RE: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program

[Stuart Strand]

The problem is that geoengineering doesn't really fit with the missions of any 
of the national scientific funding agencies as far as I can tell. As an 
example, when I talked to the Department of Energy about ways to remove methane 
and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere they said that it wasn't in their mission 
because those gases did not relate to energy production. Although this argument 
was flawed in addition to being somewhat boneheaded, you hear this type of 
thinking a lot when you bring new ideas to old agencies. There are gaps between 
disciplines and missions and they can be quite large. A "geoengineering 
program" need not be a monolithic program but instead could be a cooperation 
between agencies along the lines of NIEHS Superfund or SERDP.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:24 PM
To: xbenf...@gmail.com
Cc: mmacc...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research 
Program

I think we need to be vigorously investigating every option that can plausibly 
reduce risk from climate change.

So, I very much think we need to be investigating many things that have been 
called "geoengineering".

I do not think that it is helpful, however, to think of this as "a 
geoengineering program".  There are a disparate set of activities that need to 
be done that do not need close coordination.

It makes no sense to me to have a single program covering diverse strategies 
such as industrialized CO2 capture from air, whitening of clouds, biochar, 
stratospheric aerosols, biomass cofiring of power plants with carbon capture 
and storage, etc, etc. These things are just too different to want to place 
them in something called "a geoengineering research program".

Not only is "geoengineering" a vague and ambiguous term, it has also become a 
pejorative term in many circles. For example, many people who like a particular 
option, such as reforestation, search for reasons not to call it 
"geoengineering" -- fearing that that label will make it harder to find funding.

I do not think the determination of whether something constitutes 
"geoengineering" should be relevant to whether research and development funds 
are allocated to that activity.

--

Furthermore, I think that setting "geoengineering" research apart in its own 
overarching program is a tactical error. In a zero-sum world, people will see 
"a geoengineering research" program as a threat to their own budgets, and "a 
geoengineering research program" will become an easy target.

I think it much more sensible to recognize that most of what has been called 
"geoengineering research" is in fact uncontroversial research that most 
sensible people should think we would want to undertake. And the people who 
would be doing this research are the same people who are now doing allied 
scientific and engineering research.

Rather than trying to build a big new program that existing programs will see 
as a threat, we should be working to expand the scope and funding of existing 
programs so that, for example

-- programs that now study transport of fate of particles in the stratosphere 
would be expanded and directed to consider higher concentrations and a broader 
range of types of particles
-- programs that now study clouds in the lower atmosphere would be expanded and 
directed to consider effects of introduced cloud-condensation nucleii
-- programs that now study the fate of organic carbon in soils would be 
expanded and directed to consider the fate of biochar
-- programs that now study the capture of CO2 from power plant flue gases would 
be expanded and directed to consider CO2 extraction from much more dilute 
sources such as the atmosphere
-- programs that now study the global and regional climate impacts of natural 
and inadvertently released aerosols would be expanded and directed to consider 
intentionally released aerosols
-- etc, etc

By saying "we don't need a geoengineering research program", I mean to say that 
research into options that are commonly labeled "geoengineering" should 
permeate all research programs that aim to understand or reduce risks from 
climate change.  Rather than a separate program, research into these options 
should be closely integrated into the broader effort to understand and reduce 
climate risk.

--

Greg's point about engineering development is a good one. We do need 
proof-of-principle engineering studies so that we can filter out the 
potentially feasible options from the non-starters.

For some of these options, we can or should have plans for deployment. At the 
point that we decide that an option looks promising enough that we want to 
devel

RE: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program

[Stuart Strand]

Right, so you have to sell it to congress (presumably not this congress).  
Consider whether such a push wouldn't  be more successful if you bring all of 
the geoeng topics together and push one package.  Atmospheric remediation 
(including CDR) and SRM complement each other in terms of apparent risk and 
efficacy.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: Ken Caldeira [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:37 PM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: xbenf...@gmail.com; mmacc...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research 
Program

If something is not now in the mission of an agency, Congress can cause it to 
be in the mission.

DOE managed to find the Human Genome Project within their domain even though it 
didn't fit with their energy mission:  http://genomics.energy.gov/

If Congress allocates money to an agency to do something, most agencies will 
take the money and do it.

Congress decides what agencies do, not the agencies themselves (although 
agencies can influence congressional decisions).


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Stuart Strand 
mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
The problem is that geoengineering doesn't really fit with the missions of any 
of the national scientific funding agencies as far as I can tell. As an 
example, when I talked to the Department of Energy about ways to remove methane 
and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere they said that it wasn't in their mission 
because those gases did not relate to energy production. Although this argument 
was flawed in addition to being somewhat boneheaded, you hear this type of 
thinking a lot when you bring new ideas to old agencies. There are gaps between 
disciplines and missions and they can be quite large. A "geoengineering 
program" need not be a monolithic program but instead could be a cooperation 
between agencies along the lines of NIEHS Superfund or SERDP.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:24 PM

To: xbenf...@gmail.com<mailto:xbenf...@gmail.com>
Cc: mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>; 
Geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research 
Program

I think we need to be vigorously investigating every option that can plausibly 
reduce risk from climate change.

So, I very much think we need to be investigating many things that have been 
called "geoengineering".

I do not think that it is helpful, however, to think of this as "a 
geoengineering program".  There are a disparate set of activities that need to 
be done that do not need close coordination.

It makes no sense to me to have a single program covering diverse strategies 
such as industrialized CO2 capture from air, whitening of clouds, biochar, 
stratospheric aerosols, biomass cofiring of power plants with carbon capture 
and storage, etc, etc. These things are just too different to want to place 
them in something called "a geoengineering research program".

Not only is "geoengineering" a vague and ambiguous term, it has also become a 
pejorative term in many circles. For example, many people who like a particular 
option, such as reforestation, search for reasons not to call it 
"geoengineering" -- fearing that that label will make it harder to find funding.

I do not think the determination of whether something constitutes 
"geoengineering" should be relevant to whether research and development funds 
are allocated to that activity.

--

Furthermore, I think that setting "geoengineering" research apart in its own 
overarching program is a tactical error. In a zero-sum world, people will see 
"a geoengineering research" program as a threat to their own budgets, and "a 
geoengineering research program" will become an easy target.

I think it much more sensible to recognize that most of what has been called 
"geoengineering research" is in fact uncontroversial research t

RE: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

[Stuart Strand]

Methane oxidation in the ocean occurs aerobically and anaerobically (with 
sulfate as the electron acceptor).  Dissolved methane is oxidized before 
reaching surface waters.  In shallow waters methane in bubbles easily escapes 
microbial oxidation.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:43 AM
To: Veli Albert Kallio
Cc: John Nissen; g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk; euan.nis...@gmail.com; 
jens.grein...@nioz.nl; Peter Wadhams; Michel Halbwachs; 
harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com; Geoengineering FIPC; 
Matti Lappalainen; Risto Isomaki; Esko Pettay
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

Albert

I am vague about release patterns and my ideas are based in the echo-sounder 
images in the Shakhova paper.  If you want to use a cupola hood of any size in 
50 metres of water you would have to know about wave loads which will still be 
present at that depth.

You mention 10 metre wide plastic strip.  I think that we can go up to widths 
of 1500 metres in lengths of 3000 metres. I will try to circulate engineering 
drawings of the tool to make the sheet and the equipment to deploy it before 
the meeting.

I am glad to hear that we can get oxygen under a sheet if we need to but still 
puzzled about why the methane has not gobbled what was there before we laid 
down the sheet.

Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design

Institute for Energy Systems

School of Engineering

Mayfield Road

University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL

Scotland

Tel +44 131 650 5704

Mobile 07795 203 195

www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

On 06/10/2011 13:42, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
Hi Steven,

I think what needs to be decided is the approach:

1) are we trying to address spot-like emissions, or,
2) methane haze arising smoothly from vast area of sea bed.

No. 1 can be addressed by a cupola-like hood over the spot from where the gases 
are removed
No. 2 can be addressed by a slightly V-shapedly folded straps of plastic where 
gas accummulates to the tip of upside down V-fold and steams towards the rising 
end of strap where it is collected. I think flatbed sheet probaly oozes gas out 
from over the edges, or one ends up with a controured sheet of multiple gas 
bubbles; this becomes increasingnly unstable system as gas accummulates. I 
favour passive systems where gas constantly streams upwards to the collection 
point. I also think that I roll could be unwound from the back of ship.

However, just 1 km2 area with 10 metre strap plastic would require 100 km of 
sailing back and forth before all is covered. If 100 km x 100 km box was 
covered from ESAS by sheet 100,000 km of 100 metre strap would be needed. 
Anoxic conditions can be addressed by say using 2kW Mixox units that could blow 
1,000,000 m3 of oxygenated air under the plastic sheet to aerate the plastic 
covered ocean. Mixox would suck oxygen rich surface air and blow it through 
tube to beneath the plastic sheet. As methane bubbles are lighter than even 
oxygenated and less saline surface air, the bubbles would still rise normally 
through the treated water until they reach the collecting sheet.

We proposed with Matti Lappalainen at the World Water Week in 2006 to oxygenate 
the Amazon river estuary during the low oxygen drought season with 40,000 Mixox 
units for 100 km section of Amazon in our paper "Preparing the Amazon 
Ecosystems for the Changing Climate". Mixox systems are deployed in 27 km2 sea 
floor oxygenation pilot project in the Baltic Sea in Finland and another 2.7 
km2 in Sweden to reduced the anoxic conditions arising from warmer 
temperatures, phosphathe leaks and organic material load.

I forward this to Matti as he may have some latest results from the pilot 
projects. In the Baltic Sea anoxic conditions result mainly from phosphate, 
although organic loads and higher water temperatures (i.e. the Gulf of Bothnia 
has seen mean sea temperature to rise +6C). There is no problems of methane 
arising from the Baltic Sea's sea bed, Mixox has only been deployed to rectify 
the lack of oxygen.

I think Mixox at 1,000,000 m3 and 2 kW is right system to flush air under the 
plastic cover. Furthermore, the oxygen put under sheet will not excape it is 
either consumed by methane eating bacteria or other processes. Even mere 
aerating the sea might work to increase methane eating bacteria to reduce 
methane leak to air if there is a problematic build up of undigested methane in 
water that may start to nucleate. It could be that such water could be part 
oxygenated by Mixoox of Lappalainen, part ventilated by system developed by 
Michel Halbwachs whichever suits best for a situation; i.e. if the collection

RE: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

[Stuart Strand]

John,

I only wanted to point out that marine methane oxidation (which is all 
biological) is not solely dependent on oxygen availability.  I'm afraid I think 
that the methane trapping methods I have read here are pretty far-fetched.  
Even if they were practical they would have devastating effects on the marine 
ecology, with anaerobiosis only one of the factors to consider.  I also have no 
suggestions how the microbial ecology of the marine environment could be 
changed to increase methane oxidation and doubt that such changes could affect 
methane escape in bubbles.  Sorry to be negative.  Potential release of arctic 
carbon to the atmosphere is the greatest threat of a positive feedback, but I 
cannot see how trapping schemes could work.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 7:00 AM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; Veli Albert Kallio; g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk; 
euan.nis...@gmail.com; jens.grein...@nioz.nl; Peter Wadhams; Michel Halbwachs; 
harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com; Geoengineering; Matti 
Lappalainen; Risto Isomaki; Esko Pettay; Matt Watson
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for joining in the discussion.  At the workshop we are trying to tackle 
what seem to be the main immediate sources of methane to the atmosphere - the 
sources that provide the greatest risk of producing an upsurge in the 
atmospheric methane level.  There are two types of sources we've identified:

1.  the shallow seas, particularly of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, where the 
depth is typically 40 metres;
2.  the continental margin, as typified by a stretch west of Spitzbergen of the 
Svalbard archipelago (midway between mainland Norway and the North Pole), 
whether there are methane hydrates disassociating at a depth of several hundred 
metres and great plumes which are mostly absorbed before they reach the surface.

Stephen Salter and I are not sure about what is happening to methane as it 
escapes from the seabed in either situation, so we appreciate advice from 
experts such as yourself, Graham Westbrook and Jens Greinert (currently on 
holiday, but hopefully coming to the workshop).   We also need to know about 
the environment - speed of bottom currents, wave action, sea ice cover, etc.

It is crucial to understand the processes at work so that any device we invent 
and deploy for capturing the methane has the best possible chance of working 
effectively and capturing a higher percentage of the total methane.  Such 
devices will probably used in conjunction with other methods of dealing with 
the methane, especially biologically.

So, in these two situations, how much is the methane simply dissolved in the 
sea water, how much reacts directly with oxygen in the water, how much is 
oxidised by sulphate (which you mention) and how much is digested by organisms 
(methanotrophs aka methanophiles [1])?  Is there a biotic layer on the seabed 
which needs to be maintained?

There are some different questions, which are related to Stephen Salter's 
proposed solution.  If there is a plastic sheet laid over the seabed to catch 
the methane, does it matter if the water underneath becomes deoxygenated?  
(Albert Kallio has suggested a means for oxygenation of this water.)  And what 
are the likely currents, wave action and other disturbances near the seabed?

Note that a particularly challenging problem is dealing with the methane that 
has been captured by devices such as Stephen Salter's, since the sea surface 
may have floating ice moving around.  I am wondering, could the methane so 
captured be destroyed, dissolved or otherwise neutralised, while still below 
the sea surface?

Best wishes,

John

P.S.  I'm adding Matt Watson, of the SPICE project, to the circulation, since I 
discover he has a special interest in methane!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph

---

On 06/10/2011 21:22, Stuart Strand wrote:
Methane oxidation in the ocean occurs aerobically and anaerobically (with 
sulfate as the electron acceptor).  Dissolved methane is oxidized before 
reaching surface waters.  In shallow waters methane in bubbles easily escapes 
microbial oxidation.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:43 AM
To: Veli Albert Kallio
Cc: John Nissen; g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk<mailto:g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk>; 

RE: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

[Stuart Strand]

And I know nearly nothing about marine engineering, so take my skepticism with 
a grain of salt.

Again, dissolved methane is likely to be oxidized in the water column and 
oxygen is unlikely to be exhausted by the oxidation of dissolved methane.  
Rapid release of methane in bubbles is possible in shallow water, and in arctic 
lakes ebullition has been shown to be the major pathway of release; but without 
exhausting oxygen in the water column.  If you can devise a way to trap those 
bubbles, great!

But will it take the beginning of a permean-like extinction to be allowed to 
test?

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: Stephen Salter [mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:44 AM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: Veli Albert Kallio; John Nissen; g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk; 
euan.nis...@gmail.com; jens.grein...@nioz.nl; Peter Wadhams; Michel Halbwachs; 
harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com; Geoengineering FIPC; 
Matti Lappalainen; Risto Isomaki; Esko Pettay
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

Stuart

This topic arose because Albert said that plastic film would produce anoxic 
conditions in the sea bed.  The questions is if we leave methane and oxygen 
together in the ooze for a long time one or other will get depleted.  If there 
is methane coming up I thought that it would mean that it had used up all the 
oxygen.  If it had then a plastic film would not be making things any worse.

I do not claim to know anything about chemistry or biology but I expect you all 
have realized this already.

Stephen






Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design

Institute for Energy Systems

School of Engineering

Mayfield Road

University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL

Scotland

Tel +44 131 650 5704

Mobile 07795 203 195

www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs>

On 06/10/2011 21:22, Stuart Strand wrote:
Methane oxidation in the ocean occurs aerobically and anaerobically (with 
sulfate as the electron acceptor).  Dissolved methane is oxidized before 
reaching surface waters.  In shallow waters methane in bubbles easily escapes 
microbial oxidation.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:43 AM
To: Veli Albert Kallio
Cc: John Nissen; g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk<mailto:g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk>; 
euan.nis...@gmail.com<mailto:euan.nis...@gmail.com>; 
jens.grein...@nioz.nl<mailto:jens.grein...@nioz.nl>; Peter Wadhams; Michel 
Halbwachs; 
harleyrichar...@googlemail.com<mailto:harleyrichar...@googlemail.com>; 
bhaskarmv...@gmail.com<mailto:bhaskarmv...@gmail.com>; Geoengineering FIPC; 
Matti Lappalainen; Risto Isomaki; Esko Pettay
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

Albert

I am vague about release patterns and my ideas are based in the echo-sounder 
images in the Shakhova paper.  If you want to use a cupola hood of any size in 
50 metres of water you would have to know about wave loads which will still be 
present at that depth.

You mention 10 metre wide plastic strip.  I think that we can go up to widths 
of 1500 metres in lengths of 3000 metres. I will try to circulate engineering 
drawings of the tool to make the sheet and the equipment to deploy it before 
the meeting.

I am glad to hear that we can get oxygen under a sheet if we need to but still 
puzzled about why the methane has not gobbled what was there before we laid 
down the sheet.

Stephen



Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design

Institute for Energy Systems

School of Engineering

Mayfield Road

University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL

Scotland

Tel +44 131 650 5704

Mobile 07795 203 195

www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>

On 06/10/2011 13:42, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
Hi Steven,

I think what needs to be decided is the approach:

1) are we trying to address spot-like emissions, or,
2) methane haze arising smoothly from vast area of sea bed.

