Okay I feel like this electric car discussion definitely could have its own thread. Someone please make one if you all want to continue this detailed conversation. thanks!
Given that meeting the Paris accord target of 1.5C average warming requires a minimum of 5Gt annual carbon dioxide removal to come online REALLY fast, it's worth thinking how to do this without causing constant never-ending famine. Conventional BECSS competes for land with food crops, and Gt scale carbon sequestration will displace enough food production to significantly raise prices (among other problems). Aquatic BECSS using algae to absorb CO2 avoids this issue, and also takes advantage of algae's extremely fast growth rate. In principal algae can be processed into commercial products to offset some of the cost, including the biofuel necessary to enable modern international cat-watching.
Algae production facilities use photobioreactors and/or open ponds to grow the algae. The photobioreactors are neat:
This recent paper describes a combined algae farm + eucalyptus forest BECSS facility that sequesters carbon for only $68-$300/MT (assuming some favorable prices for algae derived products) but requires ~20 times as much land as water area (ie a ~2700ha forest for 120ha of open ponds).
As far as I can tell as a non-expert, the physical area requirements alone mean at least an order of magnitude improvement in algae productivity is needed to take algae-BECSS seriously.
edit: I totally missed the high-productivity algae production requires a pure CO2 supply. That's even less interesting.
Part of the problem with the idea that we just farm algae and process it into other products is that both the processing of it and burning it for biomass or biofuel then releases the contained CO2. Sequestration is likely not going to be a commercially viable process, because we need it to do two things:
1) Contain the carbon in a storable form
2) Do nothing with that carbon in order to sequester it long term.
Basically we took carbon out of the ground that was sequestered, introduced it into the environment, and now we need a way to reverse that. We could still farm algae to collect CO2, but we would then need to sequester that algae or, if it's the kind designed to turn that into hydrocarbons, sequester it's carbon output. We're talking about a process without a viable terrestrial product at the end.
Part of the problem with the idea that we just farm algae and process it into other products is that both the processing of it and burning it for biomass or biofuel then releases the contained CO2. Sequestration is likely not going to be a commercially viable process, because we need it to do two things:
1) Contain the carbon in a storable form
2) Do nothing with that carbon in order to sequester it long term.
Basically we took carbon out of the ground that was sequestered, introduced it into the environment, and now we need a way to reverse that. We could still farm algae to collect CO2, but we would then need to sequester that algae or, if it's the kind designed to turn that into hydrocarbons, sequester it's carbon output. We're talking about a process without a viable terrestrial product at the end.
If algae can replace some amount of hydrocarbon production that is currently being pulled out of the ground, it's still a net reduction in the amount being released to the environment. It doesn't have to do sequestration to be beneficial.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Part of the problem with the idea that we just farm algae and process it into other products is that both the processing of it and burning it for biomass or biofuel then releases the contained CO2. Sequestration is likely not going to be a commercially viable process, because we need it to do two things:
1) Contain the carbon in a storable form
2) Do nothing with that carbon in order to sequester it long term.
Basically we took carbon out of the ground that was sequestered, introduced it into the environment, and now we need a way to reverse that. We could still farm algae to collect CO2, but we would then need to sequester that algae or, if it's the kind designed to turn that into hydrocarbons, sequester it's carbon output. We're talking about a process without a viable terrestrial product at the end.
If algae can replace some amount of hydrocarbon production that is currently being pulled out of the ground, it's still a net reduction in the amount being released to the environment. It doesn't have to do sequestration to be beneficial.
At this point even if we stopped oil and coal burning right now it'd be about several years too late. We need sequestration to have any net positive effect.
Part of the problem with the idea that we just farm algae and process it into other products is that both the processing of it and burning it for biomass or biofuel then releases the contained CO2. Sequestration is likely not going to be a commercially viable process, because we need it to do two things:
1) Contain the carbon in a storable form
2) Do nothing with that carbon in order to sequester it long term.
Basically we took carbon out of the ground that was sequestered, introduced it into the environment, and now we need a way to reverse that. We could still farm algae to collect CO2, but we would then need to sequester that algae or, if it's the kind designed to turn that into hydrocarbons, sequester it's carbon output. We're talking about a process without a viable terrestrial product at the end.
If algae can replace some amount of hydrocarbon production that is currently being pulled out of the ground, it's still a net reduction in the amount being released to the environment. It doesn't have to do sequestration to be beneficial.
At this point even if we stopped oil and coal burning right now it'd be about several years too late. We need sequestration to have any net positive effect.
I think that our solar resources are better used for actual making of electricity.
