Need for carbon sink technologies

An interesting article by the Beeb's Carolyn Fry.

Note that they ambient CO2 level is listed as 380 ppm volume. This is actually a low, conservative figure. A figure of 393 ppm with a 3 ppm/year increase has been publicized lately.

Governments should consider setting lower targets for levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and investigate ways to extract surplus amounts of the greenhouse gas from circulation, say climate scientists.

Before the industrial revolution, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) but that has risen to around 380ppmv due to our burning of fossil fuels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is focusing its efforts on emission scenarios that lead to concentrations of no less than 450ppmv while the UK government is working towards a concentration target of around double pre-industrial levels, at 550ppmv.

If concentrations stabilise at 550ppmv, the corresponding global average temperature rise brought about by the greenhouse effect could still be as high as 5.5C, sufficient to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet and prompt a rise in sea level of six metres.

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3617868.stm

--bkl

but doing it on a global scale is very difficult. Sort of
like reducing ozone in the upper atmosphere (we basically gave
up on active reduction and are now praying that removing CFCs
will, eventually, do the trick).

Probably the best thing to do is crush granite and spread it
over forest floors, but even doing that low tech solution would
be incredibly difficult. There isn't a profit motive for doing it,
it's just a matter of planetary survival, not dollars.

where they think it will stay put. I think the CO2 will eventually bubble up like so much fizzy soda pop.
I'm not joking.
Even though Greenpeace has done a study on deep-ocean disposal of CO2 and recommended against this approach, this is what our wonderful Energy Dept. and its corporate masters want to do to dispose of the carbon dioxide byproduct of hydrogen fuel. Without a CO2 disposal method, the "hydrogen economyÄ will not be possible.

Dissolving CO2 in water produces carbonic acid. Ecologists are already measuring impacts of increased carbonic acid, and that's just from the additional CO2 that the oceans are absorbing from the air.

I cannot believe anyone thinks we'll be better off if we try this.

My understanding is that "burning" hydrogen (such as in an internal combustion engine) mixed with air (oxygen is the active gas) produces mostly H20 (water).

Where is the C02 waste in the hydrogen cycle? Is it from burning fossil fuels to create hydrogen? Please explain.

from natural gas in a reaction known as reforming.

One variant is 2H2O + CH4 -> CO2 + 4 H2.

More commonly the methane is only partially oxidized to give carbon monoxide which is hydrogenated to give other compounds.

Another, more insidious version is C (coal) + 2H2O -> 2 H2 + CO2.

Still a third and possibly even dumber version is to burn coal to generate electricity and use electrolysis.

No matter what George Bush tells you, hydrogen is NOT a form of energy. It is a medium of storing energy.

I have absolutely no faith that carbon dioxide sequestering schemes are workable. Carbon dioxide emissions according to the DOE from the United States are estimated to be in the neighborhood 8,000 million metric tons. (Note I am not talking like a member of the antinuclear religion when I use this number, and discussing 8 trillion grams or 85 trillion billion zillion milligrams of waste for "which there is no solution." I am talking about 8000 MILLION metric TONS for which there is absolutely positively no viable solution except: Dumping it your ocean, dumbing in your atmosphere, or pretending you can bury it in a giant balloon under ground in some state that you absolutely don't live anywhere near.)


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
Moreover, this carbon dioxide will remain carbon dioxide not for one hundred years, or one thousand years or one million years, or one billion years. Not only that, but carbon dioxide is toxic. A person standing in a room filled with carbon dioxide, the waste for which there is no solution, will die within minutes. In fact a person standing in room full carbon dioxide that has been stored in a giant ballon under ground in some state that you don't live anywhere near for eight million years will kill someone within minutes.

Let's see, did I forget anything? Oh yeah. Corporations make money off of carbon dioxide production. Big giant malicious overweight MBA's in Hummers who smoke cigars and sleep with your wife's eighteen year old sister without their wives' knowledge are entrenched in the carbon dioxide business. This is why we don't have an absolutely free solar industry, because otherwise that guy wouldn't be able to buy your wife's sister diamonds and drugs that keep her from noticing that he has hair in his earlobes. Everytime the perfect solar solution (and all solar solutions are perfect) is invented a giant consortium of big giant malicious overweight MBA's in Hummers who smoke cigars and sleep with your wife's eighteen year old sister without their wives' knowledge buy up the technology and shit can it so you can't find out about it and stop buying their carbon based products that you need and love.

What else? Studies show that everyone who lives within 1000 miles of a carbon dioxide producing plant is grotesquely deformed and has extra heads and sometimes grow flippers. (Sorry, wrong form of energy there...)

Anyway, I'll bet that no one no where at any time will agree to have a 8000 million ton carbon dioxide disposal dump in their neighborhood, oh, and did I mention that the 800 million ton carbon dioxide disposal dump will probably be completely filled in a few decades?

And now for a serious word: There are ways to produce hydrogen that produce no carbon dioxide. No such systems are industrially on line right now, although the Chinese have a pilot plant for such systems under construction right now.

With the exception of the Chinese, many of us will simply plan on blowing up balloons. The party's just starting...

To reiterate what's been stated here many times, hydrogen is not particularly interesting as a fuel. It IS interesting as a synthetic intermediate used for the reduction of oxidized carbon.

LiberalEsto may have meant hydrogen produced from hydrocarbons of one form or another.

Unfortunately, the detractors of the hydrogen economy would have us believe that all hydrogen is produced with dirty technologies. Fortunately, that is not the only way of producing hydrogen: it can now be produced directly from the sun and water.

"Still a third and possibly even dumber version is to burn coal to generate electricity and use electrolysis. "

This is the only way that the production of hydrogen (electrolysis) was explored in high school science class, at least when I went there in the 70s.

