration by unplowed grasslands.


This linked article suggests prairie soils tend to have high methane oxidation activity, though under certain conditions they may produce methane. Forest soils showed the lowest potential for methane production:

methane oxidation in soils

To say that meaningful carbon sequestration by prairie restoration is unlikely is one thing, but to claim that carbon sequestration simply does not occur in prairie soils seems to me to be false in light of the research presented in the documents I'm citing.
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Chaparral » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 01:27:27

Ludi's right on this one.

Tallgrass of various species grows (or rather, grew) in a somewhat cool and dry biome on the interior of N. America just west of the Mississippi. Decomposition of dead organic matter is slowed by the cooler temperatures and lower moisture levels. When the sodbusters started cultivating the plains they had upwards of 3 meters or 10 feet of topsoil composed of that accumulated dead organic matter in places. Every year more organic material would accumulate than was degraded by respiration.

If this solution were tried in Brazil it would not work; there is too much precipitation and the temperatures are too high. The nutrient cycling is too fast in the tropics. If it were tried in Australia, the higher temperatures there might hasten decomposition and hence CO2 or CH4 return..who really knows. It would probably work in the Ukraine or the steppes of Asia.
User avatar
Chaparral
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dead civilization walking

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Devil » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 06:46:46

Chaparral wrote:Ludi's right on this one.

Tallgrass of various species grows (or rather, grew) in a somewhat cool and dry biome on the interior of N. America just west of the Mississippi. Decomposition of dead organic matter is slowed by the cooler temperatures and lower moisture levels. When the sodbusters started cultivating the plains they had upwards of 3 meters or 10 feet of topsoil composed of that accumulated dead organic matter in places. Every year more organic material would accumulate than was degraded by respiration.

If this solution were tried in Brazil it would not work; there is too much precipitation and the temperatures are too high. The nutrient cycling is too fast in the tropics. If it were tried in Australia, the higher temperatures there might hasten decomposition and hence CO2 or CH4 return..who really knows. It would probably work in the Ukraine or the steppes of Asia.


OK, that 3 m of accumulated topsoil occurred without any methane production, right? :roll: :roll:

Temperature and humidity certainly make a difference to the rate of anaerobic decomposition but they make no difference whatsoever to the fact that all carbon absorbed by photosynthesis will, sooner or later, be re-emitted into the atmosphere (there may be a few exceptions, such as in cases of subduction of vegetable matter, but this is not valid in this context). The question is whether it is emitted as carbon dioxide or methane. Just 2 - 5% of it being emitted as methane doubles the greenhouse gas emissions. It may surprise you to know that about 115 teragrams of emitted methane arise from natural growth, obviously mainly in wetlands This compares with "only" 45 Tg from natural gas exploitation and a total of 530 Tg from all sources [Tetlow-Smith, 1995].

As for your photo/caption, this displays only your ignorant misconception of what I've been trying, vainly it seems, to tell you. All I have said is that long-term vegetable sequestration of anthropogenic carbon is a myth.

At this moment there are about 550 Gt (billion tonnes) of carbon in land biota, mostly in vegetation. This absorbs 102 Gt from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and releases 50 Gt back directly to the atmosphere. A further 50 Gt goes into soil and detritus, which stocks 1500 Gt but releases 50 Gt into the atmosphere. This leaves 2 Gt unaccounted for and this is largely washed down into the sea via rivers with a small amount going into rock formation. [Sundquist et al. 1990]

OK, you question my qualifications. From 1988, I have worked with and for the United Nations Environment Programme and the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (BUWAL), prior to that the corporation I founded in 1975 was concerned with environment in industry. I have worked with some of the leading atmospheric scientists in the world on both the chemistry and physics of the air we breathe. I have formal qualifications in engineering, chemistry, physics and toxicology. I have written many technical papers and books (some co-authored) related to the environment in some way or another and have worked and lectured in many countries in all continents except Australasia and Antarctica. I have received awards and citations for my work from the US EPA, the US Navy, the IPC, UNEP and elsewhere. I have also sat on ISO, UNEP and IPC committees. Capisci?

(My apologies to others for the trumpet-blowing, but this Ludi guy claims to know more and have more experience than I in the field, without explaining his qualifications other than owning 5 acres of land)
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 06:54:00

Devil, no, I have NEVER made that claim, not here in this thread, not anywhere. You are the one now putting words into my mouth. I have made no claim as to my own qualifications, I have merely cited the research that I have found. THAT IS ALL.

Please do not call me ignorant, that is just rude. My photo and caption were meant as a joke. Lighten up a litte.