5 Gt of CO2 is about 1.3 billion trees. The amazon contains about 300 billion trees. The way to sequester enough CO2 to make a difference is to restore rainforests. a 1% growth in number of trees in the Amazon rainforest each year would sequester about 10 Gt each year. Much better than we can ever hope to do with artificial sequestration.
edit - Eh, I guess trees take a while to grow! So those new trees are only going to pop up about 10% of their mass each year. So we'll need to increase the area of the Amazon by 4% a year.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Even then, as the trees die and decompose, most of the carbon will make its way back into the atmosphere. To be properly sequestered we would need to take the trees and then dump into landfills, subduction zones, etc.
Even then, as the trees die and decompose, most of the carbon will make its way back into the atmosphere. To be properly sequestered we would need to take the trees and then dump into landfills, subduction zones, etc.
No, because new trees grow on top and sequester what the prior free released*. Total sequestration is more or less constant to forest land area.
It should actually be a net positive. Decomposing things in rainforests get covered in vegetation and do not necessarily entirely release.
Goumindong on
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Even then, as the trees die and decompose, most of the carbon will make its way back into the atmosphere. To be properly sequestered we would need to take the trees and then dump into landfills, subduction zones, etc.
No, because new trees grow on top and sequester what the prior free released*. Total sequestration is more or less constant to forest land area.
It should actually be a net positive. Decomposing things in rainforests get covered in vegetation and do not necessarily entirely release.
Trees take up carbon dioxide (CO2) and release oxygen (O2) through photosynthesis, transferring the carbon (C) to their trunks, limbs, roots, and leaves as they grow. When leaves or branches fall and decompose, or trees die, the stored C will be released by respiration and/or combustion back to the atmosphere or transferred to the soil. Because of these processes, forests and forested landscapes can store considerable carbon and their growth can provide a carbon sink; landscapes that have been recently converted or reconverted to forests (from another land cover) can provide a carbon sink that is considerably larger than other land cover types.
...
While individual trees or tracts release some or all of their carbon if harvested, burned, or otherwise disturbed, subsequent forest regrowth will sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Forested landscapes tend to include a mix of disturbed and regrowing forest stands, and have a carbon balance of near zero over the medium and longer term (6,7) (Figure 1).
Our large carbon sink today is a legacy of harvesting and forest conversion that took place in the past. These disturbances released much carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere decades ago, and the regrowing forest is recovering some of that released CO2 on land that has not been permanently converted to non-forest cover (8) (Figure 2).
The persistence of the current U.S. forest carbon sink is uncertain because the effects of historic land use should taper off, while projected increases in the rates of natural disturbances such as fire may liberate current carbon stocks (4). Atmospheric factors may change forest growth rates, since increased nitrogen deposition and atmospheric CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel emissions can enhance tree growth. These factors may also augment current rates of carbon sequestration by forests (9). However, other global change factors, such as increased transpiration rates and atmospheric pollutants and the likelihood of increased drought, may offset potential increased sequestration rates (10).
The participation of forests in climate change is thus three-fold:
• they are carbon pools
• they become sources of CO2when they burn, or, in general, when they are disturbed by natural or human action
• they are CO2sinks when they grow biomass or extend their area.
The earth's biosphere constitutes a carbon sink that absorbs approximately 2.3 GtC annually. This represents nearly 30 percent of all fossil fuel emissions (totaling from 6.3 to 6.5 GtC/year) and is comparable to the CO2emissions resulting from deforestation (1.6 and 2 GtC/year).
"Current scientific evidence suggests that managed and even old growth forests (of the temperate and boreal zone) sequester carbon at rates of up to 6 ton ha. These results question the paradigm that old growth forests are in equilibrium with a net carbon balance. On the other hand infrequent disturbances (fires, pest outbreaks, storms.) are triggering a sporadic, but massive return of carbon to the atmosphere"(Valentiniet al.,2000). A soil specialist has emphasized that "there is a potential for reversing some of these processes and sequestering carbon in soils in terrestrial ecosystems. The magnitude of the potential is estimated to be up to 50 to 75 percent of the historic carbon loss. Theoretically, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2can be nullified by restoration of 2 billion ha of degraded lands, which would increase their average carbon content by 1.5 ton / ha in soil and vegetation."(Lal, 2000)
The carbon cycle (photosynthesis, plant respiration and the degradation of organic matter)in a given forest is influenced by climatic conditions and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The distinction between natural and human factors influencing plant growth is thus sometimes very difficult to make.
The increase of CO2in the atmosphere has a "fertilizing effect" on photosynthesis and thus, plant growth. There are varying estimates of this effect: + 33 percent, + 25 percent, and + 60 percent for trees, + 14% for pastures and crops (IPCC, 2001). This explains present regional tendencies of enhanced forest growth and causes an increase in carbon absorption by plants. This also influences the potential size of the forests carbon pool.