"No matter what George Bush tells you, hydrogen is NOT a form of energy. It is a medium of storing energy. "

Are you mature enough to keep the personal attacks out of it? For the record, W. doesn't tell me anything.

"I have absolutely no faith that carbon dioxide sequestering schemes are workable. Carbon dioxide emissions according to the DOE from the United States are estimated to be in the neighborhood 8,000 million metric tons. (Note I am not talking like a member of the antinuclear religion when I use this number, and discussing 8 trillion grams or 85 trillion billion zillion milligrams of waste for "which there is no solution." I am talking about 8000 MILLION metric TONS for which there is absolutely positively no viable solution except: Dumping it your ocean, dumbing in your atmosphere, or pretending you can bury it in a giant balloon under ground in some state that you absolutely don't live anywhere near.) "

Plants are stimulated by more C02 in the atmosphere. Some greenhouse growers actually give C02 supplementation.

" Scientists know that carbon dioxide acts like a fertilizer, stimulating plant growth, while ozone is a plant toxin."
http://www.cals.wisc.edu/sciencereport/02SRstories/Changes_in_the_Air.html

If we could just stop cutting down all the damn forests, and use block and brick construction for homes, and hemp for paper, and stop the burning of fossil fuels spewing C02 and transfer to a non-C02 power source, we might witness the reversal of rising C02 levels.

"Let's see, did I forget anything? Oh yeah. Corporations make money off of carbon dioxide production. Big giant malicious overweight MBA's in Hummers who smoke cigars and sleep with your wife's eighteen year old sister without their wives' knowledge are entrenched in the carbon dioxide business. This is why we don't have an absolutely free solar industry, because otherwise that guy wouldn't be able to buy your wife's sister diamonds and drugs that keep her from noticing that he has hair in his earlobes. Everytime the perfect solar solution (and all solar solutions are perfect) is invented a giant consortium of big giant malicious overweight MBA's in Hummers who smoke cigars and sleep with your wife's eighteen year old sister without their wives' knowledge buy up the technology and shit can it so you can't find out about it and stop buying their carbon based products that you need and love."

If you replace "your wife's eighteen year old sister" with "dollars", you end up with something quite similar to the Enron scandal. The Enron traders mentioned effing grandma Millie:

"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys? ... All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml"

While at first though I thought you meant to be sarcastic, but now that I see how close what you wrote is to the truth, I realize in you were being quite serious.

"What else? Studies show that everyone who lives within 1000 miles of a carbon dioxide producing plant is grotesquely deformed and has extra heads and sometimes grow flippers. (Sorry, wrong form of energy there...)

Anyway, I'll bet that no one no where at any time will agree to have a 8000 million ton carbon dioxide disposal dump in their neighborhood, oh, and did I mention that the 800 million ton carbon dioxide disposal dump will probably be completely filled in a few decades?"

So much for the seriousness.

I've got a carbon dump just minutes away. It's called a forest.

In fact, I think that due to increased acidification (perhaps from the carbon being sunk getting reacted into carbonic acids) the ability of the ocean to sink carbon is off by a large figure. I've seen 50% mentioned, but do not recall whether that was a local figure or an world oceanic average.

This was reported within the last month. Does anyone still have a link?

--bkl

Several years ago someone proposed simply adding iron (in some soluble form) in the southern ocean around Antarctica. This would stimulate the growth phytoplankton and absorb vast quantities of CO2 into the biomass. This was in response to the accelerating loss of rainforests and the resulting loss in CO2 absorption they provide. Small scale experiments were conducted which indicated that even tiny amounts of iron produced considerable increases in the production of phytoplankton. The southern ocean is apparently relatively nutrient poor and it was thought at the time that the increase in phytoplankton would have little negative ecological impact and could actually improve the fisheries, having a positive economic effect while lowering pressure on the over fished northern oceans. It seems that the addition of iron over such nutrients and nitrates and phosphates was that less was needed and it had less negative side effects.

It was also shown that to achieve an increase in phytoplankton enough to offset the loss of rain forests could be done with surprisingly little effort and expense.

I don't know if this was abandoned because some major negative ecologic impact was discovered or that it was seen as being unlikely to get international approval for larger scale tests.

IIRC, this was a big topic earlier this year; but unfortunately, it was found to be either unworkable on a large scale, or the original experiments were found to be flawed.

It's still worth keeping track of, but I think this is the hopeless part of the equation. We should probably pin our hopes on different kinds of solutions, including sufficient planning for climate change, and actually spending a few bucks for basic research in the Earth sciences. In oceanography, for instance, we lost an entire generation of radio buoys due to budget constraints -- while we spent like drunken sailors on useless military hardware. (But that's another rant.)

--bkl

in areas of the ocean where iron limits phytoplankton production.

While iron stimulated photosynthesis in these experiments, iron additions did not induce an increase the flux of particulate organic carbon (POC) to deep waters - this is required to physically remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the newly produced POC was rapidly oxidized back to CO2 by heterotrophic bacteria (iron-deficient heterotrophic bacteria are also stimulated by Fe additions).

There was no net removal of CO2 from atmosphere to the deep ocean in these experiments.

Even if they worked perfectly, large-scale iron additions in the Southern Ocean would only reduce projected year-2100 CO2 concentration by 9%.

It would adversely alter the Southern Ocean food web and produce nitrous oxide and methane (greenhouse gases) as well.

The vast majority of oceanographers vigorously oppose these schemes.

I spent a little time looking around, and the 379 ppm figure for atmospheric CO₂ appears to be the stronger figure. I now suspect the other figure I was using, 393 ppm, began its life as a typo or a bad calculation I made. The culpa is mea.

Alter your plans for the Apocalypse accordingly ... :)

--bkl