Speaking of macroalgae pyrolysis, check this out:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852412010826
-Greg
________________________________
From: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
To: markcap...@podenergy.org
Cc: r...@llnl.gov; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, October 5, 2012 7:41:14 PM
Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Mark etal
See below.
________________________________
From: markcap...@podenergy.org
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 6:13:36 AM
Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Ron (cc Greg, list),
Perhaps biochar is another C-separation process for biochar Ocean Macroalgal
Afforestation (as opposed to anaerobic digestion OMA). There may be more
processes.
[RWL: For sure, but not many. Biochar is the only one I know of that
provides out-year continuing and growing annual carbon negative benefits.]
Any process which separates the energy (carbon & hydrogen) from the plant
nutrients (organic nitrogen, phosphorous, iron, and others) and then recycles
them to grow more macroalgae (while selling the renewable energy) can be
sustained over sufficiently large earth surface area. Microbial digestion is
the most common process in nature.
[RWL: Maybe. But we sure don't want that methane in the atmosphere. And
fires have been and are responsible for a lot of carbon in soil (as a "common
process").
I don't know the optimum, but I believe there are many sites where we want
to remove some excess nutrients, rather than recycle them. Char can also
capture those excesses before they are ever making it to the oceans.
I haven't gotten into ocean albedo effects when converting large ocean areas
from nutrient deserts to macroalgal forests.
[RWL: Me either. Hope we can hear from albedo authorities.]
I hope you will look into the firm down the road from you who is making
major waves in the rapidly changing biochar industry (Cool Planet Energy
Systems). They may have looked already at all these issues, since they have a
very aggressive introduction plan.
Ron]
Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org
-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient
>limited
>From: rongretlar...@comcast.net
>Date: Wed, October 03, 2012 4:59 pm
>To: markcap...@podenergy.org
>Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>Mark (cc Greg, list)
>
> See insert responses below.
>
>________________________________
From: markcap...@podenergy.org
>To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
>Cc: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:59:17 AM
>Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
>
>Ron,
>
>How perfect is the nutrient recycling when you convert macroalgae to charcol?
> [RWL: A good question that I am not qualified to answer.
>
> One thought is that it seems the present ocean has considerable excess
>nitrogen and phosphorus, and that land-based agriculture and forestry need
>these
>in large amounts. So, to the extent that conversion of the macroalgae is to
>char which ends up on land, recycling these two excess nutrients out of the
>ocean - would seem to be entirely desirable.
>
> A second train of thought going around the biochar community is that
>coupling char with appropriate sea-salts will add to biochar's value. I can
>conceive, but this needs checking, that char from ocean-based macroalgae would
>find favor among biochar users because of a larger amount of many
>micronutrients.
>
>
>Is there any energy left over after you lift the macroalgae (and some water)
>out
>of the water and remove all the water from the macroalgae in order to make
>char?
> [RWL: Again, I do not claim to be expert on this. But I have seen the
>concept of macroalgae being used for conversion to biofuels since the
>mid-'70s.
>Indeed in one major 100% RE study from that period (MITRE or SRI?) most of
>the
>world fuel liquid market was projected to come from macroalgae. Sure,
>micanthus, sugar cane, etc are "woodier", but the main issue is the
>photosynthetic carbon productivity (kg C/sqm-yr). In my experience, pyrolysis
>can handle anything that biogas can. I think the Cool Planet pyrolysis
>approach gives a larger total of valuable C product - as there is little CO2
>production.
>
> I hope we can hear from anyone thinking the idea of macroalgae cannot be
>both a major energy and sequestration option.
>
>Ron]
>
>
>Mark
>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient
>>limited
>>From: rongretlar...@comcast.net
>>Date: Tue, October 02, 2012 9:32 pm
>>To: markcap...@podenergy.org
>>Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>
>>Mark, Greg, List
>>
>> I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found
>> at
>>your site.
>>
>>
>> But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar
>>alternative to your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main
>>benefits to biochar over your CCS option as it impacts the Carbon Dioxide
>>Removal portion of this list. First is that liquifying and deep-sequestering
>>the accompanying CO2 seems unlikely to be ready soon - and will always be
>>pretty
>>expensive (especially at small scale). More importantly, char obtained
>>from
>>pyrolyzing your macroalgae will provide out-year benefits from up to
>>millenia.
>>Lastly, natural gas transport to the mainland seems likely to involve
>>considerable expense - more so than moving a solid or liquid.
>>
>> Your possible project in Fiji could have a valuable char side
>> immediately,
>>while a BECCS approach seems likely to be many years away - so you will be
>>foregoing the promising sequestration potential of ocean biomass that Greg is
>>looking for.
>>
>> A good place to see the current status of pyrolysis and biochar at what
>> seems
>>to be the leading commercial biochar (and biofuel?) entity is only 20 miles
>>east
>>of you. Look at (I have no connection):
>> www.coolplanetbiofuels.com
>>
>> Ron
>>________________________________
From: markcap...@podenergy.org
>>To: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:05:42 PM
>>Subject: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
>>
>>Greg,
>>
>>Another solution is rapid nutrient recycling, as happens in the Ocean
>>Afforestation ecosystem.