No. 1 can be addressed by a cupola-like hood over the spot from where the gases 
are removed
No. 2 can be addressed by a slightly V-shapedly folded straps of plastic where 
gas accummulates to the tip of upside down V-fold and steams towards the rising 
end of strap where it is collected. I think flatbed sheet probaly oozes gas out 
from over the edges, or one ends up with a controured sheet of multiple gas 
bubbles; this becomes increasingnly unstable system as gas accummulates. I 
favour passive systems where gas constantly streams upwards to

RE: [geo] Biochar Nature paper

[Stuart Strand]

Citations please

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:06 PM
To: r...@llnl.gov; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Biochar Nature paper

Greg and list:

  Thanks for bringing this two-year old (downloadable) Biochar paper from 
"Nature" below to the list's attention.  I admire the work of Wolff, Amonette 
(corresponding author, responsible for the Excel work), etal.   But I think 
they went overboard on being conservative.  They say:  " Wherever possible, 
conservative assumptions were used to provide a high degree of confidence that 
our results represent a conservative estimate of the avoided GHG emissions 
achievable in each scenario.".   I know three of the five authors; one of them 
gave a (much less-documented) estimate that was an order-of-magnitude higher.  
Tim Lenton has repeated this higher number.  I believe the most recent paper by 
Jim Hansen, which I think proposes 100 GtC of new standing forests, is assuming 
larger land use change than is assumed in this paper, or by those promoting 
BECCS.  In my view, there is probably one Gha available for reforestation and 
the paper limits the agroforestry total to 170 Mha (all with latitude less than 
25 degrees).  They also assume only about 4 tC/ha-yr to be available (with 
about half going into char - about 30% of their total annual combined carbon 
neutral and carbon negative peak).  I believe we will do appreciably better 
than this assumed 400 grams C/sqm-yr in the tropics (with about half of this 
parameter being available for sequestration).
Resources that receive little/zero consideration in this paper include
   a.  The ocean - having an NPP roughly equal to that of land.  Mangroves have 
always been highly regarded for char making - and can be harvested sustainably. 
 Artificial nutrient upwelling and macroalgae are not mentioned.
   b.  Freshwater microalgae - which provides potential access to the Gha of 
deserts.
   c.  Fire-prevention possibilities  (possibly another 1 GtC/yr)
   d.  Conversion of considerable pasture and idle land  (there is only a 
minimum assumed conversion of farm land - as noted above for agroforestry.  As 
noted above considerably higher values than 4 tC/ha-yr are in the literature.)
   e.  Potential for improved bioenergy species productivity (little past 
emphasis by geneticists on energy crops).
   f.  There is little on the ability to manage forests to increase (maybe 
double or triple?) annual productivity by keeping the canopy open, using 
multiple species and multiple levels in forests, and employing a lot of people 
for coppicing etc..
   g.  Little emphasis on emphasizing the advantages of more extensive 
reforestation of tropical areas - where annual productivity can triple that in 
temperate zones.  (But we can do both, where temperate land is idle.)
   h.  No assumed increase in soil productivity due to Biochar application (and 
the terra preta literature talks of double and triple soil productivity 
increase).
   i.   HTC - hydrothermal conversion (of moist resources, such as MSW, feedlot 
effluent, etc) - where HTC proponents talk about a potential for half of future 
carbon sequestration via that route.
   j.  The use of charcoal-making stoves for the half of the world now 
predominantly getting their energy (very inefficiently) from biomass.  This can 
be expanded readily to larger scale operations presently having zero fossil 
fuels.
   k.  The potential role of Biochar for supporting (intermittent) wind and 
solar - as biomass can provide needed energy storage.
   l.   I believe they show soil organic carbon (SOC) decreasing - and most 
Biochar analysts assume an increase.
  m.  Any sense of political urgency - as being pushed by the 350 ppm movement 
(including Dr. Hansen)
   n.  No discussion of what can happen with new policies that might come out 
of different politics.

   None of the above dozen possible resource expansion areas requires cutting 
existing forests, nor use of peat regions.

   I am also looking into the details of the paper's comparisons with 
combustion, etc.  I think this may also have been conservative.  For instance 
if one has added annual productivity after applying char, credit should be 
given for that additional annual growth (even if cut annually) and standing 
biomass. I believe no such credit is given although it would be the main claim 
for a new forest.

   There are a few other similar Biochar papers striving to get at the details. 
 It is on these details that we must now concentrate - and the Wolff-Amonette 
paper contains as much or more detail as any I have seen.  To repeat, their 
arguments are well supported - albeit mostly using the most

[geo] RE: Anaerobic methane oxidation

[Stuart Strand]

This phenomenon has developed into a fascinating story about the production 
from nitrite of cryptic oxygen inside bacterial cells in anoxic environments 
(c.f. Nitrite-driven anaerobic methane oxidation by oxygenic bacteria, Ettwig; 
et al., NATURE  464  (7288 ) 543)

But aren't nitrate levels in the arctic ocean as low as they are in the world 
ocean, which is too low to be an electron acceptor, unlike sulfate? 

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Rau, Greg
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:35 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Anaerobic methane oxidation

Relevant? Old news? Should be lots of nitrate and sulfate in the Arctic, at 
least in the ocean.  Not sure if possible N2O or NO2 production is a good idea, 
though.  - Greg

Nature 440, 918-921 (13 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04617; Received 30 
November 2005; Accepted 2 February 2006

A microbial consortium couples anaerobic methane oxidation to denitrification

Ashna A. Raghoebarsing1, Arjan Pol1, Katinka T. van de Pas-Schoonen1, Alfons J. 
P. Smolders2, Katharina F. Ettwig1, W. Irene C. Rijpstra3, Stefan Schouten3, 
Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté3, Huub J. M. Op den Camp1, Mike S. M. Jetten1 & Marc 
Strous1

Department of Microbiology, and
Department of Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Institute for Water 
and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED 
Nijmegen, The Netherlands Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), 
Department of Marine Biogeochemistry and Toxicology, PO Box 59, 1790 AB Den 
Burg, The Netherlands Correspondence to: Marc Strous1 Correspondence and 
requests for materials should be addressed to M.S. (Email: 
m.str...@science.ru.nl). The 16S rRNA gene sequences have been deposited in 
GenBank under accession numbers DQ369741 (archaeal sequence) and DQ369742 
(bacterial sequence).

Top of pageAbstract
Modern agriculture has accelerated biological methane and nitrogen cycling on a 
global scale1, 2. Freshwater sediments often receive increased downward fluxes 
of nitrate from agricultural runoff and upward fluxes of methane generated by 
anaerobic decomposition3. In theory, prokaryotes should be capable of using 
nitrate to oxidize methane anaerobically, but such organisms have neither been 
observed in nature nor isolated in the laboratory4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Microbial 
oxidation of methane is thus believed to proceed only with oxygen or sulphate9, 
10. Here we show that the direct, anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to 
denitrification of nitrate is possible. A microbial consortium, enriched from 
anoxic sediments, oxidized methane to carbon dioxide coupled to denitrification 
in the complete absence of oxygen. This consortium consisted of two 
microorganisms, a bacterium representing a phylum without any cultured species 
and an archaeon distantly related to marine methanotrophic Archaea. The 
detection of relatives of these prokaryotes in different freshwater ecosystems 
worldwide11, 12, 13, 14 indicates that the reaction presented here may make a 
substantial contribution to biological methane and nitrogen cycles.

--
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.

RE: [geo] Permafrost melting excursions, nature paper

[Stuart Strand]

Aerobic methane oxidation may sometimes be limited by availability of copper 
and iron, which are necessary for the methane monooxygenase.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98105
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:08 PM
To: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; arctic-meth...@yahoogroups.co.uk
Subject: Re: [geo] Permafrost melting excursions, nature paper

Note on behalf of Russell Seitz:

In response to the email from Andrew Lockley about the Nature article on 
microbial activity in thawing permafrost, Russell Seitz speculated to me about 
whether it might be beneficial to fertilize the microbes to enhance the 
oxidation process. At his request, I am passing along some of this material:

>From Russell:

Mike MacCracken suggested I write a note on the notion of spraying trace
element fertilizers on  tundra thawed by climate change , to mitigate
radiative feedback  by favoring rapid growth of microbes that metabolize
CH4 to CO2.

This idea relates less to past ocean fertilization proposals than  the
successful development of micronutrient additions of Zn, Cu, Co , Se and
Mn to bulk fertilizers in South Africa, ( If memory serves by Winkler)  or
the famous spraying of low (10 kg/Km2) levels of Cu Se and Co over
pastures to allow successful sheep grazing in the parts of Australia with
metal depleted  laterite soils.

It is my understanding that  long -term sorption of metal ions into
boreal peat may combine with low aeolian dust inputs to create
environments where enzymatic CH4 metabolism is likewise rate limited by
trace metal availability.

One easy way to test such an hypothesis would be to compare remote areas
of tundra with those inside the metal deposition plumes of smelters like
Norilsk.

> I [MacCracken] then commented to Russell that in discussion here (at Cal 
> Tech) there was
> some concern about fertilizing the microbes, fearing that the heat their
> efforts would generate might start the peat on fire below the surface, and
> so very hard to extinguish.

Russell wrote back: Since methane metabolising bacteria may be degraded by heat 
at
temperatures  ~200 C below the ignition temperature of peat, I think the
idea merits a little further thought.

We pass this along for your consideration and reaction.

Mike MacCracken



On 11/7/11 5:20 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:
Thawing microbes could control the climate - environment - 06 November 2011 - 
New Scientist:
http://t.co/aSE26d00

Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature10576


 Arctic permafrost melts over the coming decades, long-frozen microorganisms 
will thaw out and start feasting on the soil. The first have already begun to 
wake up -and early signs are that they will have a major impact on how Earth's 
climate changes.

As the Arctic permafrost thaws, runaway global warming may ensue, because the 
huge amounts of organic carbon the permafrost contains will escape into the 
atmosphere.

To find out how the permafrost's microorganisms will respond to a thaw, Janet 
Jansson of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, 
and colleagues collected three cores from permafrost soil in central Alaska. 
Back in the lab, they thawed samples of each core and kept them at 5 °C. For 
the first two days the melting ice released lots of methane that had been 
trapped when it formed, but the rate then quickly dropped.

That's because soil microorganisms thawed out, and although some began making 
methane that added to the emissions, others consumed it and converted it into 
carbon dioxide instead. "It's a very rapid response," Jansson says. Her team 
took samples of DNA from the permafrost as it warmed up, allowing them to track 
how the microbial population changed.

Many studies have examined the gases that escape from thawing permafrost, but 
we knew little about how the microbes within influence the process, says Torben 
Christensen of Lund University in Sweden. The permafrost ecosystem is almost 
entirely unexplored. "Most of the microorganisms in permafrost have never been 
cultivated, and more than 90 per cent are unidentified," Jansson says.

Chilly microbes

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO 2 , although it does not stay in 
the atmosphere as long. Jansson says a release of CO 2 is still bad news, but 
preferable to methane.

It's long been known that methane-munching microorganisms will get to work in 
thawing permafrost, Christensen says. "At least 50 per cent of the gross 
production of methane will be oxidised." In other words, consumed.

The question is, will the methane-eaters be able to consume the bulk of the gas 
once the permafrost starts melti

RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF

[Stuart Strand]

The 2009 paper I wrote with Benford was a quantitative analysis of the ocean 
sequestration ideas of Metzger and Benford 2003. The Karlen paper was a 
rejection of all removal of crop residues, presumably rejecting use of CR for 
biofuels as well.  The Karlen paper presented no quantitative analysis of 
carbon sequestration in soils, rejecting our estimates without presenting an 
estimate of their own of the long term sequestration of CR left on the soil 
surface.  But they obfuscated the issue by suggesting a double accounting of 
carbon sequestration in subsequent years to replace the carbon lost by 
oxidation back to the atmosphere from previous years crop residues left to 
oxidize on the soil surface.  Their rhetoric aside, long term (centuries at the 
bare minimum) sequestration of any single year's production of crop residue 
carbon in soils where they are left to rot on the surface is negligible.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:58 PM
To: bhaskarmv 64
Cc: joshic...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF

Bhaskar and list:

1.   a.  The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today 
(and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at:
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556

 b.  Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty 
strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach.  This objection was 
based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the 
soil.  See
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004
This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors.  The 
cite is   Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8011-8015

 c.  Their final four sentences (emphasis added) were:
 "We conclude that although ocean sequestration may have a role in 
mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humankind should not risk the future 
productivity of our soils by drowning crop residues.   Perhaps the CROPS 
concept could be coupled with the use of a thermochemical platform for 
production of biofuel where the biochar coproduct could be used not only for 
CCS but also to remove phosphorus and other aqueous contaminants moving through 
the soil. The crucial question is whether this can be done without creating 
unintended environmental consequences. All in all, minimizing environmental 
changes will require careful study, a balanced approach, and full accounting 
for all intended and nonintended consequences.

d.  I emphasized the "biochar" part above because I had not seen this 
article until today and because biochar was also not being compared in the 
original paper by Professors Strand and Benford.  Neither paper mentioned 
BECCS, but I think Karlen etal would have similarly been concerned about a 
failure to address soil improvement.  Soil improvement is a (the?) big part of 
biochar, as shown in bold above.  It is this last aspect that I have been 
anxious to talk further with you about as I wondered whether biochar could be 
made from fertilized ocean based resources.

e.  I hope that Professors Strand and Benford can take this opportunity to 
reply to both you and Karlen, etal.  I also hope they can compare CROPS with 
the biomass options they did not originally consider:  biochar,  BECCS ,and 
local burial of biomass.


2.  a.  Since you are really asking about CDR costs - presumably to compare 
with your approach for sequestering in oceans, I have to extend this response 
to include the citation in the Thursday message below from Wil Burns.   He gave 
a PR release to a still-forthcoming paper by Australian Daniel Harrison, whose 
abstract I found at this site:
  http://interceder.net/latest_news/Daniel-Harrison

b.  The Paper abstract:

 A method for estimating the cost to sequester carbon dioxide by delivering 
iron to the ocean   [Order a copy of this article] 

by Daniel Harrison
Abstract: If society wishes to limit the contribution of anthropogenic carbon 
dioxide to global warming then the need to find economical methods of CO2 
sequestration is now urgent. Ocean iron fertilisation has been suggested as a 
low cost mitigation option to capture and store carbon. However previous 
methods of estimating the cost fail to account for many of the losses and 
offsets occurring over the storage period. A method for calculating the net 
carbon stored from iron fertilisation of high nutrient low chlorophyll (HNLC) 
regions is provided here. The method involves first calculating the direct cost 
to create phytoplankton biomass in the surface oce

RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF

[Stuart Strand]

Regarding biochar, I would like Ron or others to provide a total estimate of 
the total amount of carbon that could be sequestered globally in agricultural 
soils only, not including any forest soils, with peer reviewed citations please.

BECCS carbon analysis depends on whether efficient and practical use of crop 
residues requires co-burning with coal (in which case the carbon balance falls 
well below 100%),  or whether CR can be burnt efficiently and practically 
alone, without co-combustion. And whether CO2 sequestration underground will be 
accepted by the public in high agriculture productive societies.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:58 PM
To: bhaskarmv 64
Cc: joshic...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF

Bhaskar and list:

1.   a.  The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today 
(and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at:
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556

 b.  Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty 
strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach.  This objection was 
based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the 
soil.  See
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004
This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors.  The 
cite is   Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8011-8015

 c.  Their final four sentences (emphasis added) were:
 "We conclude that although ocean sequestration may have a role in 
mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humankind should not risk the future 
productivity of our soils by drowning crop residues.   Perhaps the CROPS 
concept could be coupled with the use of a thermochemical platform for 
production of biofuel where the biochar coproduct could be used not only for 
CCS but also to remove phosphorus and other aqueous contaminants moving through 
the soil. The crucial question is whether this can be done without creating 
unintended environmental consequences. All in all, minimizing environmental 
changes will require careful study, a balanced approach, and full accounting 
for all intended and nonintended consequences.

d.  I emphasized the "biochar" part above because I had not seen this 
article until today and because biochar was also not being compared in the 
original paper by Professors Strand and Benford.  Neither paper mentioned 
BECCS, but I think Karlen etal would have similarly been concerned about a 
failure to address soil improvement.  Soil improvement is a (the?) big part of 
biochar, as shown in bold above.  It is this last aspect that I have been 
anxious to talk further with you about as I wondered whether biochar could be 
made from fertilized ocean based resources.

e.  I hope that Professors Strand and Benford can take this opportunity to 
reply to both you and Karlen, etal.  I also hope they can compare CROPS with 
the biomass options they did not originally consider:  biochar,  BECCS ,and 
local burial of biomass.


2.  a.  Since you are really asking about CDR costs - presumably to compare 
with your approach for sequestering in oceans, I have to extend this response 
to include the citation in the Thursday message below from Wil Burns.   He gave 
a PR release to a still-forthcoming paper by Australian Daniel Harrison, whose 
abstract I found at this site:
  http://interceder.net/latest_news/Daniel-Harrison

b.  The Paper abstract:

 A method for estimating the cost to sequester carbon dioxide by delivering 
iron to the ocean   [Order a copy of this article] 

by Daniel Harrison
Abstract: If society wishes to limit the contribution of anthropogenic carbon 
dioxide to global warming then the need to find economical methods of CO2 
sequestration is now urgent. Ocean iron fertilisation has been suggested as a 
low cost mitigation option to capture and store carbon. However previous 
methods of estimating the cost fail to account for many of the losses and 
offsets occurring over the storage period. A method for calculating the net 
carbon stored from iron fertilisation of high nutrient low chlorophyll (HNLC) 
regions is provided here. The method involves first calculating the direct cost 
to create phytoplankton biomass in the surface ocean. The net amount of carbon 
stored is then calculated by considering the fraction of this carbon exported 
as deep as the permanent thermocline and subtracting losses due to: 
ventilation, nutrient stealing, greenhouse gas production, and CO2 emitted by 
the sequestration operation for a given st

RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF

[Stuart Strand]

Sounds good, but it's another hurdle.  Let's see what the math says.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:52 AM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: geoengineering; Bhaskar M V; joshic...@gmail.com; rongretlar...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF


Surely CO2 from BECCS doesn't need to be stored locally. Fuels (inc wood) are 
already shipped globally. Why should biofuel for BECCS be any different? It 
would make sense to take fuel by sea or rail to the best storage locations, or 
to pipe the CO2 to the same. Indeed, shipping compressed CO2 like CNG may make 
sense.

A
On Dec 17, 2012 8:43 AM, "Stuart Strand" 
mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
Regarding biochar, I would like Ron or others to provide a total estimate of 
the total amount of carbon that could be sequestered globally in agricultural 
soils only, not including any forest soils, with peer reviewed citations please.

BECCS carbon analysis depends on whether efficient and practical use of crop 
residues requires co-burning with coal (in which case the carbon balance falls 
well below 100%),  or whether CR can be burnt efficiently and practically 
alone, without co-combustion. And whether CO2 sequestration underground will be 
accepted by the public in high agriculture productive societies.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net<mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:58 PM
To: bhaskarmv 64
Cc: joshic...@gmail.com<mailto:joshic...@gmail.com>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF

Bhaskar and list:

1.   a.  The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today 
(and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at:
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556

 b.  Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty 
strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach.  This objection was 
based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the 
soil.  See
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004
This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors.  The 
cite is   Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8011-8015

 c.  Their final four sentences (emphasis added) were:
 "We conclude that although ocean sequestration may have a role in 
mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humankind should not risk the future 
productivity of our soils by drowning crop residues.   Perhaps the CROPS 
concept could be coupled with the use of a thermochemical platform for 
production of biofuel where the biochar coproduct could be used not only for 
CCS but also to remove phosphorus and other aqueous contaminants moving through 
the soil. The crucial question is whether this can be done without creating 
unintended environmental consequences. All in all, minimizing environmental 
changes will require careful study, a balanced approach, and full accounting 
for all intended and nonintended consequences.

d.  I emphasized the "biochar" part above because I had not seen this 
article until today and because biochar was also not being compared in the 
original paper by Professors Strand and Benford.  Neither paper mentioned 
BECCS, but I think Karlen etal would have similarly been concerned about a 
failure to address soil improvement.  Soil improvement is a (the?) big part of 
biochar, as shown in bold above.  It is this last aspect that I have been 
anxious to talk further with you about as I wondered whether biochar could be 
made from fertilized ocean based resources.

e.  I hope that Professors Strand and Benford can take this opportunity to 
reply to both you and Karlen, etal.  I also hope they can compare CROPS with 
the biomass options they did not originally consider:  biochar,  BECCS ,and 
local burial of biomass.


