It would be great if you could check the time to sinking of trees in the Arctic, Albert.. It would be a very simple technique, quite cheap and possibly very effective. I think it's much more likely to work than CROPS because of the size of the trees inhibits decay, as does the cold water. I am concerned the trees would pose a hazard to shipping.
Would it be possible t fell all year round? I would have thought that felling deciduous trees in winter would be unwise as their leaves would possibly damage river and sea ecology. A 2009/2/6 Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> > 3-6 months afloat, can try check for various trees. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 01:40:35 +0000 > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CROPS paper >> So, lets go boys for the old gravel > pits and seasides... > From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com > To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com > > > can you clarify if the logs will eventually sink? how long will it take > for this to happen? > A > > 2009/2/5 Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> > > 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 -0500 > Subject: [geo] Re: CROPS paper >> So, lets go boys for the old gravel pits > and seasides... > From: mmacc...@comcast.net > To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > > I 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? > > Mike > > > On 2/5/09 4:14 AM, "Albert Kallio" > <albert_kal...@hotmail.com<http://hotmail.com/>> > 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: wig...@ucar.edu <http://ucar.edu/> > > To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com <http://hotmail.com/> > > CC: andrew.lock...@gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>; > > agask...@nc.rr.com<http://nc.rr.com/>; > sstr...@u.washington.edu <http://u.washington.edu/>; > xbenf...@aol.com<http://aol.com/>; > geoengineering@googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/> > > 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: andrew.lock...@gmail.com <http://gmail.com/> > > > > To: agask...@nc.rr.com <http://nc.rr.com/> > > > > CC: sstr...@u.washington.edu <http://u.washington.edu/>; > xbenf...@aol.com <http://aol.com/>; > > > geoengineering@googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <agask...@nc.rr.com <http://nc.rr.com/>>: > > > > > 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" > > > > > <sstr...@u.washington.edu <http://u.washington.edu/>> > > > > > To: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com <http://gmail.com/> > > > > > > > Cc: <xbenf...@aol.com <http://aol.com/>>; "geoengineering" > > > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/>> > > > > > 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 > > > > > <sstr...@u.washington.edu<http://u.washington.edu/> > >: > > > > >> > > > > >> 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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/> > > > > >> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] > On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:05 AM > > > > >> To: xbenf...@aol.com <http://aol.com/>; 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 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free Find out > more!<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/132630768/direct/01/> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
