Dear All, Dear Professor Ning ZENG The ideas developed in your paper can be applied right now.
In France we have right now in between 30 to 50 million m3 of wood lying on the ground! Two weeks ago Europe experienced one of the worst windstorms of the last two centuries (named “Klaus”). Already in December 26-28, 1999, hurricanes “Martin” and “Lothar” were called “the centennial ones”. That makes 3 “centennial” hurricanes in less than 10 years! (“Anatol” which occurred on December 1999 in northern Europe and “Kyrill” in 2007 in central Europe might be considered “decennial” ones). Only in France, hurricanes Martin and Lothar put down 170 million m3 of wood, and much more if you take into account the other countries. The 1999 windstorms covered more than half of France and extended into Switzerland and Germany. Between them, these windstorms produced over $14.4 billion in economic damage, approximately $7.8 billion of which was insured. At that time, this ranks as the third largest insurance loss ever, after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Windstorm Lothar alone represents the largest monetary insurance loss in European history. As a mater of fact, the economic situation was better in 1999 than now, but the wood industry was not able to use in buildings or to convert to energy all the wood available... and most of it 170 million m3) has been lost (and produced CO2, CH4...). It will be worst this time, as in 2009 the construction sector is in crises (specially in Spain) and the stocks are very high and companies have leveraged, and the financial crises will not help. So, in my opinion the ideas developed in your paper can be applied right now and foresters should be allowed to benefit of the CO2 cap- and-trade systems. It will be a great opportunity to do research in this topic on a large geoengineering scale to address all the issues and feedbacks like methane production and the real sequestration yield and duration. Regards Renaud de_RICHTER On Feb 6, 1:03 pm, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