2.  a.  Since you are really asking about CDR costs - presumably to compare 
with your approach for sequestering in oceans, I have to extend this response 
to include the citation in the Thursday message below from Wil Burns.   He gave 
a PR release to a still-forthcoming paper by Australian Daniel Harrison, whose 
abstract I found at this

[geo] Re: name the baby - Carbon Dioxide removal? Greenhouse gas removal? Gas Geoengineering?

[Stuart Strand]

Greenhouse gas remediation.

Remediation of pollutants has a history.


  = 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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:35 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] name the baby - Carbon Dioxide removal? Greenhouse gas removal? 
Gas Geoengineering?


I am planning to start a new wiki on the various techniques such as
fake plastic trees, biochar etc, designed to remove GHGs from the
atmosphere.

To avoid the naming dramas,  I suggest the following, but would invite
new/better suggestions:

Carbon Dioxide removal?  (too specific)
Greenhouse gas removal?  (too geeky?)
Gas Geoengineering? (will anyone know what it means)

A



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] A naive question

[Stuart Strand]

Is radiative forcing additive linearly?

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: name the baby - Carbon Dioxide removal? Greenhouse gas removal? Gas Geoengineering?

[Stuart Strand]

N2O is reduced to N2 by nitrous oxide reductase, the terminal enzyme in 
bacterial denitrification.  Methane is biologically oxidized to methanol by 
methane monooxygenases and subsequently to CO2 by methanotrophic bacteria.  
These widespread microbial processes are limited in their environmental 
activities at trace ambient levels, but they could be enhanced. Other methods 
of oxidizing and reducing N2O and CH4 may be possible.  CFCs are dechlorinated 
by anaerobic bacteria, and chemical methods for their removal from the 
atmosphere have been proposed.  The topic of greenhouse gas removal from the 
atmosphere should not be restricted to CO2 removal.  "Greenhouse gas 
remediation" is succinct, refers to remediation of pollutants, and is inclusive.

  = 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/


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:09 PM
To: mmacc...@comcast.net
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: name the baby - Carbon Dioxide removal? Greenhouse gas 
removal? Gas Geoengineering?

I understand the intent to include all greenhouse gases, but the reality is 
that while there is a history of emissions control for many gases, there is 
really no established history for the active *removal* of all gases.  The 
simple fact is that unless I am forgetting something I know of zero proposals 
to  enable the direct atmospheric removal of anything other than CO2.

Are there biologic processes for instance that demand atmospheric N2O or 
atmospheric CH4 instead of CO2?  Perhaps, but none that I am aware of proposed 
by humans for mitigation purposes.

I think Atmospheric Carbon Removal is the closest thing we here have come up 
with that accurately identifies the category.

It distinguishes it from CCS (i.e. flue-gas capture and sequestration) at 
focuses it specifically on OIF, Lackner trees, and some of David's concepts.  
Accelerated weathering perhaps.

D
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Mike MacCracken 
mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:

Dear Andrew--While I have not yet had time to check out your efforts and
offer thoughts on editing, some ideas for the next effort.

So that you are not just covering the removal of CO2, I would think
something like "Atmospheric composition management" of "Active management of
atmospheric composition" would be best--you might even have it be a
subheading for "Atmospheric composition" and then have links from
geoengineering-related entries. In addition to the removal ideas for CO2,
you could cover any that arise for methane, and even go back to the ones
proposed for CFCs that included lasers to decompose them, with the laser
beam bounced back and forth between mirrors on mountaintops to get a
sufficiently long pathlength to give high probability of striking a
molecule.

And, of course, one would want to somehow link this in to mitigation of
GHGs--which would be said to do at the source. And you would need to link to
ideas about reforestation/afforestation.

Mike MacCracken


On 12/30/08 9:35 PM, "Andrew Lockley" 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>
> I am planning to start a new wiki on the various techniques such as
> fake plastic trees, biochar etc, designed to remove GHGs from the
> atmosphere.
>
> To avoid the naming dramas,  I suggest the following, but would invite
> new/better suggestions:
>
> Carbon Dioxide removal?  (too specific)
> Greenhouse gas removal?  (too geeky?)
> Gas Geoengineering? (will anyone know what it means)
>
> A
>
> >






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Synthesis of cyanuric acid from atmospheric carbon dioxide (from Robert Hahl, Ph.D., Patent Attorney )

[Stuart Strand]

Cynauric acid is biodegradable aerobically and anaerobically.  The carbon would 
return to the atmosphere.


  = 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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!

>
> Perhaps this synthetic sequence could remove CO2 from the air at low
> cost and high throughput.
>
>
> (1) Electrolysis of water (solar or wind energy) -> hydrogen gas
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
>
>
> (2) Haber process using hydrogen gas from (1) + nitrogen from air -
>> ammonia
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
>
>
> (3) Carbonic anydrase in water + CO2 from air -> carbonic acid
> -> carbon dioxide gas
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_anhydrase
>
>
> (4) carbon dioxide from (3) + ammonia from (2) --> urea
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea
>
>
> (5) urea -> cyanuric acid -> land fill
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanuric_acid
>
>
> Step 3) would reduce CO2 levels rather than just avoid increasing them
> (as with carbon capture), in case of a real emergency in which we must
> remove CO2 or perish.
>
> Step 1) could put wind and solar energy equipment to good use for a
> change, and less need for cooperation by existing electrical grid
> operators than renewable energy projects normally entail.
>
> As to the energy consumption of the Haber process, it may be
> reasonable since the hydrogen is not from reformation of methane.
>
>
>
> Robert Hahl, Ph.D., Patent Attorney
> Neifeld IP Law, PC
> 4813-B Eisenhower Avenue
> Alexandria, VA 22304
> www.neifeld.com
> Tel: 703-415-0012 ext 25
> Fax: 703-415-0013
>
>
> >
>



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Synthesis of cyanuric acid from atmospheric carbon dioxide (from Robert Hahl, Ph.D., Patent Attorney )

[Stuart Strand]

Landfills have lots of microbial activity.  Methane production in landfills is 
significant.  Landfills may be operated dry or wet, but either way organic 
matter in a landfill cannot be considered inert.  And no way is a landfill gas 
tight.


  = 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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 6:03 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Synthesis of cyanuric acid from atmospheric carbon dioxide 
(from Robert Hahl, Ph.D., Patent Attorney )


Not in a landfill.

On Jan 3, 9:10 pm, Stuart Strand  wrote:
> Cynauric acid is biodegradable aerobically and anaerobically.  The carbon 
> would return to the atmosphere.
>
>   = Stuart =
>
> Stuart E. Strand
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
> skype:  stuartestrandhttp://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!
>
>
>
>
>
> > Perhaps this synthetic sequence could remove CO2 from the air at low
> > cost and high throughput.
>
> > (1) Electrolysis of water (solar or wind energy) -> hydrogen gas
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
>
> > (2) Haber process using hydrogen gas from (1) + nitrogen from air -
> >> ammonia
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
>
> > (3) Carbonic anydrase in water + CO2 from air -> carbonic acid
> > -> carbon dioxide gas
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_anhydrase
>
> > (4) carbon dioxide from (3) + ammonia from (2) --> urea
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea
>
> > (5) urea -> cyanuric acid -> land fill
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanuric_acid
>
> > Step 3) would reduce CO2 levels rather than just avoid increasing them
> > (as with carbon capture), in case of a real emergency in which we must
> > remove CO2 or perish.
>
> > Step 1) could put wind and solar energy equipment to good use for a
> > change, and less need for cooperation by existing electrical grid
> > operators than renewable energy projects normally entail.
>
> > As to the energy consumption of the Haber process, it may be
> > reasonable since the hydrogen is not from reformation of methane.
>
> > Robert Hahl, Ph.D., Patent Attorney
> > Neifeld IP Law, PC
> > 4813-B Eisenhower Avenue
> > Alexandria, VA 22304
> >www.neifeld.com
> > Tel: 703-415-0012 ext 25
> > Fax: 703-415-0013- 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

We have just published the following peer reviewed article in Environmental 
Science and Technology:

Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back 
to Deep Sediments
Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford

For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must 
process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester carbon 
for thousands of years, be practical, economical and be implemented soon. The 
only method that meets these criteria is removal of crop residues and burial in 
the deep ocean. We show here that this method is 92% efficient in sequestration 
of crop residue carbon while cellulosic ethanol production is only 32% and soil 
sequestration is about 14% efficient. Deep ocean sequestration can potentially 
capture 15% of the current global CO2 annual increase, returning that carbon 
back to deep sediments, confining the carbon for millennia, while using 
existing capital infrastructure and technology. Because of these clear 
advantages, we recommend enhanced research into permanent sequestration of crop 
residues in the deep ocean.

Available on line here:

http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag

or email me requesting a reprint

  = 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
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

We are not proposing to deposit biochar in the ocean, rather we propose to 
deposit bales of straw or stover.  These materials are natural plant products 
and are deposited constantly on the deep ocean floor in the alluvial fans of 
rivers by natural processes, so the process should not be considered dumping.

Depending on which of the many schemes for biochar are used there are varying 
amounts of C emitted during biochar production, which would represent 
inefficiencies.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ 

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:00 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration


This is interesting.  And one wonders whether this is a technique that
should be raised at all in the upcoming LC meeting on OIF...

i.e. would biochar-at-sea be considered dumping under the LC?

D

On Jan 23, 8:55 am, Stuart Strand  wrote:
> We have just published the following peer reviewed article in Environmental 
> Science and Technology:
>
> Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back 
> to Deep Sediments<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es8015556>
> Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford
>
> For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must 
> process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester carbon 
> for thousands of years, be practical, economical and be implemented soon. The 
> only method that meets these criteria is removal of crop residues and burial 
> in the deep ocean. We show here that this method is 92% efficient in 
> sequestration of crop residue carbon while cellulosic ethanol production is 
> only 32% and soil sequestration is about 14% efficient. Deep ocean 
> sequestration can potentially capture 15% of the current global CO2 annual 
> increase, returning that carbon back to deep sediments, confining the carbon 
> for millennia, while using existing capital infrastructure and technology. 
> Because of these clear advantages, we recommend enhanced research into 
> permanent sequestration of crop residues in the deep ocean.
>
> Available on line here:
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag
>
> or email me requesting a reprint
>
>   = Stuart =
>
> Stuart E. Strand
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
> skype:  stuartestrandhttp://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!


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

We did not consider biochar because of the confusion of types of biochar 
technologies and the poor characterization of the carbon balances for most of 
them.  Carbon is lost in most of the biochar processes as I understand them, 
but a quantitative carbon balance for biochar is less clear.  Compared to most 
soil residue management practices with are marginally effective at retaining 
surface crop residue carbon, it seems to me that biochar may be able to add a 
significant semi-permanent boost to soil carbon stocks.  

But the whole biochar technology is poorly understood.  For example, there 
issues of toxicity in the incorporation of biochar into agricultural soils that 
have not been adequately explored.  Does fresh biochar release polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons that can be taken up by crops?  A lot of research is needed before 
biochar is applied at large scales in our agricultural soils.  I support 
funding that research right alongside the funding of research into oceanic crop 
residue sequestration. 

But, importantly, how often can biochar be used to store carbon in a given 
soil?  Every year, for a hundred years as necessary, until our agricultural 
soils are nothing but biochar?  Are our agricultural soils the correct place to 
sequester the excess fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere?  That fossil carbon 
came from deep sediments.  The permanent solution is to return it to deep 
sediments.


  = 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/ 

-Original Message-
From: Sam Carana [mailto:sam.car...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:10 PM
To: r...@llnl.gov; Stuart Strand; geoengineering; greenhouse effect; 
geo-engineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

The "only" method? Why not start with biochar burial? That would have
the additional benefit of making soil more fertile, help water
retention and prevent erosion. Current farming practices all too often
result in loss of carbon from the soil, which eventually ends up in
the atmosphere. This would also mitigate the point that Greg Rau
brings up, i.e. that removing crop waste from the land would come with
a need for additional fertilization of the soil.

Apart from the benefits for the soil, it would seem to me that this a
cheaper solution than to bury carbon deep underneath the ocean.
Furthermore, some of the carbon could be used for industrial purposes,
such as for making carbon fiber, in the building industry, etc.

So, why not start with pyrolysis of organic waste at relatively low
temperatures, and then using the char for agricultural and industrial
purposes.

Cheers!
Sam Carana




On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> Congrats!.  Will read with interest.  In the meantime my questions are:
> 1) does this differ in concept from Metzger and Benford 2001?
> 2)  crop residues contain other things besides C, such as N, P,  trace
> elements, etc. By removing these from land won't this require greater
> fertilizer use to maintain crop production?
> 3) Barring dumping in existing anoxic zones, might (some) decomposition in
> water column/sed surface impact deep (and eventually via circulation,
> surface) ocean chemistry and biology?
> Thanks,
> Greg
> go dawgs
>
> We have just published the following peer reviewed article in Environmental
> Science and Technology:
>
>
>
> Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon
> Back to Deep Sediments
>
> Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford
>
>
>
> For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must
> process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester carbon
> for thousands of years, be practical, economical and be implemented soon.
> The only method that meets these criteria is removal of crop residues and
> burial in the deep ocean. We show here that this method is 92% efficient in
> sequestration of crop residue carbon while cellulosic ethanol production is
> only 32% and soil sequestration is about 14% efficient. Deep ocean
> sequestration can potentially capture 15% of the current global CO2 annual
> increase, returning that carbon back to deep sediments, confining the carbon
> for millennia, while using existing capital infrastructure and technology.
> Because of these clear advantages, we recommend enhanced research into
> permanent sequestration of crop residues in the deep ocean.
>
>
>
> Available on line here:
>
>
>
> http:// pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag
>
>
>
> or email me requesting a reprint
>
>
>
>   = Stuart =
>
>
>
> Stuart E. Strand
>
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
>
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 2

[geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?

[Stuart Strand]

Seems a bit overwrought to me.  Of course preventing arctic ice melt and its 
consequences is the number one geoengineering priority, but removing carbon 
from the atmosphere is a perfectly valid geoengineering topic.

But please discuss the science and politics of albedo modification etc to your 
heart's desire.  Here is a question that I haven't seen addressed:  Do the 
governments of the arctic nations even want to prevent arctic ice melting?  
Russia?  

  = 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/ 


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:32 AM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com
Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'
Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?


Is there anyone in this group who does not agree that the primary urgency,
virtually to the exclusion of all other geoengineering considerations, is
reversing the Artic ice melt. And if you agree than do you agree that the
issue is removing huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere quickly or
reducing the amount of sunlight falling on the Arctic region. Can you add to
that list? 

Priority 2 is how do we organize geoengineering into a valid professional
activity that can promote geoengineering into a position wherein these
overriding needs can be implemented? Once that is done it becomes a
professional activity that offers a recognized and critical venue for the
activity; and a vehicle for obtaining funding for a whole variety of
activities.

Why do we continue to discuss longterm methods for reducing the amount of
carbon going into the atmosphere? You are fiddling while Rome burns.

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:20 AM
To: sam.car...@gmail.com
Cc: John Nissen; greenhouse effect; geoengineering; geo-engineering
Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?


Sam Carana

The power rating of a spray vessel is only 100 kW.  They have to operate in
mid ocean and migrate with the seasons so they have to generate their own
energy as they move through the water rather than rely on supplies from wind
turbines.

Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and
Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile  07795 203 195
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs   



Sam Carana wrote:
> Good point, John, the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect is such that 
> we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this.
>
> For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where 
> suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white 
> and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar 
> burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and 
> safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc.
>
> The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used to 
> make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying seawater 
> into the sky to change albedo above the sea.
>
> So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand.
> One hand washes the other!
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
>   

-- 

 


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
with registration number SC005336.






--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?

[Stuart Strand]

The biosphere removes vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere yearly reversing 
the year to year trend dramatically.  We control 10% of the terrestrial 
biosphere.  We can use that control to significantly reduce the lifetime of CO2 
in the atmosphere. 

Glad to hear that the national sovereignty problem has been disposed of.  

  = 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/ 

-Original Message-
From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 2:33 PM
To: Stuart Strand; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com
Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?

Stuart:
I am not sure why you say it is overwrought. After all, we agree precisely
on preventing ice melt and the importance of taking large amounts of CO2
from the atmosphere. I added reducing sunlight, also a possibility which you
commented on but I missed your point. So again, why is it overwrought.

What you may have missed is the discussion of CO2 lifetime in the
atmosphere. I have circulated material that shows pretty clearly that it is
over 1000 years. No one took exception. If it is reducing CO2 emissions buys
us nothing in the short term other than a reduction in use of fossil fuels,
which is a valuable thing to do independent of CO2 emissions.

The issue of other governments and what they desire has been addressed in
these exchanges way back. I suspect that you are right that the Russians
might prefer continued ice melt. I did not realize that the atmosphere had
been nationalized. If it has not been nationalized then screw the Russians.

-gene
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Strand [mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:25 PM
To: euggor...@comcast.net; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com
Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?

Seems a bit overwrought to me.  Of course preventing arctic ice melt and its
consequences is the number one geoengineering priority, but removing carbon
from the atmosphere is a perfectly valid geoengineering topic.

But please discuss the science and politics of albedo modification etc to
your heart's desire.  Here is a question that I haven't seen addressed:  Do
the governments of the arctic nations even want to prevent arctic ice
melting?  Russia?  

  = 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/ 


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:32 AM
To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com
Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'
Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?


Is there anyone in this group who does not agree that the primary urgency,
virtually to the exclusion of all other geoengineering considerations, is
reversing the Artic ice melt. And if you agree than do you agree that the
issue is removing huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere quickly or
reducing the amount of sunlight falling on the Arctic region. Can you add to
that list? 

Priority 2 is how do we organize geoengineering into a valid professional
activity that can promote geoengineering into a position wherein these
overriding needs can be implemented? Once that is done it becomes a
professional activity that offers a recognized and critical venue for the
activity; and a vehicle for obtaining funding for a whole variety of
activities.