Thank you for sharing your qualifications, that does give more weight to your position. However, I'm still doubting if you have read these documents I cited. How you can claim that all this research being done by all these soil scientists is a "myth" is a mystery to me. How can all of these people be working on a myth?
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 07:15:43

If you could cite some of this "carbon sequestration is a myth" research, if available on the net, I'd appreciate it.

I've only been able to find references regarding tree plantations and forests not being effective carbon sinks.
Ludi
 

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Devil » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 08:13:02

Ludi wrote:How you can claim that all this research being done by all these soil scientists is a "myth" is a mystery to me. How can all of these people be working on a myth?


I suggest you read the full IPCC scientific reports at http://www.ipcc.ch/

I see they have just issued a new report on physical sequestration (which I have not read, yet). I'm not convinced of the practicality of this. Theoretically, it could work, to some extent, but the cost will be ginormous at the scale of power stations and it does nothing for emissions from households or transport.

I strongly recommend Barry & Chorley if you wish to get an excellent, basic, easy-to-understand book, with no maths:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... R&st=books
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Caoimhan » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 11:33:09

What percentage of topsoil is carbon?

Seems to me, if you take some acreage with 1 inch of topsoil, and a decade later, due to vegetation, you have 4 inches of topsoil, it would mean 3 inches of topsoil, with its carbon content, have been sequestered.

Am I missing something here?
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby EnergySpin » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 11:40:48

Caoimhan wrote:What percentage of topsoil is carbon?

Seems to me, if you take some acreage with 1 inch of topsoil, and a decade later, due to vegetation, you have 4 inches of topsoil, it would mean 3 inches of topsoil, with its carbon content, have been sequestered.

Am I missing something here?

This is the general premise of below ground carbon sequestration programs ... i.e. it stores carbon by building topsoil. As the roots deteriorate, carbon stays in forms of carbohydrates in the soil matrix. As with all hypothesis ... it has to be tested, and answering the question will come in the form of an extremely complicated multi-page report full of math and chemical formulas.
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).
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Carbon questions

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 03 Oct 2005, 11:43:55

The IPCC Mitigation report seems to indicate the position of the IPCC is that carbon sequestration via agricultural practices is possible, and not a myth:

3.3.4 The Main Mitigation Options in the Agricultural Sector

Agriculture contributes only about 4% of global carbon emissions from energy use, but over 20% of anthropogenic GHG emissions (in terms of MtCeq/yr) mainly from CH4 and N2O as well as carbon from land clearing. There have been modest gains in energy efficiency for the agricultural sector since the SAR, and biotechnology developments related to plant and animal production could result in additional gains, provided concerns about adverse environmental effects can be adequately addressed. A shift from meat towards plant production for human food purposes, where feasible, could increase energy efficiency and decrease GHG emissions (especially N2O and CH4 from the agricultural sector). Significant abatement of GHG emissions can be achieved by 2010 through changes in agricultural practices, such as:

soil carbon uptake enhanced by conservation tillage and reduction of land use intensity;
CH4 reduction by rice paddy irrigation management, improved fertilizer use, and lower enteric CH4 emissions from ruminant animals;
avoiding anthropogenic agricultural N2O emissions (which for agriculture exceeds carbon emission from fossil fuel use) through the use of slow release fertilizers, organic manure, nitrification inhibitors, and potentially genetically-engineered leguminous plants. N2O emissions are greatest in China and the USA, mainly from fertilizer use on rice paddy soils and other agricultural soils. More significant contributions can be made by 2020 when more options to control N2O emissions from fertilized soils are expected to become available.

4.3 Mitigation Options

In tropical regions there are large opportunities for C mitigation, though they cannot be considered in isolation of broader policies in forestry, agriculture, and other sectors. Additionally, options vary by social and economic conditions: in some regions slowing or halting deforestation is the major mitigation opportunity; in other regions, where deforestation rates have declined to marginal levels, improved natural forest management practices, afforestation, and reforestation of degraded forests and wastelands are the most attractive opportunities. However, the current mitigative capacity11 is often weak and sufficient land and water is not always available.

Non-tropical countries also have opportunities to preserve existing C pools, enhance C pools, or use biomass to offset fossil fuel use. Examples of strategies include fire or insect control, forest conservation, establishing fast-growing stands, changing silvicultural practices, planting trees in urban areas, ameliorating waste management practices, managing agricultural lands to store more C in soils, improving management of grazing lands, and re-planting grasses or trees on cultivated lands.

Wood and other biological products play several important roles in carbon mitigation: they act as a carbon reservoir; they can replace construction materials that require more fossil fuel input; and they can be burned in place of fossil fuels for renewable energy. Wood products already contribute somewhat to climate mitigation, but if infrastructures and incentives can be developed, wood and agricultural products may become a vital element of a sustainable economy: they are among the few renewable resources available on a large scale.


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/010.htm
Ludi
 

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests