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
@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
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
: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
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
...@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
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
, 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
://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
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
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
sstr...@u.washington.edumailto:sstr
[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
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
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
sstr...@u.washington.edumailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu
To: agask...@nc.rr.commailto:agask
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/
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
wasn't intending to use it
as an energy recovery process. Surely a few hundred kgs of char
powder is easier to handle and sequester than a ton of damp straw?
A
2009/2/3 Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu:
1. Significant methane production seems unlikely, but it may be possible in
deep
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
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
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
]
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
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
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
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
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
/
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
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
...@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
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 sstr...@u.washington.edu wrote:
We have just published
. 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
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 sstr...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Cynauric acid is biodegradable aerobically and anaerobically. The carbon
would return
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,
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