Why do we continue to discuss longterm methods for reducing the amount of
carbon going into the atmosphere? You are fiddling while Rome burns.

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:20 AM
To: sam.car...@gmail.com
Cc: John Nissen; greenhouse effect; geoengineering; geo-engineering
Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?


Sam Carana

The power rating of a spray vessel is only 100 kW.  They have to operate in
mid ocean and migrate with the seasons so they have to generate their own
energy as they move through the water rather than rely on supplies from wind
turbines.

Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and
Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile  07795 203 195
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs   



Sam Carana wr

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

Alvia,

Point one is semantics.  Crop residue carbon sequestration is clear enough in 
my opinion.

2.  We did not analyze the costs of cellulosic ethanol with or without CO2 
capture.  We did use Aden et al's analysis to calculate the carbon balance of a 
cellulosic ethanol plant.  Most of the carbon dioxide emitted from cellulosic 
ethanol is not emitted at the auto tailpipe, rather it  is emitted from the 
production facility, because fermentation is not very efficient and lignin etc 
is burnt to provide the energy for distillation of the ethanol.  Approximately 
65% of the total carbon emitted from the production and use of cellulosic 
ethanol is emitted from the production facility, so that fraction could be 
captured, albeit with greater complexity and cost.

3.  You are correct, large scale crop residue sequestration in the deep ocean 
cannot compete in the present carbon market.  But the present carbon market is 
flawed in many ways that make it largely ineffective for dealing with the 
enormity of the crisis.  It is vulnerable to cheating and regulations on carbon 
emissions are too lax.  Most importantly the present market does not place an 
appropriate premium on permanence.  A carbon market probably could be made to 
work effectively, but only after major reform that would result in increased 
carbon prices.

4.  The saturation and SG of bales of crop residue is one of the uncertainties 
in our analysis.  The off line discussions you have publicized were very 
preliminary.  I hope that we can do some formal experiments soon, but this work 
is unfunded so resources are scarce.

As to your conclusion, it seems to assume that sequestration has to be done at 
less than 33 euro per t CO2, the 2006 maximum carbon price.  I would argue that 
permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is worth more than that, as will 
become apparent as the situation worsens.  Our paper argues that options for 
permanently removing carbon from the atmosphere are limited and flawed, and 
that crop residue sequestration in the deep ocean is the least problematic and 
could be done right away.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

That is an interesting point.   Since liquid CO2 capture from stationary 
sources (coal) and sequestration in deep strata must be a part of a sustainable 
mix of greenhouse gas control technologies, there may be enough free CO2 to 
release.   But some current deep injection ideas involve carbonate mineral 
formation in basalt.  And then there is the leakage problem.  Or we could save 
some coal...


  = 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/

From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:31 PM
To: Stuart Strand; agask...@nc.rr.com; 'geoengineering'; 'greenhouse effect'
Cc: 'James Lovelock'; 'James Hansen'; xbenf...@aol.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

I would argue that any sequestration technique for CO2 should allow its release 
back into the atmosphere when needed. Why needed? For sure when the nominal 
background level of CO2 in the atmosphere drops to 180 ppm as the Antarctic 
cools following the end of the current 20,000 year component of the 
Milankovitch cycle. That will take place relatively soon. When the Earth so 
cools we will be glad to have enough CO2 stored to put back 100 ppm and achieve 
acceptable climate. We should view geoengineering techniques as a thermostat 
that works both ways as needed.

One of the elegant aspects of carbon sequestration techniques is that they do 
no damage. Capture and storage fits that category.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

1.  OK.  I will try to remember the proper arrangements of letters, but forgive 
me if I lapse into clarity.
2.  As a bio oriented engineer I am not clear on how Lackner's cold process 
overcomes the weak driving force of extraction of CO2 from ambient air.
3.  As a steam and train fan, I love this idea!  But it make sense after the 
coal is gone.  Cobs are a lousy fuel.
4.  Yes and this is the scenario analyzed in our paper.



  = 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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:45 PM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; geoengineering; James Lovelock; James Hansen; 
xbenf...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

1 - Biomass Energy Carbon Capture and Storage is usually expressed as
'BECS'.  Biomass Carbon Capture and Storage would therefore be
BCCS/BCS
2 - Lackner's cold process works for air, so should work just fine for
CO2 rich stack emissions
3 - Shipping costs - Why not use steam trains that burn corn cob?
3 - Sinking - why not wrap up in big nylon sacks with rocks in to make
them sink.  This should discourage bottom-feeders, too.

A

2009/1/26 Stuart Strand :
> That is an interesting point.   Since liquid CO2 capture from stationary
> sources (coal) and sequestration in deep strata must be a part of a
> sustainable mix of greenhouse gas control technologies, there may be enough
> free CO2 to release.   But some current deep injection ideas involve
> carbonate mineral formation in basalt.  And then there is the leakage
> problem.  Or we could save some coal.
>
>
>
>
>
>   = 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/
>
>
>
> From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:31 PM
> To: Stuart Strand; agask...@nc.rr.com; 'geoengineering'; 'greenhouse effect'
> Cc: 'James Lovelock'; 'James Hansen'; xbenf...@aol.com
> Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>
>
>
> I would argue that any sequestration technique for CO2 should allow its
> release back into the atmosphere when needed. Why needed? For sure when the
> nominal background level of CO2 in the atmosphere drops to 180 ppm as the
> Antarctic cools following the end of the current 20,000 year component of
> the Milankovitch cycle. That will take place relatively soon. When the Earth
> so cools we will be glad to have enough CO2 stored to put back 100 ppm and
> achieve acceptable climate. We should view geoengineering techniques as a
> thermostat that works both ways as needed.
>
>
>
> One of the elegant aspects of carbon sequestration techniques is that they
> do no damage. Capture and storage fits that category.
>
>
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

Thanks for the heads up Dan.  

I suppose that is a possible interpretation of the rules.  But a better 
understanding of what is dumping and what is not is to realize that crop 
residues are natural plant products.  We are talking about straw and stalks, 
the stuff of mangers, not hazardous waste or sediments of some unknown 
provenance.  The deep sediments in the alluvial fans of rivers are always 
exposed to plant residues, so we propose to increase that natural input in 
order to restore balance in the carbon cycle.  We hope that the international 
community will agree.

  = Stuart =

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:53 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration


Re: dumping,

Stuart you should be aware that essentially anything other than a
fishhook or a net introduced to the surface of the ocean falls under
the london convention.  whether or not it is considered dumping by
them is another matter-- but even dredge material falls under the
convention.  Most people would probably be similarly amazed that
material dredged up in one area and deposited in another--even if its
only a couple miles away (and in intl waters) falls under the
oversight of an international regulatory body.

I'm not trying to discourage or dissuade you in any way, just that you
might be aware of the question.

You might contact dave herman at the department of state and start an
early discussion-- he would be appreciative of the gesture.

D

On Jan 23, 12:30 pm, Stuart Strand  wrote:
> We are not proposing to deposit biochar in the ocean, rather we propose to 
> deposit bales of straw or stover.  These materials are natural plant products 
> and are deposited constantly on the deep ocean floor in the alluvial fans of 
> rivers by natural processes, so the process should not be considered dumping.
>
> Depending on which of the many schemes for biochar are used there are varying 
> amounts of C emitted during biochar production, which would represent 
> inefficiencies.
>
>   = Stuart =
>
> Stuart E. Strand
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Whaley
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:00 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>
> This is interesting.  And one wonders whether this is a technique that
> should be raised at all in the upcoming LC meeting on OIF...
>
> i.e. would biochar-at-sea be considered dumping under the LC?
>
> D
>
> On Jan 23, 8:55 am, Stuart Strand  wrote:
> > We have just published the following peer reviewed article in Environmental 
> > Science and Technology:
>
> > Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon 
> > Back to Deep Sediments<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es8015556>
> > Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford
>
> > For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must 
> > process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester 
> > carbon for thousands of years, be practical, economical and be implemented 
> > soon. The only method that meets these criteria is removal of crop residues 
> > and burial in the deep ocean. We show here that this method is 92% 
> > efficient in sequestration of crop residue carbon while cellulosic ethanol 
> > production is only 32% and soil sequestration is about 14% efficient. Deep 
> > ocean sequestration can potentially capture 15% of the current global CO2 
> > annual increase, returning that carbon back to deep sediments, confining 
> > the carbon for millennia, while using existing capital infrastructure and 
> > technology. Because of these clear advantages, we recommend enhanced 
> > research into permanent sequestration of crop residues in the deep ocean.
>
> > Available on line here:
>
> >http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag
>
> > or email me requesting a reprint
>
> >   = Stuart =
>
> > Stuart E. Strand
> > 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> > voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
> > skype:  stuartestrandhttp://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 fi

[geo] Re: methane air capture

[Stuart Strand]

How much air flows through the global combustive generating capacity?


  = 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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of dsw_s
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:15 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: methane air capture


Compression ignition requires a suitable ratio of fuel to air.  Even
if compression in a diesel engine perfectly removed methane from the
air, you're not going to process the atmosphere a few hundred cc at a
time.  To remove methane from the air, I see two options: increase the
amount of hydroxyl radical if there's enough methane to deplete it, or
as you say build air-cooled CSP plants.  For the CSP option you would
want a counter-flow heat exchanger and a catalytic converter on the
outgoing air.

On Jan 27, 2:03 pm, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> If you fixed up diesel engine to a wind turbine, you'd get compression
> ignition of any methane residue in the atmosphere, even without
> injecting any fuel.  This would be expensive, but I think it would
> work.
>
> An alternative would be to pump air through concentrated solar power plants
>
> Any thoughts?  We appear to need some bright ideas on methane
> remediation pretty soon.
>
> A


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: understanding arctic shrinkage

[Stuart Strand]

I won't try to guess at questions 1 and 2, and I am not too sure about the 
answer to 3, but I will try to guess:

The surface ocean has aerobic methane oxidizers, so it could be a sink for 
atmospheric methane.  Most oxidation of methane (to CO2) is in the deep ocean 
and is due to anaerobic methane oxidation (yielding CO2 and reduced sulfur);  a 
process that is remote from the atmosphere.

And I have an answer for 4.  No.


  = 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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:21 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] understanding arctic shrinkage


Please can someone help clarify the following questions:

1) What's generally agreed to be the main reason for the IPCC
underestimating Arctic shrinkage? (albedo, methane, etc)
2) If methane levels haven't been rising much in the atmosphere, then
where's all the methane that's coming out of the Arctic going?
3) Does methane cycle into the sea, and do bacteria eat it there?
4) Does anyone know of ways to encourage methane-eating bacteria -
other than feeding them more methane?


I have looked all this up but I can't find anything conclusive.

A



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: understanding arctic shrinkage

[Stuart Strand]

The methanotrophs are true specialists; they grow only on methane a few other 
C1 compounds.

  = Stuart =

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] understanding arctic shrinkage

OK, if these bacteria live in the deep ocean, can they be fertilized,
eg by using iron?  What about the ones that live in the upper ocean,
which you imply are less significant?

Are the bacteria specifically evolved for metabolising methane, or are
they 'ordinary' bacteria that happen to do it as and when it takes
their fancy?

Can such bacteria be cultured in the lab, and would GM be of any
assistance in improving the rate of methane metabolism?

>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Black Pickle concept and the "Great Restoration"

[Stuart Strand]

In terms of carbon burying biomass in sediment is a much more efficient use of 
biomass than combustion, as Metzger and Benford developed in 2001.  It helps to 
think about it as global recycling.  Put the excess carbon back in the 
sediments.

Note that the Danube empties into the Black Sea from a large and agriculturally 
productive drainage basin.  Lots of crop residue available on a yearly basis.

The Black Sea is meromictic, the upper layer does not mix with the lower, so 
the escape of any CO2 produced would be impeded, but I am not sure for how 
long.  The deep water of the Black Sea is an interesting and well studied 
microbial environment.  The depth of the abyssal plain of the Black sea is 
1000-2000 m, so I doubt that methane bubbles would form, especially at the low 
rate that wood is fermented.  Thus methane would diffuse into the deep water, 
and there would be opportunity for its bio-oxidation in the aerobic upper 
waters.

Importantly the Black Sea is a unique environment that has been under 
considerable environmental stress and is only recently recovering.  It is 
unlikely that burial of wood in the sediments would stimulate algae blooms such 
as occurred due to fertilizer pollution in the nineties, but experimental 
confirmation would be essential, if funding could be found somehow.

  = 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
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:31 PM
To: anr...@nytimes.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Black Pickle concept and the "Great Restoration"

Thanks.  Interesting idea of sinking logs into the Black Sea.  One problem - 
most logs don't sink, at least not right away.  Suggest ballasting with 
limestone to neutralize any CO2 given off during decomposition.  But in the 
anoxic deep water of this sea, CH4 production rather than CO2 would likely  
dominate as the decomp end product.  Maybe we should save this for countering 
the next ice age.   Anyway, would like to know more details if available.
Greg



Jesse Ausubel discusses the "Black Pickle" concept for sequestering carbon in 
the sea at the tail end of this updated post:  http:// 
tinyurl.com/dotUrbanJungle
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
http:// www. nytimes.com/revkin





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

I am reading the biochar literature now and it is fascinating stuff.  But first 
glance reveals that pyrolysis schemes return 20-50% of the total carbon 
originally in the biomass back to sequestration in the soil (ES&T Sept 1 2007, 
p 5932).  So already there is an efficiency problem compared to CROPS which is 
90% efficient.  Also I am concerned about how often biochar can be done on a 
given soil without undesirable effects on agricultural soil ecology.  And how 
permanent is charcoal in soil?  Amazonian terra preta still contains charcoal, 
but how much was lost over the intervening 500 years?  We would be storing 
biochar in soil in direct contact with the atmosphere.  If it decays there is 
no safety factor as there would be in deep sediments.  Safety factors and 
redundancy are important in engineering; although geoengineering doesn't seem 
much like any other engineering I am familiar with...

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ 

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:46 PM
To: dwschn...@gmail.com
Cc: Stuart Strand; markcap...@podenergy.org; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration


Isn't it more efficient to pyrolyse the waste first, recovering energy
and reducing transport carbon?

A

2009/2/2 David Schnare :
> Stuart:
>
> I've been studying notill agriculture that relies, in major part, on
> building soil carbon to hold nutrients in the soil (reducing application
> requirements and keeping it out of streams).  While a 14% sequestration
> (limited to only about 20 years before maxing out on sequestration
> potential) seems small compared to 100% if dumped into the ocean deeps, it
> seems to me that when used in places more than 150 miles from the ocean, it
> is carbon reduction efficient (based on fuels needed for transport).
>
> As such, shouldn't we be narrowing the crop waste discussion to coastal
> agriculture only, and give credit for soil sequestration where that's as
> good as is available?
>
> David Schnare
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Strand 
> wrote:
>>
>> By straw we are referring to the stalks of agricultural plants, wheat
>> stalks and corn stover.  The water and nutrients were expended to grow the
>> grain.  Straw has a low nutrient content (C/N = ca 50/1).  Presently straw
>> is wasted by allowing it to decay on the soil surface (only 14% or less of
>> the straw carbon is incorporated into the soil).
>>
>>
>>
>> A variety of processes are available to get energy out of crop residues,
>> but they are limited by the poor specific energy of biomass.  Our focus is
>> how to efficiently remove Pg amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and
>> permanently sequester it in the least environmentally harmful manner.
>>
>>
>>
>>   = 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
>>
>> Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
>>
>>   55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!
>>
>>
>>
>> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
>> markcap...@podenergy.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:16 PM
>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>>
>>
>>
>> Stuart,
>>
>>
>>
>> Why bundle and stash terrestrial straw.  Growing straw requires
>> substantial fresh water and nutrients.  You could bundle and stash algae
>> instead.  How about sargassum or kelp?  A macro-algae can be bundled in
>> large mesh "tea bags" with much of the water being squeezed out during the
>> bundling process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then, as long as you've got bundles of biomass, why not separate the
>> nutrients from the carbon before you stash the carbon?  That way, you can
>> recycle the nutrients back to the ocean surface for growing more biomass.
>> High-pressure anaerobic digestion will release the carbon in two separate
&g

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

David,

You are wrong about the carbon that would be emitted during transportation of 
residues to the sea.  Our calculation of 92% carbon sequestration efficiency 
for CROPS is based on truck transport to the upper Mississippi and barging to 
deep water in the Gulf.  If you want a reprint please ask and I will send.  
Nothing against no-till; it seems a good way to improve soil fertility and not 
waste root carbon, but it is still a lossy way to sequester above ground crop 
residue carbon.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: David Schnare [mailto:dwschn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:04 AM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: markcap...@podenergy.org; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

Stuart:

I've been studying notill agriculture that relies, in major part, on building 
soil carbon to hold nutrients in the soil (reducing application requirements 
and keeping it out of streams).  While a 14% sequestration (limited to only 
about 20 years before maxing out on sequestration potential) seems small 
compared to 100% if dumped into the ocean deeps, it seems to me that when used 
in places more than 150 miles from the ocean, it is carbon reduction efficient 
(based on fuels needed for transport).

As such, shouldn't we be narrowing the crop waste discussion to coastal 
agriculture only, and give credit for soil sequestration where that's as good 
as is available?

David Schnare
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Strand 
mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:

By straw we are referring to the stalks of agricultural plants, wheat stalks 
and corn stover.  The water and nutrients were expended to grow the grain.  
Straw has a low nutrient content (C/N = ca 50/1).  Presently straw is wasted by 
allowing it to decay on the soil surface (only 14% or less of the straw carbon 
is incorporated into the soil).



A variety of processes are available to get energy out of crop residues, but 
they are limited by the poor specific energy of biomass.  Our focus is how to 
efficiently remove Pg amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and permanently 
sequester it in the least environmentally harmful manner.



  = 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

Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record

  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of markcap...@podenergy.org<mailto:markcap...@podenergy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:16 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration



Stuart,



Why bundle and stash terrestrial straw.  Growing straw requires substantial 
fresh water and nutrients.  You could bundle and stash algae instead.  How 
about sargassum or kelp?  A macro-algae can be bundled in large mesh "tea bags" 
with much of the water being squeezed out during the bundling process.



Then, as long as you've got bundles of biomass, why not separate the nutrients 
from the carbon before you stash the carbon?  That way, you can recycle the 
nutrients back to the ocean surface for growing more biomass.  High-pressure 
anaerobic digestion will release the carbon in two separate streams; one 
gaseous CH4, one dissolved CO2, which easily converts to liquid CO2 at typical 
ocean temperatures and pressures.