>>
>>Deploying the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem over 4% of the world's ocean
>>surface
>>would imply cycling about 16 times the global artificial nitrogen plant
>>fertilizer production. The recycle will happen over distances of a few
>>kilometers and time scales of a few months. The ecosystem would also be
>>cycling
>>proportional masses of all the other nutrients needed to grow macroalgae.
>>
>>Perhaps more important than nutrients, land plants are limited by fresh water
>>and the timing of fresh water (no good to rain in August if the corn kernel
>>silks lacked water to deploy July).
>>
>>Mark E. Capron, PE
>>Oxnard, California
>>www.PODenergy.org
>>
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>>Subject: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
>>>From: "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov>
>>>Date: Tue, October 02, 2012 10:53 am
>>>To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>Possible solutions:
>>>fertilize
>>>genetically select/modify
>>>reduce CO2 recycling (CROPS, Biochar)
>>>all of the above.
>>>Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>Nature | NewsEarth’s carbon sink downsized
>>>Abundance of soil nutrients a limiting factor in plants’ ability to soak up
>>>carbon dioxide.
>>> * Amanda Mascarelli
>>>01 October 2012
>>>Plants need enriched soil to make use of increasing carbon dioxide.As carbon
>>>dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, most climate models
>>>project
>>>that the world’s oceans and trees will keep soaking up more than half of the
>>>extra CO2. But researchers report this week that the capacity for land
>>>plants to
>>>absorb more CO2 will be much lower than previously thought, owing to
>>>limitations
>>>in soil nutrients1.
>>>
>>>Because plants take up CO2 during photosynthesis, it has long been assumed
>>>that
>>>they will provide a large carbon ‘sink’ to help offset increases in
>>>atmospheric
>>>CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Some scientists have argued that
>>>the
>>>increase might even be good for plants, which would presumably grow faster
>>>and
>>>mop up even more CO2. Climate models estimate that the world’s oceans have
>>>absorbed about 30% of the CO2 that humans have released in the past 150
>>>years
>>>and that land plants have gulped another 30%.
>>>But the latest study, by ecologists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie at the
>>>University of Minnesota in St Paul, suggests that estimates of how much CO2
>>>land
>>>plants can use are far too optimistic. Plants also need soil nutrients, such
>>>as
>>>nitrogen and phosphorus, to grow. But few studies have tested whether soils
>>>contain enough of these nutrients to fuel growth in proportion to rising CO2.
>>>“This work addresses a question that’s been out there for decades,” says
>>>Bruce
>>>Hungate, an ecosystem scientist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.
>>>"It's a hard question to answer, because it takes a long time to see how
>>>ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles change."
>>>Long-term growth
>>>In a 13-year field experiment on 296 open-air plots, the researchers grew
>>>perennial grassland species under ambient and elevated concentrations of
>>>both
>>>atmospheric CO2 and soil nitrogen.
>>>“Rather than building a time machine and comparing how ecosystems behave in
>>>2070
>>>— which is hard to do — we basically create the atmosphere of 2070 above our
>>>plots,” says Reich.
>>>Reich and Hobbie found that from 2001 to 2010, grasses growing under
>>>heightened
>>>CO2 levels grew only half as much in untreated as in enriched nitrogen soils.
>>>Researchers do not have a firm grasp on the complexities of nitrogen and
>>>carbon
>>>cycle interactions, so “the vast majority of models do not adequately
>>>reflect
>>>nutrient limitation”, says Adrien Finzi, a biogeochemist at Boston
>>>University in
>>>Massachusetts. “The real strength in this study is that now we have this
>>>13-year
>>>record of a single ecosystem. It provides a really strong case for the claim
>>>that soil resources and nitrogen limitation in particular can impose a major
>>>constraint on carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems.”
>>>A study published in March modelled nutrient cycling across the globe to
>>>predict
>>>how much carbon plants could sequester over the next 100 years when nutrient
>>>limitations are taken into account2. Those simulations, which included
>>>nitrogen
>>>limitations in northern hemisphere soils and phosphorus limitations in the
>>>tropics, predicted that land plants will absorb 23% less carbon than is
>>>projected by other models.
>>>Researchers say that much more work is needed to understand how nutrient
>>>dynamics will affect carbon uptake — particularly in forest ecosystems,
>>>which
>>>are expected to be important carbon sinks. Often, says Hungate, these
>>>ecosystems
>>>seem to offer a “partial, natural, easy solution” to the climate problem.
>>>“But
>>>it turns out that in reality, ecosystems are complex and only have limited
>>>flexibility.”
>>>Nature
>>>doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11503
>>>References
>>>1. Reich, P. B. & Hobbie, S. E. Nature Climate Change advance online
>>>publication, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1694 (2012).
>>>Show context
>>>2. Goll, D. S. et al. Biogeosciences 9, 3547–3569 (2012).
>>> --
>>>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.
>>> --
>>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.
>>--
>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.
>
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