Would you or others be interested in a California Energy Commission grant to 
run a few bench experiments on high-pressure anaerobic digestion?  I can send a 
draft abstract.

 <http://social.telematicsupdate.com/content/dynamic-carpooling-your-mobile>



Mark E. Capron, PE

Oxnard, California

www.PODenergy.org<http://www.podenergy.org/>









--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

By straw we are referring to the stalks of agricultural plants, wheat stalks 
and corn stover.  The water and nutrients were expended to grow the grain.  
Straw has a low nutrient content (C/N = ca 50/1).  Presently straw is wasted by 
allowing it to decay on the soil surface (only 14% or less of the straw carbon 
is incorporated into the soil).

A variety of processes are available to get energy out of crop residues, but 
they are limited by the poor specific energy of biomass.  Our focus is how to 
efficiently remove Pg amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and permanently 
sequester it in the least environmentally harmful manner.

  = 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
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of markcap...@podenergy.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:16 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

Stuart,

Why bundle and stash terrestrial straw.  Growing straw requires substantial 
fresh water and nutrients.  You could bundle and stash algae instead.  How 
about sargassum or kelp?  A macro-algae can be bundled in large mesh "tea bags" 
with much of the water being squeezed out during the bundling process.

Then, as long as you've got bundles of biomass, why not separate the nutrients 
from the carbon before you stash the carbon?  That way, you can recycle the 
nutrients back to the ocean surface for growing more biomass.  High-pressure 
anaerobic digestion will release the carbon in two separate streams; one 
gaseous CH4, one dissolved CO2, which easily converts to liquid CO2 at typical 
ocean temperatures and pressures.

Would you or others be interested in a California Energy Commission grant to 
run a few bench experiments on high-pressure anaerobic digestion?  I can send a 
draft 
abstract.
 

Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

Because it's better for the atmosphere. If I hand you a lump of coal, which is 
better for the atmosphere and global warming? For you to burn it or to throw it 
into the sea? 

You can burn it and sequester the liquid carbon dioxide in deep saline 
aquifers, as we must do to continue to burn coal, and that will bring you 
nearly up to the carbon sequestration efficiency of CROPS.  But now you have 
two complicated technologies to develop and we don't have time.  Why not at 
least start with the easy crop residues and sequester them on land or at sea? 
Every year that we waste another Keeling curve cycle looses many megatons of 
carbon that could've been removed permanently from the surface biosphere.  We 
need to start the research to allow us to tap into this carbon flow.

Your points about biochar are fine, but you are still focused on energy 
production, and making energy from biomass, wasting the carbon back to the 
atmosphere.  

Biomass is a crummy energy source and photosynthesis a lousy solar collector in 
terms of efficiency.  I do not believe for a minute that we get the energy to 
run civilization or even just transport in 2050 from biomass even if we are 
much more efficient in its use.  There are other more efficient alternatives 
for the energy we need.  But terrestrial biomass represents a huge part of the 
carbon cycle.  The question is how to best use it.

  = Stuart =


-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:51 PM
To: agask...@nc.rr.com
Cc: Stuart Strand; David Schnare; markcap...@podenergy.org; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

Could someone please explain why you would want to throw fuel into the sea?

Surely it's better to:
a) Burn it, then use CCS
b) Pyrolise it to recover energy and to reduce mass/bulk and then
throw the char in the sea.

Just to question the 'safety factor' of terra preta as opposed to
ocean burial:  As I understand it there's actually a net benefit to
biochar, as it helps 'bulk' the soil and cause it to sequester yet
more carbon from organic residues.

A

2009/2/3 Alvia Gaskill :
> The real problem is not with the carbon dioxide emissions from the fuel.
> It's with how much fuel has to be used and its cost.  That is the argument
> for starting with residue as close to deep water as possible, e.g. as
> previously mentioned, eastern Japan and the Bay of Biscay off the west coast
> of France.  There are probably other locations as well that meet these
> criteria.  If a pipeline could be run from the coastal area to the deep
> water, there would be no need for barging.  Experience in the handling of
> bagasse by sluicing can probably be applied to the CROPs strategy.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Stuart Strand
> To: David Schnare
> Cc: markcap...@podenergy.org ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:34 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>
> David,
>
>
>
> You are wrong about the carbon that would be emitted during transportation
> of residues to the sea.  Our calculation of 92% carbon sequestration
> efficiency for CROPS is based on truck transport to the upper Mississippi
> and barging to deep water in the Gulf.  If you want a reprint please ask and
> I will send.  Nothing against no-till; it seems a good way to improve soil
> fertility and not waste root carbon, but it is still a lossy way to
> sequester above ground crop residue carbon.
>
>
>
>   = Stuart =
>
>
>
> Stuart E. Strand
>
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
>
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/
>
>
>
> From: David Schnare [mailto:dwschn...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:04 AM
> To: Stuart Strand
> Cc: markcap...@podenergy.org; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>
>
>
> Stuart:
>
>
>
> I've been studying notill agriculture that relies, in major part, on
> building soil carbon to hold nutrients in the soil (reducing application
> requirements and keeping it out of streams).  While a 14% sequestration
> (limited to only about 20 years before maxing out on sequestration
> potential) seems small compared to 100% if dumped into the ocean deeps, it
> seems to me that when used in places more than 150 miles from the ocean, it
> is carbon reduction efficient (based on fuels needed for transport).
>
>
>
> As such, shouldn't we be narrowing the crop waste discussion to coastal
> agriculture only, and give credit for soil sequestration where that's as
> good as is available?
>

[geo] Re: CROPS paper

[Stuart Strand]

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 :
> 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
> Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
>  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:05 AM
> To: xbenf...@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

[geo] Re: CROPS paper

[Stuart Strand]

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  
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:05 AM
To: xbenf...@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



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

s and polar ice, causing albedo change;
- reducing CO2 and methane emissions, compared to the alternative of
leaving much organic material to rot away;
- reducing emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), due to less use of fertilisers;

Cheers!
Sam Carana



On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Stuart Strand  wrote:
>
> I am reading the biochar literature now and it is fascinating stuff.  But 
> first glance reveals that pyrolysis schemes return 20-50% of the total carbon 
> originally in the biomass back to sequestration in the soil (ES&T Sept 1 
> 2007, p 5932).  So already there is an efficiency problem compared to CROPS 
> which is 90% efficient.  Also I am concerned about how often biochar can be 
> done on a given soil without undesirable effects on agricultural soil 
> ecology.  And how permanent is charcoal in soil?  Amazonian terra preta still 
> contains charcoal, but how much was lost over the intervening 500 years?  We 
> would be storing biochar in soil in direct contact with the atmosphere.  If 
> it decays there is no safety factor as there would be in deep sediments.  
> Safety factors and redundancy are important in engineering; although 
> geoengineering doesn't seem much like any other engineering I am familiar 
> with...
>
>   = Stuart =
>
> Stuart E. Strand
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
> http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:46 PM
> To: dwschn...@gmail.com
> Cc: Stuart Strand; markcap...@podenergy.org; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>
>
> Isn't it more efficient to pyrolyse the waste first, recovering energy
> and reducing transport carbon?
>
> A
>
> 2009/2/2 David Schnare :
>> Stuart:
>>
>> I've been studying notill agriculture that relies, in major part, on
>> building soil carbon to hold nutrients in the soil (reducing application
>> requirements and keeping it out of streams).  While a 14% sequestration
>> (limited to only about 20 years before maxing out on sequestration
>> potential) seems small compared to 100% if dumped into the ocean deeps, it
>> seems to me that when used in places more than 150 miles from the ocean, it
>> is carbon reduction efficient (based on fuels needed for transport).
>>
>> As such, shouldn't we be narrowing the crop waste discussion to coastal
>> agriculture only, and give credit for soil sequestration where that's as
>> good as is available?
>>
>> David Schnare
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Strand 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> By straw we are referring to the stalks of agricultural plants, wheat
>>> stalks and corn stover.  The water and nutrients were expended to grow the
>>> grain.  Straw has a low nutrient content (C/N = ca 50/1).  Presently straw
>>> is wasted by allowing it to decay on the soil surface (only 14% or less of
>>> the straw carbon is incorporated into the soil).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A variety of processes are available to get energy out of crop residues,
>>> but they are limited by the poor specific energy of biomass.  Our focus is
>>> how to efficiently remove Pg amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and
>>> permanently sequester it in the least environmentally harmful manner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   = 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
>>>
>>> Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
>>>
>>>   55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>>> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
>>> markcap...@podenergy.org
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:16 PM
>>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>>>
>>>
>>>

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

Greg is right about the importance of doing the numbers.  I was surprised at 
how carbon efficient it would be to barge crop residue to the sea.  I thought 
that much more fuel would be required than it turned out.

To me it is all about the carbon.  If an engineer wants to remove carbon from 
the atmosphere he/she first looks at where the greatest amount of carbon is 
processed and how to most efficiently process and store it, avoiding leaks and 
losses of the precious C.  Then what storage is least leaky?  

It is not easy to remove carbon from the atmosphere.  Even with the high 
efficiency of CROPS we can only get half a stabilization wedge globally, an 
effect that would probably be measurable, but not assuredly.  I fear that 
another process using crop residue with less efficiency would produce no 
measureable effect on global CO2.

As for the classification of crop residues (straw and corn stover) as wastes, 
dredge spoils are permitted, I believe.  Iron fertilization is quite different 
from deposition of plant materials in river sediments that receive plant inputs 
all the time.   

  = Stuart =


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

30-40% of the crop residue must be left on the land to prevent erosion.  So 
removal for biochar could reach 60-70%, not 100%.

Decadal sequestration is not enough, 100 years is not enough.  1000 years is 
barely enough.

I am not seeing much discussion of numbers here.  Can you please refer me to 
peer reviewed literature that in your opinion does the best estimate of carbon 
flows in biochar/biomass pyrolysis?


  = 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
Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Sam Carana
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:23 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration


Stuart,

If we only looked at the percentage of carbon was kept out of the
atmosphere, then we should look at methods such as using crop residue
and other organic material to produce bricks, pavement, tiles and
similar building components. I wrote about Timbercrete in an article
on carbon-negative building at:
http://gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977316789
Timbercrete is used to build houses, garden walls, for pavement and
the like. It is made from sand and recycled timber waste, such as
sawdust or other cellulose material. It is designed to last for
generations, so for its lifetime it will store 100% of the carbon that
was removed from the atmosphere by vegetation. I suppose that, if the
building is taken down, the material could be recycled into new
Timbercrete, but by that time we may have developed even better
methods to reduce greenhouse gases.

Anyway, my point is that this figure of 90% efficiency in keeping
carbon out of the atmosphere should not be taken as the sole measure
to assess methods. If we took such a narrow view, then the above
Timbercrete would seem superior to ocean sequestration. But again, my
point is that we should instead look at the wider picture. If we can
pyrolyze three times as much material and bury it in the form of
biochar, then that method would store a greater net amount of carbon.

In conclusion, we should get communities to grow more vegetation and
keep as much of the carbon contained in the vegetation out of the
atmosphere for a long time, at least for decades to come. We can only
suggest methods, but what works best locally depends on the benefits
that communities each see in the various methods. Part of that bigger
picture is illustrated by the image of my article Four Cycles of a
Sustainable Economy, at:
http://gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977561808

Don't just look at the figures for two specific methods in isolation.
We need to give it all we've got and many methods can work together
and, by complementing each other, increasing the result in terms of
reducing greenhouse gases.

Cheers!
Sam Carana



On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Stuart Strand  wrote:
> Sam,
>
> In your first point you touch on one problem:  pyrolysis is about 50% 
> efficient use of crop residue carbon for sequestration.  CROPS is about 90% 
> efficient.  Perhaps a combination of the two would be synergistic.
>
>   = 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
> Hourhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
>  55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Carana
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:21 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration
>
>
> Stuart, you conclude that ocean burial was more efficient in reducing
> greenhouse gases than biochar, but you draw that conclusion by looking
> at only one small part of what is a much bigger picture.
>
> 1. As we get better in pyrolysis, it should be no problem capturing
> half of the carbon in the form of biochar. It depends partly on what
> material is pyrolyzed, but that's also the beauty of this method, i.e.
> many things can be treated this way, such as agricultural waste,
> animal manure, sawdust, etc.
>
> 2. Apart from this, biochar enriches soil, allowing more 

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

OK, we are in agreement that most of the surface sequestration schemes are 
"kicking the can down the road", they are temporary.  But CROPS is one kick and 
you have _permanent sequestration_.  That is the goal of geoengineering of 
greenhouse gases, right?

There is an element of danger in keeping the fossil fuel carbon on the surface 
in contact with the atmosphere, no matter what form it is in.

  = Stuart =

-Original Message-
From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:58 AM
To: Stuart Strand; sam.car...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

100 years may be enough if technological advances allow us to remove
atmospheric CO2.  Remember also that if it is 100 years for complete
oxidation of the biomass, that would be 2109 for crop residue sequestered
today and 2150 for crop residue sequestered in 2050.  Just as we would only
be able to remove carbon via crop residue sequestration one year at a time,
nature will also have to operate on the same schedule, unless you can show
that oxidation rates will increase in the coming decades.  Admittedly, this
is kicking the can down the road, but that's the whole point of
geoengineering, buying time.

The way nuclear waste is being handled is instructive.  High level waste
will remain radioactive for up to 250,000 years.  There is no way we can
guarantee removal of this from the biosphere for that long.  Future
civilizations may unwittingly dig it up, irrespective of where and how it is
stored.  Keeping it out of the environment for as long as practical is the
best we can hope for.  By 2100 or 2200 or sometime in the next millenium, it
is likely that solutions other than burying it in caves or salt mines will
have been found.

By storing crop waste aboveground, it is also still available for use as a
soil amendment if that is necessary.  Very likely, crop residue
sequestration will wind up being done in various ways, from aboveground
storage in dry areas to landfilling to produce methane to some ocean
disposal.  A one-size fits all strategy probably won't work.

In looking at the landfill option, I noticed that in several states, MI and
MO, efforts were underway to get approval to let yard waste be sent to
municipal landfills instead of separate ones as is now mostly the case.
Part of the reason may be financial as waste haulers could get higher fees
if the grass clippings and tree limbs were back in the mix.  The stated
reason is to generate more methane for energy recovery.  The reason to keep
yard waste out of landfills is to extend the life of the facility.  The fire
issue is a legitimate one.  Durham County maintains a yard waste landfill,
but hired a bankrupt contractor who failed to keep it aerated and allowed
waste to accumulate until it spontaneously combusted during a major drought.
The ensuing fire burned for several weeks, sending local residents to
hospitals with respiratory problems and was finally extinguished by another
outside contractor at a cost of nearly $100,000.

Adding crop waste to existing landfills may be the most expedient way to
capitalize on the methane option, while avoiding the problems with gas
pockets Andrew mentioned.  However, biocells could also be utilized.  About
50% of landfill gas is methane and the rest CO2 with leakage rates varying
considerably.  Whatever strategy or combination of strategies are employed,
complete life cycle comparisons need to be developed with respect to energy
costs and GHG emissions.  Stuart attempted to do this for biomass burning
for energy recovery vs. cellulosic ethanol vs. CROPS.  A follow on study
should include all other realistic scenarios including tree planting and
sequestration and consider impacts on surface albedo from the darker tree
canopies vs. the barren ground that may exist there now.


- Original Message -
From: "Stuart Strand" 
To: ; "geoengineering"

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:59 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration


> 30-40% of the crop residue must be left on the land to prevent erosion.
> So removal for biochar could reach 60-70%, not 100%.
>
> Decadal sequestration is not enough, 100 years is not enough.  1000 years
> is barely enough.
>
> I am not seeing much discussion of numbers here.  Can you please refer me
> to peer reviewed literature that in your opinion does the best estimate of
> carbon flows in biochar/biomass pyrolysis?
>
>
>  = 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   

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Stuart Strand]

Thank you for your creed, Andrew.

I am trying to have a rational debate.  Yelling does not win scientific debate.


  = Stuart =

From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:36 PM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: Alvia Gaskill; sam.car...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

I don't think that the 'permanence' of CROPS sequestration has been 
demonstrated to a satisfactory extent.
I don't think it's been shown to be legal.
I don't think it's been shown to be practical or cost effective for inland 
crops.
I don't think that it's been shown to sequester carbon from biodegradable 
material.
I don't think it has been demonstrated to be superior to charring
I don't think it has been demonstrated to be superior to AD for methane.

A
2009/2/5 Stuart Strand 
mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>>
OK, we are in agreement that most of the surface sequestration schemes are 
"kicking the can down the road", they are temporary.  But CROPS is one kick and 
you have _permanent sequestration_.  That is the goal of geoengineering of 
greenhouse gases, right?

There is an element of danger in keeping the fossil fuel carbon on the surface 
in contact with the atmosphere, no matter what form it is in.

 = Stuart =

-Original Message-
From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com<mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:58 AM
To: Stuart Strand; sam.car...@gmail.com<mailto:sam.car...@gmail.com>; 
geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

100 years may be enough if technological advances allow us to remove
atmospheric CO2.  Remember also that if it is 100 years for complete
oxidation of the biomass, that would be 2109 for crop residue sequestered
today and 2150 for crop residue sequestered in 2050.  Just as we would only
be able to remove carbon via crop residue sequestration one year at a time,
nature will also have to operate on the same schedule, unless you can show
that oxidation rates will increase in the coming decades.  Admittedly, this
is kicking the can down the road, but that's the whole point of
geoengineering, buying time.

The way nuclear waste is being handled is instructive.  High level waste
will remain radioactive for up to 250,000 years.  There is no way we can
guarantee removal of this from the biosphere for that long.  Future
civilizations may unwittingly dig it up, irrespective of where and how it is
stored.  Keeping it out of the environment for as long as practical is the
best we can hope for.  By 2100 or 2200 or sometime in the next millenium, it
is likely that solutions other than burying it in caves or salt mines will
have been found.

By storing crop waste aboveground, it is also still available for use as a
soil amendment if that is necessary.  Very likely, crop residue
sequestration will wind up being done in various ways, from aboveground
storage in dry areas to landfilling to produce methane to some ocean
disposal.  A one-size fits all strategy probably won't work.

In looking at the landfill option, I noticed that in several states, MI and
MO, efforts were underway to get approval to let yard waste be sent to
municipal landfills instead of separate ones as is now mostly the case.
Part of the reason may be financial as waste haulers could get higher fees
if the grass clippings and tree limbs were back in the mix.  The stated
reason is to generate more methane for energy recovery.  The reason to keep
yard waste out of landfills is to extend the life of the facility.  The fire
issue is a legitimate one.  Durham County maintains a yard waste landfill,
but hired a bankrupt contractor who failed to keep it aerated and allowed
waste to accumulate until it spontaneously combusted during a major drought.
The ensuing fire burned for several weeks, sending local residents to
hospitals with respiratory problems and was finally extinguished by another
outside contractor at a cost of nearly $100,000.

Adding crop waste to existing landfills may be the most expedient way to
capitalize on the methane option, while avoiding the problems with gas
pockets Andrew mentioned.  However, biocells could also be utilized.  About
50% of landfill gas is methane and the rest CO2 with leakage rates varying
considerably.  Whatever strategy or combination of strategies are employed,
complete life cycle comparisons need to be developed with respect to energy
costs and GHG emissions.  Stuart attempted to do this for biomass burning
for energy recovery vs. cellulosic ethanol vs. CROPS.  A follow on study
should include all other realistic scenarios including tree planting and
sequestration and consider impacts on surface albedo from the darker tree
canopies vs. the barren ground that may exist there now.


- Original Message -
From: "Stuart Strand" 
mail

[geo] Methanotrophic reactors

[Stuart Strand]

The problem is that there is only one facultative methanotroph known and it 
would probably not do well in a bioreactor that is open to the atmosphere (and 
other bugs) and fed with a substrate other than methane.  I am looking into the 
possibility of a bioreactor that is fed methane for a while and then run 
endogenously for a while treating the ambient levels of methane in the 
atmosphere.  It may work, but I am not optimistic.  We don't want to burn too 
much methane or the co2 released will outweigh the benefits of removing the 
methane!  But if we don't feed the reactor methane there won't be 
methanotrophic bacteria.  A catch 22.


  = Stuart =





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Microbiological homework

[Stuart Strand]

For those of you interested in learning more about microbiology, may I suggest 
reading an environmental microbiology text:  Brock et al*, a really fine 
exposition of the microbial world, which is responsible for the mineralization 
of organic matter in soils and sediments, and the thermodynamic rules that 
govern it.  It is a beautiful and subtle story and Brock is one the all-time 
best textbooks.

  = Stuart =

* http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_madigan_brockbio_10/



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Focus of Geo-engineering?

[Stuart Strand]

I wouldn't be too worried about methane explosions in the open atmosphere.  The 
lower explosive limit of methane in air is 4.4 - 5% by volume.  Microbial 
oxidation will consume the excess methane well before it can accumulate to that 
level.  

A few numbers please:  How much timber biomass is presently available in the 
arctic?  How much is outside of protected preserves?  How much additional 
biomass do you expect to grow in the arctic in 10 years, 20, 50, 100?  Does the 
analysis assume the warming you are trying to avoid?  

  = Stuart =


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Sam Carana
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:47 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Focus of Geo-engineering?


Hi everyone, I had some discussion with Albert Kallio on our focus and
I like to share some of it and hear what everyone thinks.

=
Arctic Timber Drowning
=

I coined the phrase Arctic Timber Drowning for Albert's idea, because
I want to avoid using the term "dumping", which sounds too negative.


===
Genetically-modified Vegetation
===

As I said to Albert, the effectiveness of vegetation growth could be
enhanced by planting specific types of trees that grow rapidly.
Seedlings could be planted while felling timber. Genetically-modified
trees could grow even faster.

Having brought up the bad-publicity-due-to-terminology issue, should
we avoid the issue of genetically modifying vegetation? Alternatively,
should we encourage discussion and present genetically-modified
vegetation as a separate geo-engineering proposal? Should we select
and modify vegetation for rapid growth, such as bamboo? Should we
encourage crop that can grow using very little water, while at other
places using vegetation that can grow rapidly with large amounts of
water? Should we look at plants that can prevent erosion, grow in
salty water, etc. What is the scope of applying bio-technology to
engineer all kinds of vegetation with the specific aim of mitigating
global warming? What would be the impact on food, etc?

Importantly, should we come up with guidelines on genetically-modified
vegetation, after having assessed the risks?



What should be Our Focus?


That brings us to the question of our role and focus as a group.
Earlier, Andrew emphasized the point that it will be difficult to get
legal approval and there will be political opposition against
geoengineering, specifically methods that "dump" anything into oceans.
I agree with Andrew that this will have to be taken into account when
assessing the possible success of methods.

However, to what extent should and could we assess the success of
geoengineering proposals? I believe that everyone will agree that we
should be aware of the political issues associated with
geoengineering, but shouldn't our primary focus here be on the more
technical and engineering side of things, i.e. coming up with
estimates for effectiveness, side-effects, how things will work out
biologically, etc? Rather than having a political or socio-economic
debate about what constituted the "best" geo-engineering proposal, I
agree with Stuart that we should try and examine scenarios by coming
up with figures on volumes, timescales, etc.

At the same time, I believe we have a duty to discuss hazards and
inform the public about the dangers of specific developments. In
particular, I would like to see the risk assessed of a "Sudden Methane
Explosion".



Sudden Methane Explosion


I prefer to use the phrase "Sudden Methane Explosion" over phrases
like "Clathrate Gun Theory". I want to avoid using words like
clathrate and theory, which sound too 'scientific' and too distant for
people who might avoid further reading when encountering a "difficult"
word. This touches on our responsibility to publicly speak out on such
an issue without cloaking hazards in scientific terms. I therefore
propose to speak about the Sudden Methane Explosion hazard.

In particular regarding Arctic Timber Drowning in lakes and rivers, we
have to look at the risk of emissions due to underwater rotting,
specifically methane emissions. There's the doomsday scenario which I
like to call the "Sudden Methane Explosion" hazard. Methane oxidation
now takes place by  tropospheric chemical reaction with hydroxyl
radicals (OH), producing CH3 and water. As more methane enters the
atmosphere (due to livestock, burning of peat deposits and melting
permafrost), the
amount of tropospheric hydroxyl decreases, so methane will remain in
the atmosphere ever longer, an accumulation that could accelerate into
a huge local built-up of methane. Lightning could then ignite the
methane, resulting in a 'Sudden Methane Explosion' that could rage
like wildfire over the Arctic. Theoretically, this could reach
incredible temperatures, consuming entire la

[geo] Re: Focus of Geo-engineering?

[Stuart Strand]

Yes, large amounts of methane suddenly released from hydrates or from 
overturning stratified lakes could be explosive if somehow mixed with the right 
amount of air.  I was referring to the slow release of CH4 from tundra and 
small shallow lakes.  Slow in terms of reaching the lower explosive limit, but 
nonetheless alarming in its potential climate effects.

Speaking of which, I would like to see the debate on this group go back to more 
discussion of the albedo modifying methods and other ideas for trying to stop 
arctic ice lost and accelerated warming. I appreciate some of the discussions 
that the CROPS paper has generated, but I think I will take a bit of a rest 
posting, at least until the next papers are published on biomass sequestration. 
 The arctic situation is looking desperate; it should be the first priority of 
the geoengineering community.   


  = Stuart =

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 6:17 PM
To: sam.car...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Focus of Geo-engineering?


You think drowning  is a less emotional term than dumping?  How about the 
tried and true vanilla mitigation term "carbon sequestration?"  The tree 
disposal idea is an old one, dating back to the 80's.  It may have 
originated with Wallace Broecker.  I don't remember.  Whatever you decide to 
call it, if it were ever to reach the stage of field trials, it would be 
called dumping or disposal by the media and environmental groups.  Also, 
just like in the case of the crop residue removal, too many "crops" of trees 
grown on the same soil without any replacement of nutrients and the trees 
won't grow.

There is a theory, largely dismissed by the scientific community, of 
firestorms in the past, caused by methane gas eruptions from sea sediments. 
A localized pocket of methane gas could be ignited, but in general the 
methane produced from submerged trees wouldn't pose any threat as very 
little methane would likely be produced if the trees were sunk deep enough 
and in cold enough water.  If you want to get the public and the 
policymakers to pay attention, using vague complex terms to describe 
outcomes isn't the way to do it.  I called it "catastrophic methane hydrate 
release," because the result would be catastrophic if large enough and 
longlasting enough.

- Original Message - 
From: "Sam Carana" 
To: "geoengineering" 
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 6:47 PM
Subject: [geo] Focus of Geo-engineering?




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity - scary math

[Stuart Strand]

Fermentation of organic carbon to methane will take place with a stoichiometric 
ratio of 0.5 moles methane per mole of organic carbon or less.  Much less if a 
lot of the organic carbon is oxidized aerobically or with electron acceptors 
other than CO2.  So maybe the picture is not quite so bad, though bad enough.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Kevin Whilden
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:52 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity - scary math


I'm glad this full story is finally being talked about in the medial.
However, the true story is much, much worse.

let's do some scary math:

Historical total of human emissions of CO2: 1,800 GtCO2 (Canadell et
al, PNAS 2007)

Now let's compare this to what the Arctic methane will do...

Estimate of total organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost: 1000
GtC  (Zimov et al, Science 2006 - *note this excludes subsea methane
clathrates)

Converting to Arctic methane to CO2 equivalent (25x multiplier):
25,000 GtCO2  = 14x historical total human emissions

Except that the 23x multiplier assumes a 100 year time horizon for
normalizing methane's radiative forcing vs. CO2. In reality, we should
use the IPCC's estimate of 72x for a 20 year time horizon, because
this is a short-term threat.

Converting to Arctic methane to CO2 equivalent (72x multiplier):
72,000 GtCO2  = 40x historical total human emissions

Except, some scientists are saying that, "Large bursts of methane
entering the atmosphere could have increased the atmospheric lifetime
by decreasing the concentrations of the OH radicals that oxidize
methane in today's atmosphere A release significantly exceeding
ten billion tonnes, delivered in less than a decade, could increase
methane's normal decadal lifetime by over half a century."  (Nisbet et
al, Nature Geoscience 2009 - 
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n3/full/ngeo454.html)

So we need to do adjust our calculations again...  multiply by another
5x.

Converting to Arctic methane to CO2 equivalent (360x multiplier):
360,000 GtCO2  = 200x historical total human emissions (!!)

Are you getting scared yet? I am

Kevin Whilden

On Mar 26, 10:59 am, "John Nissen"  wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500-arctic-meltdown-is...
>
> Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity
>   a.. 25 March 2009 by Fred Pearce
>   b.. Magazine issue 2701. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
>   c.. For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
>
> I AM shocked, truly shocked," says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the 
> University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I 
> am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast 
> all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up 
> out of them."
>
> The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming 
> everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them
>
> Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in 
> Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. 
> But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. "Lakes in Siberia are 
> five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It's unprecedented. This 
> is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is 
> increasing."
> The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the 
> past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice 
> melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there 
> will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.
> Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either 
> on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or 
> on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger 
> picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire 
> planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of 
> catastrophic.
> Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and 
> nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that 
> wasn't bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the 
> release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.
> The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter 
> no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent 
> studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater 
> than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect 
> this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the 
> pa

[geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or others who disagree you

[Stuart Strand]

I suggest atmospheric remediation or greenhouse gas remediation.  Remediation 
has a successful engineering history, related to removal and degradation of 
pollutants.  SRM would be different.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:31 AM
To: 'John Nissen'; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; dwschn...@gmail.com; 
dhawk...@nrdc.org; 'Ken Caldeira'
Cc: 'Geoengineering FIPC'; anr...@nytimes.com; 'Indianice FIPC'; 'Peter Read'
Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or 
others who disagree you

John, I agree. we need to coin another term so tht we may distinguish between 
Geoengineering I and Geoengineering II.


From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:39 PM
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; dwschn...@gmail.com; dhawk...@nrdc.org; Ken 
Caldeira
Cc: euggor...@comcast.net; Geoengineering FIPC; anr...@nytimes.com; Indianice 
FIPC; Peter Read
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or 
others who disagree you

Hi Albert,

What I find incomprehensible is that Jim Hansen, who I admire greatly for 
convincing people about the reality of global warming, should appear to be 
supporting the message that emissions reduction (including sequestration) alone 
can get us out of the mess we are in.  Humanity has put a great "pulse" 
(Hansen's word) of CO2 in the atmosphere, sufficient to cause over 2 degrees of 
global warming, even without positive feedback making the situation worse.  I 
believe that climate models now indicate that, even if we were to halt 
emissions overnight, it could take centuries for the CO2 to return to 
pre-industrial levels, other things being equal.  (Ken, do you have a time for 
this, from your own modelling?)  Thus to get the level quickly down to the 350 
ppm that Hansen now wants, we have to employ CO2 extraction by geoengineering, 
bioengineering, aforestation and reforestation.  This perhaps requires 
"reengineering of the economy" in some countries, e.g. for widespread uptake of 
biochar practice.

So, thus far, I go along with Gene:

We don't stand a chance in hell of significantly reducing GHG emissions 
sufficiently to make a difference and if the lifetime of GHGs is as long as 
some think, it is already too late for mitigation. All we have left is the 
geoengineering option or building rocket transports to establish life on 
another planet. I am a homebody so I elect geoengineering R&D.

Now on top of this, we have colossal threats/risks from the Arctic sea ice 
retreat and regional warming - one threat being sudden sea level rise (not 
impossible), another being massive methane release from permafrost (possibly 
enough to cause runaway global warming).  To counter these threats we have to 
use geoengineering to cool the Arctic.  But this is extraordinarily 
inexpensive, using stratospheric aerosols or marine cloud brightening.  We 
don't have to reengineer any economies for this.  Deployment cost could work 
out at well under 1$ billion per year, which is peanuts compared to bailing out 
banks for example.

BTW, it is very confusing to lump the two quite different types of 
geoengineering together - the one for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and the 
other for cooling through solar radiation management (SRM).

Cheers,

John



- Original Message -
From: Albert Kallio
To: dwschn...@gmail.com ; 
dhawk...@nrdc.org
Cc: euggor...@comcast.net ; Geoengineering 
FIPC ; 
anr...@nytimes.com ; Indianice 
FIPC
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:27 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or 
others who disagree you

MISLEADING COMMENTS:

It is very dangerous criticism and unfair as Jim Hansen has put his skin deep 
in and out to point out the dangers of climate change. An unhelpful criticism 
like that sinking into the political patrons, and the rest assured, there will 
be no money and then no geoengineering.

Many on the emissinons curtailment camp point out to Winston Churchill as an 
example to his ability to re-engineer the economy to respond to the threat. In 
a just few years the UK industry was converted to supply aeroplanes and 
munitions.

As the car industry is going to decline in the US and UK due to falling demand 
and cheap cars from elsewhere, what is better than industrial conversion to 
make them to turn up wind turbines, solar energy gensets, insulation materials, 
and - geoengineering gadgets.

Neither renewable energy no

[geo] Re: Global Cooling

[Stuart Strand]

But most engineering processes have efficiencies less than 90%, so if the coal 
and tars are burnt and the tundra carbon is released, say as CO2, and 
geoengineering removes 90% back to permanent sequestration, that leaves 10% of 
a very large number.  We can expect substantially higher CO2 in the next few 
millennia, than was the case in past few.


  = 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/ 


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:01 AM
To: hampso...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Global Cooling


John

But what happens when the next, and overdue, ice age approaches and we 
are franticly trying to dig up all the carbon but have forgotten where 
we stowed it?

Stephen

-- 
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile  07795 203 195
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs   




John Hampson wrote:
> I would like to enquire if any consideration has been given 
> to ejecting "dust" from the surface of the Moon towards the Earth-Sun 
> Lagrange point (L1) to reduce global warming?
>
> My suggestion is for a base to be built on the far-side of the Moon to 
> eject large quantities of dust towards L1 for up to 2 weeks a month on 
> an ongoing basis. Initially travelling at over 2.5-km/s (5,600 mph) 
> the dust would decelerate along a trajectory between the Earth and 
> Sun, slowing to near zero at L1 before slowly dispersing. Throughout 
> its journey it would reduce sunlight reaching Earth.  The low gravity, 
> absence of atmosphere and plentiful supply of surface dust on the Moon 
> may make this possible providing suitable trajectories exist and the 
> technology can be developed. Some of the problems that must be 
> overcome, ignoring the obvious one of getting to site, include 
> building a machine capable of accelerating large quantities of dust to 
> the required velocity (perhaps using centrifuge technology), coping 
> with the abrasiveness of Moon dust and providing sufficient power 
> (nuclear?).
>
> Dust ejected from the near-side of the Moon into a stable Earth orbit 
> might be an alternative but both options would represent fairly 
> desperate solutions.  Costs would be high (though not necessarily more 
> than other options) and the technical challenges are considerable. The 
> pollution of space would be a major drawback, with space vehicles 
> requiring protection from micro-impacts. However the modest cost of 
> exploring the option and perhaps developing the technology, as 
> insurance against future disaster, might be a small price to pay if 
> other options fail.
>
> Regards
> John Hampson
>
> >


 


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: air capture techniques

[Stuart Strand]

I think that should be methanotrophic not methanogenic, if you are discussing 
the removal of methane from the air.


  = 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/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 10:43 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] air capture techniques

We've discussed methanogenic bacteria and chemical capture of CO2 from ambient 
air.  Both techniques require fans.

However, there are many things that pass through air naturally, such as wind 
turbine blades and building roofs in windy areas.  Could these not be used as 
'substrates' for the necessary biological or chemical reactions?

A


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Anammox bacteria

[Stuart Strand]

Anammox uses the ammonia oxidizing bacteria, so N2O emissions are significant; 
e.g., a couple percent of the total N load according to 
Dynamics of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emission during full-scale reject 
water treatment
by: Marlies J. Kampschreur, Wouter R. L. van der Star, Hubert A. Wielders, 
Janwillem Mulder, Mike S. M. Jetten, Mark C. M. van Loosdrecht
Water Research, Vol. 42, No. 3., pp. 812-826.

As a sewage treatment process Anammox has energy advantages over conventional 
nitrification/denitrification, but the loss of that fixed N bothers me from a 
sustainability perspective.

I don't think anammox is useful for geoengineering purposes.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ 


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Piotr_G
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:38 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Anammox bacteria


Hi everyone! I'm a student of Silesian University of Since in Gliwice
in Poland. From two years I'm interesting in the research of anammox
bacteria, that mean bacteria which could convert N-NH4 to N-N2. The
anammox process is autotrophic. I'm working hardly in laboratory and I
try to learn more about this small bacteria. We're preparing a full-
scale reactor in the wastewater sewage in Zabrze near Gliwice to try
introduce this process in normal live. What do you think about this
process and this bacteria. Maybe you could tell me something about
similar studies In your country.



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Home experiment

[Stuart Strand]

Perhaps you should estimate the cost first.  How much straw per ha do you need 
to insulate enough to get 50% reduction in heat flux?  Or to cover, to make it 
simpler.  The sea area to be covered would be something on the order of the 
area of a hurricane.  Purchase and shipping costs for the straw delivered off 
shore would be something like  $120 /Mg DW CR, 2006 (Strand and Benford 09 
minus ballast).  So how cheap is it?

You also need to estimate the rate at which the particles would be dispersed in 
the open sea.  I am still not clear on the mechanism by which this is supposed 
to affect hurricanes.  If it is to cool the ocean, how is heat transfer to be 
affected?  By changing bulk thermal conductivity or the boundary layer 
(aquatic?)?

Corn stover and bagasse are the most available sources of cheap biomass in the 
tropics, they are not foreign to the marine ecosystem, but the environmental 
impact would be unclear.  The environmental effects would be greater than for 
technology such as CROPS because the terrestrial carbon would be dispersed over 
the water column for a longer time over a greater area.

  = 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/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:53 PM
To: Alvia Gaskill
Cc: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment

There are a variety of artificial materials that could be used, such as corn 
starch plastic strips, etc. as well as packing peanuts.

There are lots of agricultural wastes that would be worth a go.  Wheat straw, 
peanut shells, apple cores, potato peelings, etc.

The logic for this approach is just that it seems a small difference in heat 
transfer to the storm could make a big difference to the storm's destructive 
power.  Even a 1mph difference make a house fall down or not fall down.

It's so cheap to trial this that it has to be worth a go.  Fine a small natural 
harbour, chuck in a few split bales of straw and see what happens.  There 
should be a degree-magnitude temperature difference compared to control 
conditions in time and space.

Hands up who lives near the sea nand has ready access to groundnut waste, hay, 
etc.

A
2009/8/15 Alvia Gaskill mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>>
I guess this makes you a "cereal killer."  Cereal is also relatively expensive. 
 Starch based packing peanuts would be whiter and also biodegradable, but the 
scale and other issues previously discussed in my opinion make this an 
infeasible pre-emptive measure.

You may have seen on the weather this week that some Saharan dust interfered 
with the development of a tropical wave in the Atlantic, so there are ways to 
prevent the growth of storms.

I still think that an examination of the effect of placing a white cover over 
part of the country of Niger (of Plame and yellowcake fame) on the discharge of 
waves into the Gulf of Guinea would be a worthwhile exercise.  The hot Saharan 
air from there or even from other surrounding areas would have to pass over 
this cooler area and be subject to subsidence.  This would prevent it from 
converging and if it never enters the water with any characteristics of a wave, 
it can't gain energy from the jungle or the ITCZ, it can't gain rotation from 
the Coriolis effect and it can never become an organized tropical cyclone.

Stephen Salter and Bill Gates want to kill them on the way to school or or 
work, I favor the "strangle them in the crib" or earlier approach.  BTW, that 
dinky little Cat 1 that hit Taiwan killed 500 people.  The best hurricane is no 
hurricane at all.  OK, I'm biased.

In the fall of 1954, a 36-year-old pregnant woman in coastal NC was nearly 
killed when she attempted to remove downed tree limbs from her yard, thinking 
that a hurricane that had just struck the area had passed and instead was 
caught off guard by the winds from the backside of the storm as the eye was 
passing directly over her.  She was my mother.  I was along for the ride.
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Lockley
To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:48 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment

After a couple of days all the Special K sank.  I think this is rather neat.  
It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long 
enough to mess up a hurricane.  Then it can either end up as food for 
bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon.

I think it could be worth a sea trial.  If anyone lives near a relatively 
secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, 
it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment.  Perhaps we can attempt to 
calculate from 

[geo] Re: we're engineering the arctic now

[Stuart Strand]

I agree with Alvia about some of the environment left.  I call those who oppose 
most new environmental engineering "Dark Greens".  They can be easy to detect 
because many if not most of their arguments end with "there are just too many 
people", leaving the listener wondering what solution is implied by that 
statement and whether I or thee must be sacrificed.  I call myself a "Light 
Green" because I believe that wise use of technology offers hope for the future.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ 


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:06 AM
To: anr...@nytimes.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: we're engineering the arctic now


I registered for Dot Earth, but for some reason, the message on this 
particular one won't allow me to log in.  So I ask for you to post it if you 
wish.

Without human interference, the interglacial would still take at least 
several thousand years to end and the ice sheets to return to cover the 
northern hemisphere.  With it, the interglacial continues.  Most likely, the 
CO2 we have added to the atmosphere will have been removed by some form of 
air capture in 100-200 years (sorry to disappoint David Archer et al.). 
Thus, we will have had no impact on preventing the return of the Laurentide 
Ice Sheet and related ones in Europe and Asia.  UNLESS we take the lessons 
learned from our inadvertent intervention into the climate system and use it 
to our benefit.

One of the definitions of geoengineering that is often used is that of 
"deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale to suit 
human needs and promote habitability."  The needs of the present are to stop 
the effects of global warming before the planet becomes uninhabitable for 
humans.  Geoengineering in this instance is the use of technologies that 
stop global warming without reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse 
gases.

But once we can can control the CO2 level in the atmosphere, do we really 
want it to return to the pre-industrial level?  Probably so.  That was the 
level that allowed a stable climate and for human civilization to develop. 
At some point, probably thousands of years from now, we will want to 
counteract the natural cycle and prevent the interglacial from ending.  By 
then, we will have developed far more advanced technologies of all types 
than today and adjusting the climate will be relatively simple.  Assuming we 
survive our current experience with global warming, we will be able to build 
on it and develop the technologies to modify climate to our needs, back to 
the first definition.

Not surprisingly, there are those on the environmental left who would 
welcome the return of the ice sheets.  One poster at the geoengineering 
group even said he thought we should allow the ice sheets to cover Canada 
and the northern U.S. again because the glaciers would scrape up more 
minerals that could  be used.  Like we are expecting a shortage of iron and 
nickel in 8000 AD?

He then went on to imagine that the survivors (NY Times won't be able to 
publish under 2 miles of ice, sorry Andy, must change name of blog to Dot 
Ice) could all go and live in the tropics, where, of course, food will still 
be limited due to changes in precipitation and in the subtropics, winds will 
howl most of the time.  The ice age was no picnic, even in the southern U.S.

How people come to view humans, their own species as the enemy beats me. 
We've made some mistakes and they have cost us and other species.  But at 
least we are on the path to the 12 step recovery program by recognizing we 
have a problem.  Is the answer to alcoholism to shoot all the drunks?

An even more extreme view shared by many, but voiced by few (for 
understandable reasons) is that humans are an invasive species that should 
be eliminated from the planet!  Moi kudzu?  Do I look like a zebra mussel to 
you?

For this select crowd, I have come up with a suitable name.  Cutterites. 
After the character in the BBC TV series Primeval, Helen Cutter, who became 
such a misanthrope she went back in time and tried to eliminate all the 
early humans.  I'm sure Helen would not be in favor of continuing the 
interglacial either.  And what happened to her experiment in preventative 
extinction?  She was crushed by a dinosaur that followed her through one of 
her time portals.  Gotta watch out for that technology.  It'll get you when 
you least expect it.

Alvia Gaskill
Pro-Human Lobbyist



- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Revkin" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: [geo] we're engineering the arctic now


>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/

[geo] Re: Bogus names

[Stuart Strand]

I have always felt uncomfortable and at a disadvantage debating people who are 
masked. Names and affiliations please!

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ 


-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:22 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: Bogus names


How do other people feel about bogus names?

I could add a statement in the group description along the lines
suggested by Manu.

Someone can just make up a name and I cannot check on everyone.
However, I could deny posting privileges to any obviously fake name
and then for names that seem possibly real, I could let them go unless
somebody emails me letting me know the name is fake.

This will not be perfect but will go a long way towards responding to
Oliver's concerns.

On Sep 23, 8:16 pm, Manu Sharma  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Oliver Wingenter <
>
> oliver.wingen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like see the real names attached to each post associated with this
> > group.  I think it fair to know who is contributing to the discussions here.
>
> On Green-India , a group
> I manage, we have an explicit policy regarding
> posting
> so
> that any moderation intervention is not arbitrary and grounded in
> transparent guidelines.
>
> At #2, it includes the following statement:
>
> > No anonymous messages: We do not permit messages without a name, with a
> > pseudonym or with just the first name. Messages must contain sender's full
> > real name either in the 'From field' or in signature.
>
> Similar guidelines can be adopted on this group.
>
> Manu


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

After our publication it was pointed out to me that the ventilation rate of the 
Gulf of Mexico is such that the half life of water there is about 250 years.  
One of the major advantages of CROPS over terrestrial burial options is that 
the biomass carbon separated from the atmosphere by the ocean thermocline, so 
that if CO2 is released from the biomass it will not be released to the 
atmosphere for 1000 years (the ventilation rate of the world ocean).  Thus we 
no longer view burial in the GoM as desirable (except perhaps in hypersaline 
pools in the western gulf).  As it happens the carbon cost of transport to the 
Atlantic abyss is not much greater than our previous estimates.  

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

Alvia Gaskill wrote

You might also consider the use of deep ocean disposal as Strand and Benford 
did for crop waste.  Wood chips can be sluiced and compressed together might 
sink without any weights.  Of course, this is probably not a good time to be 
recommending doing this in the Gulf of Mexico.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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.

RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

Andrew,

All of these arguments were answered last year when the paper came out, but 
apparently you did not digest them then, so I will repeat, briefly.  Burning 
biomass for electricity or making ethanol avoids fossil fuel carbon emissions = 
30%  of the starting biomass carbon.  Biomass is a poor fuel, better to bury 
it.  Please read the paper.  Or is there something about 3>1 that you don't 
understand?

Biomass could be co-fired with coal to generate power and if the CO2 from that 
process were captured the overall C sequestration and avoidance efficiency 
would be about 115%, but will plant operators divert generating capacity from 
coal to the poor fuel, biomass?

Methane from biomass is unlikely to be a problem because anaerobic processes in 
the ocean is dominated by sulfate reduction.  Thus, methane diffusing from 
within the stacked bales would be oxidized by sulfate reducers. Please take the 
time to educate yourself on these matters before you post ill-informed opinion 
to the group.

BE

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:21 PM
To: agask...@nc.rr.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC


Isn't the main problem with CROPS that you're burying something which is 
flammable, at the same time that similar flammable materials are being dug up 
elsewhere ? There seems little point collating and transporting all that crop 
waste, then just throwing it into sea, when you could generate power with it 
instead.

Ironically it might be more efficient to use the electricity so generated to 
power carbon  air capture technologies.  With a bit of luck there would still 
be enough electricity left over to sell, even after you'd captured more carbon 
than was in the original crop waste.

A second problem is, as previously mentioned, the legal restriction on dumping 
at sea.

Finally, an issue which appears not to have been studied in detail is the risk 
of the CROPS scheme causing large gas hydrate deposits, which are then later 
destabilized as the oceans warm.  This could potentially create a forcing far 
greater than that of the avoided CO2.

Hopefully someone can calculate these effects, as I don't know how to.

A
On 10 Sep 2010 20:10, "Alvia Gaskill" 
mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>> wrote:

I think there is some confusion about the term "ventilation rate" as it is used 
here.  The work that apparently forms the basis for the 250-year ventilation 
rate for the GOM discusses it in terms of how long the deep water in the Gulf 
stays there before being carried back out into the Caribbean Sea.  If you look 
at Figure 15 from the linked reference, it shows that the deepest water exits 
over the Yucatan Sill at 2040 meters.  What happens to it after that is 
unclear.  The ventilation rate referred to here is how long it takes the water 
to make it out of the Gulf, not how long it would take CO2 from decomposing 
bales of crop waste to re-enter the atmosphere.  The relatively high oxygen 
levels at the bottom, around 5 mg/L could accelerate oxidation of the waste, 
but over long periods of time it would probably become buried in sediment and 
would be in an anoxic environment, also limiting any transport of CO2 to the 
surface.  So I would encourage you to research this a little more before giving 
up on the Gulf of Mexico.

http://oceanografia.cicese.mx/personal/jochoa/PDFS/Rivas_etal_JPO_2005.pdf

- Original Message - From: "Stuart Strand" 
mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>>
To: mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>>; 
mailto:z...@atmos.umd.edu>>; "geoengineering" 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
mailto:climateintervent...@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: mailto:xbenf...@aol.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:50
Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC



After our publication it was pointed out to me that the ventilation rate of the 
Gulf of Mexico is...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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 geoengineer...@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.

RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

Thanks, Alvia, for pointing this out.  On second examination of the paper, I 
was in error in thinking that the deep Gulf of Mexico is ventilated to surface 
waters.  I confused the deep flow with the Yucatan and Loop Currents of the 
upper water and got the impression that deep waters rose and exited to the 
Atlantic through the Straits of Florida.  That is not correct.  As the Rivas 
paper shows, deep waters from the Gulf exit back through the Yucatan Strait 
into the Carribean, which is deeper that the GoM, but where it goes from there 
I am uncertain; the Anegada-Jungfern Passage, perhaps.  It looks like I have 
more homework to do...

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/


-Original Message-
From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:10 PM
To: Stuart Strand; z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering; 
climateintervent...@googlegroups.com
Cc: xbenf...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC

I think there is some confusion about the term "ventilation rate" as it is 
used here.  The work that apparently forms the basis for the 250-year 
ventilation rate for the GOM discusses it in terms of how long the deep 
water in the Gulf stays there before being carried back out into the 
Caribbean Sea.  If you look at Figure 15 from the linked reference, it shows 
that the deepest water exits over the Yucatan Sill at 2040 meters.  What 
happens to it after that is unclear.  The ventilation rate referred to here 
is how long it takes the water to make it out of the Gulf, not how long it 
would take CO2 from decomposing bales of crop waste to re-enter the 
atmosphere.  The relatively high oxygen levels at the bottom, around 5 mg/L 
could accelerate oxidation of the waste, but over long periods of time it 
would probably become buried in sediment and would be in an anoxic 
environment, also limiting any transport of CO2 to the surface.  So I would 
encourage you to research this a little more before giving up on the Gulf of 
Mexico.

http://oceanografia.cicese.mx/personal/jochoa/PDFS/Rivas_etal_JPO_2005.pdf

- Original Message - 
From: "Stuart Strand" 
To: ; ; "geoengineering" 
; 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:50
Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC


After our publication it was pointed out to me that the ventilation rate of 
the Gulf of Mexico is such that the half life of water there is about 250 
years.  One of the major advantages of CROPS over terrestrial burial options 
is that the biomass carbon separated from the atmosphere by the ocean 
thermocline, so that if CO2 is released from the biomass it will not be 
released to the atmosphere for 1000 years (the ventilation rate of the world 
ocean).  Thus we no longer view burial in the GoM as desirable (except 
perhaps in hypersaline pools in the western gulf).  As it happens the carbon 
cost of transport to the Atlantic abyss is not much greater than our 
previous estimates.

= Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype: stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

Alvia Gaskill wrote

You might also consider the use of deep ocean disposal as Strand and Benford
did for crop waste.  Wood chips can be sluiced and compressed together might
sink without any weights.  Of course, this is probably not a good time to be
recommending doing this in the Gulf of Mexico.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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.

RE: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

The problem with using terrestrial biomass residues to combat CO2 accumulation 
is that there is a limited supply that is available for human use without doing 
environmental damage.  These consist mainly of crop residues from high yielding 
agriculture and managed forests.  There are competing uses for this biomass in 
terms of CO2 impacts: energy production, soil amendment (including biochar), 
and burial.  Each of these uses has impact on CO2.  It appears to me that we 
are in agreement on ranking in terms of the efficiency with which the limited 
biomass resource is used in terms of its carbon sequestration efficiency.  My 
assessment is:


1.   Burning with carbon capture (BECS), somewhere higher than 100%, maybe 
115%;

2.   Burial, including CROPS, about 90%

3.   cellulosic ethanol with carbon capture, about 80%

4.   biochar about 70% (50% in the soil, 20% energy capture)

5.   burning or cellulosic ethanol without carbon capture, about 30%

6.   Leaving it on no till soil, less than 10%

Are there problems with this ranking (if not the numbers)?

So if using this limited resource for carbon capture most effectively is the 
top priority, then we can wait a few years for BECS to be practical and do that 
intensively.  In the meantime we can start working on all of the others as 
well, including burial and CROPS.

Economics are another matter.  We think we could do CROPS across basins for 
about 70 euro/t C, although some local areas may be able to do it for much 
less.  David can give us the BECS estimates.  I hope that they are less, but 
one has to worry about the intensive capital investment required.

Still we have to build CCS plants anyway so why not BECS?  One answer might be 
that gas and even coal are more economical use of the capital investment for 
the plant operator, since they are better fuels.  It looks to me that subsidies 
will be required for CCS and BECS, either by carbon tax or carbon market, so 
why not for CROPS and burial as well?  It will depend on how the market works 
out and whether cost and efficiency estimates can be attained.  But if the 
cheapest use has a low carbon sequestration efficiency (such as burning without 
carbon capture or cellulosic ethanol) it is a waste of the carbon capture 
potential of the biomass.

Most people look at biomass and see a valuable source of energy.  Lots of 
research is being directed to making portable fuels from lignocellulosic 
biomass.  Energy production is valued a lot more than carbon sequestration.  
But if fuel production is done without capture and storage of the CO2 from the 
process, it will not have as big an impact on atmospheric carbon as burial 
would.  So to me, it is a matter of priorities:  energy production or reducing 
atmospheric carbon.  There are lots of successful carbon free ways to make 
energy, especially with stationary sources, but not that many ways to sequester 
carbon.  Presently, all of our research into carbon sequestration is on one 
technology, CCS. That seems to me to be a risky policy, where there are good 
alternatives waiting.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Marty Hoffert
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 6:11 AM
To: ke...@ucalgary.ca
Cc: z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; James Rhodes
Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, 
Washington DC

I agree with David that whether to bury or to burn depends on details like 
whether you can burn the biomass AND bury its CO2, and whether you are looking 
at methane or coal as the alternate fuel for generating electricity.

A big problem is that we have too few pilot plants measuring actual performance 
versus idealized limits in parameter space. This is a problem for all alternate 
energy sources. People get into huge arguments over these numbers and come to 
different conclusions about a technology's viability.

I like to think we engineer/applied physics types are ethically compelled to 
abandon our beautiful theories in the face of ugly facts -- something our 
social science colleagues aren't quite as obsessed about. The reason I 
circulated that paper from climatic change was to stimulate quantitative 
discussion & if it did I'm happy.


Marty Hoffert

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:42 PM, David Keith 
mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>> wrote:

Andrew et al



A few comments on this thread.



Ning Zeng has it right, statements that burying beats burning in all (or even 
most) cases are not supported by the evidence.



This is a case with the details and circumstances matter.



If you have wet waste near the Mississippi and the alternative is combustion of 
the waste in a purpose-built biomass to electricity facili

RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

b page:  http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html


Andrew,

All of these arguments were answered last year when the paper came out, but 
apparently you did not digest them then, so I will repeat, briefly.  Burning 
biomass for electricity or making ethanol avoids fossil fuel carbon emissions = 
30%  of the starting biomass carbon.  Biomass is a poor fuel, better to bury 
it.  Please read the paper.  Or is there something about 3>1 that you don't 
understand?

Biomass could be co-fired with coal to generate power and if the CO2 from that 
process were captured the overall C sequestration and avoidance efficiency 
would be about 115%, but will plant operators divert generating capacity from 
coal to the poor fuel, biomass?

Methane from biomass is unlikely to be a problem because anaerobic processes in 
the ocean is dominated by sulfate reduction.  Thus, methane diffusing from 
within the stacked bales would be oxidized by sulfate reducers. Please take the 
time to educate yourself on these matters before you post ill-informed opinion 
to the group.

BE

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>]
 On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:21 PM
To: agask...@nc.rr.com<mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC

Isn't the main problem with CROPS that you're burying something which is 
flammable, at the same time that similar flammable materials are being dug up 
elsewhere ? There seems little point collating and transporting all that crop 
waste, then just throwing it into sea, when you could generate power with it 
instead.
Ironically it might be more efficient to use the electricity so generated to 
power carbon  air capture technologies.  With a bit of luck there would still 
be enough electricity left over to sell, even after you'd captured more carbon 
than was in the original crop waste.
A second problem is, as previously mentioned, the legal restriction on dumping 
at sea.
Finally, an issue which appears not to have been studied in detail is the risk 
of the CROPS scheme causing large gas hydrate deposits, which are then later 
destabilized as the oceans warm.  This could potentially create a forcing far 
greater than that of the avoided CO2.
Hopefully someone can calculate these effects, as I don't know how to.
A
On 10 Sep 2010 20:10, "Alvia Gaskill" 
mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>> wrote:

I think there is some confusion about the term "ventilation rate" as it is used 
here.  The work that apparently forms the basis for the 250-year ventilation 
rate for the GOM discusses it in terms of how long the deep water in the Gulf 
stays there before being carried back out into the Caribbean Sea.  If you look 
at Figure 15 from the linked reference, it shows that the deepest water exits 
over the Yucatan Sill at 2040 meters.  What happens to it after that is 
unclear.  The ventilation rate referred to here is how long it takes the water 
to make it out of the Gulf, not how long it would take CO2 from decomposing 
bales of crop waste to re-enter the atmosphere.  The relatively high oxygen 
levels at the bottom, around 5 mg/L could accelerate oxidation of the waste, 
but over long periods of time it would probably become buried in sediment and 
would be in an anoxic environment, also limiting any transport of CO2 to the 
surface.  So I would encourage you to research this a little more before giving 
up on the Gulf of Mexico.

http://oceanografia.cicese.mx/personal/jochoa/PDFS/Rivas_etal_JPO_2005.pdf

- Original Message - From: "Stuart Strand" 
mailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu>>
To: mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com>>; 
mailto:z...@atmos.umd.edu>>; "geoengineering" 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
mailto:climateintervent...@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: mailto:xbenf...@aol.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:50
Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC



After our publication it was pointed out to me that the ventilation rate of the 
Gulf of Mexico is...
--
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<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at 
http

RE: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

David,

I should clarify that I used the term burning while meaning co-firing. I assume 
that biomass co-fired in a thermomechanical plant would produce energy that 
would displace fossil fuel carbon emissions equivalent to about 30% of the 
original biomass carbon.  This number is based on thermodynamic efficiency 
limits.  Am I overlooking something or is 30% in the right ball park?  I will 
repeat the table with that modification in order to be explicit:

1.   Burning (e.g., co-firing) with carbon capture (BECS), somewhere higher 
than 100%, maybe 115% (30% fossil emission avoided, 85% CO2 sequestration);

2.   Burial, including CROPS, about 90%

3.   cellulosic ethanol with carbon capture, about 80%

4.   biochar about 70% (50% in the soil, 20% energy capture)

5.   burning (e.g., by co-firing) or cellulosic ethanol without carbon 
capture, about 30%

6.   Leaving it on no till soil, less than 10%
As for the long run or the short run, I think that depends on the urgency of 
the problem.  Some of us feel that the atmospheric CO2 problem is urgent now, 
but we are in the minority.  Judging by the priorities of our established 
institutions, fuel production is the 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority, but a 
comprehensive policy toward technical means to lower GHGs is missing.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: David Keith [mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:38 AM
To: Stuart Strand; marty.hoff...@nyu.edu
Cc: z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; James Rhodes
Subject: RE: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, 
Washington DC

Stuart,

Thank you for this. We are getting closer to a sensible evaluation.

While we still have an economy with huge carbon emissions, a ton of negative 
emissions is the same as a ton not emitted.

So while cofiring biomass in coal-fired power plants without capture does not 
rank on your list at all, because there is no capture, it still avoids 
emissions of carbon. And because the capital cost of retrofitting plants large 
coal plants for biomass co-feed is very low and their combustion efficiency 
(for the biomass) is high this can be a very cost-effective way to reduce 
carbon emissions with biomass. Of course, it's not sexy and it's limited.

I think there are two analysis to be done, over the next X decades when carbon 
emissions are high, the relevant metric is not sequestration efficiency but 
carbon mitigation efficiency.

We need to find ways to reduce emissions which are cost effective and of low 
environmental impact.

Where biomass can help, because it is a limited resource, we need to find ways 
to do this they provide a lot of avoided emissions per unit biomass. However, 
there are several dimensions of trade-off here and one does not want to 
maximize along only one dimension and forget all the others. For example, just 
maximizing the efficiency per unit biomass and ignoring cost or other 
environmental impacts makes no sense.

In the long-run, when the emissions intensity of the rest of the economy is 
lower, then negative emissions per unit biomass, the metric that you are 
focusing on, becomes more important.

I certainly agree with your last point, that we need to broaden the range of 
options under consideration for managing carbon emissions, and think about some 
of these interesting hybrids.

-David

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 geoengineer...@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.

RE: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

Jim,

CROPS would emulate the action of rivers, which during storms carry huge 
amounts of terrestrial biomass to burial in the near shore and deep ocean. The 
ability of terrestrial plants to reverse the anthropogenic accumulation of 
atmospheric CO2 is clearly evident in the Keeling curve. Every summer CO2 
levels fall dramatically due  primarily to terrestrial plant growth in the 
northern hemisphere. In the following autumn and winter respiration returns 
that carbon back to the atmosphere as the biomass rots on the soil surface. If 
that process can be interrupted by sequestering terrestrial biomass production 
that is presently under human control without unsustainable environmental 
damage, then we should do so.

= Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: jim thomas [mailto:j...@etcgroup.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:21 PM
To: David Keith
Cc: Stuart Strand; marty.hoff...@nyu.edu; z...@atmos.umd.edu; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; James Rhodes
Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, 
Washington DC

David

Apologies. That was not supposed to imply that you had lied but rather that 
those who make claims that biomass is carbon neutral are, in my experience, 
either practicing wishful thinking or attempting to mislead. I wasn't actually 
meaning to put you in the latter camp but i understand, given where we stand in 
other debates, how you assumed this was an attack. For now.. chill out, no 
attack intended.

Second I was replying in general terms to a set of general assertions in an 
email and not to a peer-reviewed paper so no I didn't provide footnoted 
references. Let me read the paper you are referring to and i'll get back to you.

Third, glad to hear there is some agreement that using purpose grown biomass 
for sequestration (whether burned, buried or biocharred) doesn't make sense. 
Looking at the figures on "earth overshoot"  and the dire state of ecosystem 
collapse documented in the millennium  ecosystem assesment I  can't help but 
concluding there's no spare stock of existing 'waste' biomass sensibly 
available  for energy use either  when in balance, nature doesn't really do 
wastes...

go well

Jim







On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:27 PM, David Keith wrote:


Jim

"Lie" is a pretty strong word. What specifically do you think I lied about? Can 
you back this claim up? Is this really the way you want to engage in public 
debate on issues where we must make sensible choices to protect our environment?

Two responses, one general one specific:

First, your claims about the efficiency of cofiring to not match an extensive 
body of literature based on widespread industrial experience. While there's 
nothing magic, about peer-reviewed literature, and experts can certainly be 
wrong, I think that the standard of evidence here needs to be a little higher 
than pure assertion and reference to journalistic accounts. You might start out 
by pointing out specific errors in the discussion of biomass combustion 
efficiencies in our co-fire paper or one of the many papers we cite therein. 
For example, there are a number of fine papers on the energy requirements for 
biomass transportation. I think you need to provide some pointers to why these 
are wrong.

Second, I agree with you that there's a great deal of over promotion about the 
speed and productivity of biomass regrowth and about offsets. For that reason, 
I have I have spent a fair amount of time argued against use of purpose grown 
biomass because it takes so much land for nature. I can point you to a nice 
section in my student Jamie's thesis that documents the over estimates of 
biomass availability by some who promote BECS. Indeed on closely related point, 
we just got a paper into ES&T that examines biomass emissions from fossil fuel 
production, finding that, for example, clearing of peat lands for oil sands 
operations can have a surprisingly large emissions, and have a very long time 
horizon because of the slow (or not) recovery of the peat. If we tried to solve 
a significant part of the climate problem using large-scale purpose grown 
biomass we would, to put it bluntly, create an environmental disaster. So I 
think on this one we may be on the same side. It would be nice if here and 
elsewhere you would do a bit more work to check a person's views before you 
attack them.

However, when it comes to use of waste fuels (the topic of our biomass cofiring 
paper) these arguments aren't relevant. Of course there are other issues, 
nutrients, emissions from transportation of the fuel that have been discussed 
in this thread and elsewhere. There are no free lunches here.

Yours,
David


-Original Message-
From: jim thomas [mailto:j.

RE: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

Thanks Bill.

Bill,

 I will try to follow-up on these interesting proposed methods to inject energy 
and portability into our biomass resources.

But I have to differ from your message on one point:  the name of the game is 
not optimization of fuel production from biomass, but the optimization of the 
use of biomass for carbon removal from the atmosphere.  If fuel production does 
not interfere with carbon removal, so much the better; but for me as a proto 
geoengineer, impact on atmospheric carbon is the first priority.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: William Fulkerson [mailto:wf...@utk.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:53 PM
To: Stuart Strand; Marty Hoffert; David Keith
Cc: z...@atmos.umd.edu; Google Group; James Rhodes; Bob Williams; Charlie 
Forsberg
Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, 
Washington DC

Dear all:
I have been following the biomass discussion with interest.

I like Stuart Strands' list, but something seems to be left out.  The problem 
with biofuels is that they are a limited resource.
We should examine the idea of biocoal that Bob Williams at Princeton suggests.  
With the proper ratio of biomass energy to coal energy one can make twice as 
much liquid fuel as with cellulosic ethanol, for example.   This is because ( 
in my naïve view) the energy in the coal does much to drive the gasification 
Fischer Tropsch process as well as the generation of electricity.  Of course 
the carbon must be sequestered, and if the ratio of biomass energy to coal 
energy is about 1/3 the liquid produced (i. e. gasoline, fuel oil and Diesel) 
does  not produce any net carbon, and the cycle from growing through to fuel 
combustion is balanced. If you do once through Fischer Tropsch you can get a 
fair amount of electricity out of the process as well.

The same sort of trick can be done with Bio-nuclear as Charlie Forsberg of MIT 
points out, but it is not necessary to sequester CO2, and again you get twice 
as much liquid fuel per kg of biomass feedstock as you can get from advanced 
cellulosic ethanol, for example.  Sequestering the carbon would have an added 
advantage with respect to net decreasing carbon emission.

In short the name of the game is to maximize the liquid fuel per kg of biomass 
while also minimizing carbon emissions.
The best,
Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
wf...@utk.edu
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771




On 9/15/10 11:29 PM, "Stuart E. Strand"  wrote:
The problem with using terrestrial biomass residues to combat CO2 accumulation 
is that there is a limited supply that is available for human use without doing 
environmental damage.  These consist mainly of crop residues from high yielding 
agriculture and managed forests.  There are competing uses for this biomass in 
terms of CO2 impacts: energy production, soil amendment (including biochar), 
and burial.  Each of these uses has impact on CO2.  It appears to me that we 
are in agreement on ranking in terms of the efficiency with which the limited 
biomass resource is used in terms of its carbon sequestration efficiency.  My 
assessment is:

1.  Burning with carbon capture (BECS), somewhere higher than 100%, maybe 
115%;

2.  Burial, including CROPS, about 90%

3.  cellulosic ethanol with carbon capture, about 80%

4.  biochar about 70% (50% in the soil, 20% energy capture)

5.  burning or cellulosic ethanol without carbon capture, about 30%

6.  Leaving it on no till soil, less than 10%


Are there problems with this ranking (if not the numbers)?

So if using this limited resource for carbon capture most effectively is the 
top priority, then we can wait a few years for BECS to be practical and do that 
intensively.  In the meantime we can start working on all of the others as 
well, including burial and CROPS.


Economics are another matter.  We think we could do CROPS across basins for 
about 70 euro/t C, although some local areas may be able to do it for much 
less.  David can give us the BECS estimates.  I hope that they are less, but 
one has to worry about the intensive capital investment required.

Still we have to build CCS plants anyway so why not BECS? One answer might be 
that gas and even coal are more economical use of the capital investment for 
the plant operator, since they are better fuels. It looks to me that subsidies 
will be required for CCS and BECS, either by carbon tax or carbon market, so 
why not for CROPS and burial as well?  It will depend on how the market works 
out and whether cost and efficiency estimates can be attained.  But if the 
c

RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

Thanks for the response Ron.  I am happy to see that we are in agreement about 
many or most points.

My characterization of the motives of biochar researchers is poorly informed, 
so I accept your statement that C sequestration is first priority for workers 
in your camp.  But it still seems to me that most articles promoting biochar 
have spent more time developing the soil quality and fertility benefits than on 
the C sequestration benefits, which are good points in favor of biochar, but do 
not suggest a focus on sequestration.

When you say that crop residues will be transported from highly productive 
lands to less productive lands in developing countries are you referring to 
intercontinental transport, from temperate regions to tropical?  If not, are 
there sufficient highly productive agricultural lands in developing countries 
to supply biochar to the poorer soils?  (developing countries is not a good 
description of what I mean; which is countries whose agriculture is dominated 
by poor, low yield soils, primarily tropical, high temperature soils, e.g., 
oxisols, aka ferralsols).

>From what you say about the need for about half of the biochar for high 
>temperature soils to come from forest lands, I think that you agree that 
>harvesting woody materials from local forests in the tropics is a very 
>important source of biomass for this application of biochar sequestration 
>technology on a large scale.  This is why I emphasized management in 
>discussing responsible biochar implementation in tropical systems.  Without 
>cautious management the large-scale conversion of these forests to 
>anthropogenic use would have significant potential of ecological harm.  Am I 
>wrong?

A quibble:  Me thinks a 50% increase in agricultural yields _is_ a “much 
higher” increase.

You imply that some researchers are applying biochar with no-till.  References 
please.

Finally, I goofed in stating a saturation level for biochar of 50 kg/ha. Mea 
culpa, I meant 50 Mg biochar C/ha (only off by 1000x!).  My reference for this 
rate is Chan et al., Australian Jour. Soil Research 2007, 45:629.  I should 
have checked before pressing send. So my point is that biomass harvested from 
maize cultivation, used to produce biochar (10Mg aboveground CR produced /ha,

 If biochar can be added to soil without tilling, and the higher CR removal 
rates (i.e., 60%) implemented any soil receiving biochar, then saturation at 50 
t biochar C/ha could be achieved in about 25 yr, after which 60% of above 
ground crop residues could continue to be harvested and be used for other 
purposes, such as burial or energy production or export to the tropics, 
potentially without negatively impacting fertility in the modified temperate 
soil.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

From: rongretlar...@comcast.net [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Stuart Strand
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; marty hoffert; andrew lockley
Subject: Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC

Stuart etal:

  Thanks for your response and apologies for mine being  tardy (and maybe too 
long-winded)..  Yesterday I left Manaus, Brazil - and I am still playing 
catch-up.  I have only read a few of the other messages in this thread, so hope 
this will cover the topic until tomorrow..

  A few inserts below.

Ron

- Original Message -
From: "Stuart Strand" 
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, "andrew lockley" 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, "marty hoffert" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:05:01 PM
Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz 
Center, Washington DC


Ron and other biochar folks,

My impression is that most of the biochar research is focused on use in the 
developing world where there is an emphasis on improving soil quality, 
particularly of low carbon soils.
[RWL1:  I wish there were more R&D in developing countries;  it is 
certainly needed.  But almost no funded research exists in any country.  I 
would guess that the largest amounts are in Australia, the US, and the UK.  The 
official USDA/ARS total is close to zero;  all is being boot-legged.   But 
there is enough of that to approximately equal the official amounts in the 
other two countries  - which I believe doesn't yet get much over $10 million 
per year.  Hope someone can correct this guesstimate.]

Carbon sequestration is an important side effect, but the primary motivation is 
to improve soil quality and crop yields.
   [RWL2:   I have to disagree.  The main justification in my circles is 
sequestration - and certainly so when talking on these two lists (as did Peter 
Read). Biochar was in the UN dialogs leading up to 

RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC

[Stuart Strand]

Sorry, premature send again….

“Finally, I goofed in stating…”  should be:

I goofed in stating a saturation level for biochar of 50 kg/ha. Mea culpa, I 
meant 50 Mg biochar C/ha (only off by 1000x!).  My reference for this rate is 
Chan et al., Australian Jour. Soil Research 2007, 45:629.  I should have 
checked before pressing send. So my point is that biomass harvested from maize 
cultivation, used to produce biochar (assuming 10Mg aboveground CR produced 
/ha, 0.5 g biochar C yield/g CR C), and returned to a fraction of the soil at 
50 t biochar C/ha, would saturate the soil in 35 years or less.

My apologies for the errors.

  = Stuart =

Stuart E. Strand
490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg.
Box 355014, Univ. Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996
skype:  stuartestrand
http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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.