There are still questions regarding the long-term future of the biospheric carbon pool. Several bio-climatic models indicate that the ecosystems' absorption capacity is approaching its upper limit and should diminish in the future, possibly even reversing direction within 50 to 150 years, with forests becoming a net source of CO2. Indeed, global warming could cause an increase in heterotrophic respiration and the decomposition of organic matter, and a simultaneous decrease of the sink effectiveness, thereby transforming the forestry ecosystems into a net source of CO2(Scholes, 1999).
To sum it up:
new forests are massive carbon sinks.
Existing forests that are disturbed tend to be around equilibrium. Climate change/invasive species/human harvesting all disturb forests.
The effects of climate change may help or hurt carbon absorption rates. There is some risk that forests could become a carbon source due to climate change.
And of course, it still means spending money to not do something so that natural processes can do their job.
Even then, as the trees die and decompose, most of the carbon will make its way back into the atmosphere. To be properly sequestered we would need to take the trees and then dump into landfills, subduction zones, etc.
No, because new trees grow on top and sequester what the prior free released*. Total sequestration is more or less constant to forest land area.
It should actually be a net positive. Decomposing things in rainforests get covered in vegetation and do not necessarily entirely release.
The problems are twofold.
1) We removed a large amount of forested area on the earth's surface. To offset the carbon output from that process and the industrial processes resulting from that deforestation we would need to replant those forests, and that's not really a viable option. Not only are those areas now heavily settled, many areas are no longer able to easily sustain forests due to natural and manmade processes done to the land.
2) We introduced previously sequestered carbon into the mix. Carbon that was already sequestered naturally. We cannot replicate the exact processes that created those sequestered deposits, and the release of this additional carbon into the environment is what has tipped the scale in terms of global warming.
I'm less concerned about the carbon that was already present in the environment in trees or other natural processes than I am about the new carbon added to the environment. We could sequester carbon using trees, but to actually sequester it we couldn't just let it rot we'd need to actually sequester the carbon from it. Planting new trees is a good option where viable but it's not going to offset the additional carbon added via coal and hydrocarbons.
I don't think total reforestation is anything more than a dream scenario at this point, and efforts should be put towards sequestration instead in order to offset industrial processes. That should include sequestration at an independant level (areas intended to create output for long-term sequestration) and at an industrial level (industrial CO2 emissions should be cut as close as possible to 0 and captured CO2 output should be sequestered).
Even then, as the trees die and decompose, most of the carbon will make its way back into the atmosphere. To be properly sequestered we would need to take the trees and then dump into landfills, subduction zones, etc.
No, because new trees grow on top and sequester what the prior free released*. Total sequestration is more or less constant to forest land area.
It should actually be a net positive. Decomposing things in rainforests get covered in vegetation and do not necessarily entirely release.
Trees take up carbon dioxide (CO2) and release oxygen (O2) through photosynthesis, transferring the carbon (C) to their trunks, limbs, roots, and leaves as they grow. When leaves or branches fall and decompose, or trees die, the stored C will be released by respiration and/or combustion back to the atmosphere or transferred to the soil. Because of these processes, forests and forested landscapes can store considerable carbon and their growth can provide a carbon sink; landscapes that have been recently converted or reconverted to forests (from another land cover) can provide a carbon sink that is considerably larger than other land cover types.
...
While individual trees or tracts release some or all of their carbon if harvested, burned, or otherwise disturbed, subsequent forest regrowth will sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Forested landscapes tend to include a mix of disturbed and regrowing forest stands, and have a carbon balance of near zero over the medium and longer term (6,7) (Figure 1).
Our large carbon sink today is a legacy of harvesting and forest conversion that took place in the past. These disturbances released much carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere decades ago, and the regrowing forest is recovering some of that released CO2 on land that has not been permanently converted to non-forest cover (8) (Figure 2).
The persistence of the current U.S. forest carbon sink is uncertain because the effects of historic land use should taper off, while projected increases in the rates of natural disturbances such as fire may liberate current carbon stocks (4). Atmospheric factors may change forest growth rates, since increased nitrogen deposition and atmospheric CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel emissions can enhance tree growth. These factors may also augment current rates of carbon sequestration by forests (9). However, other global change factors, such as increased transpiration rates and atmospheric pollutants and the likelihood of increased drought, may offset potential increased sequestration rates (10).
The participation of forests in climate change is thus three-fold:
• they are carbon pools
• they become sources of CO2when they burn, or, in general, when they are disturbed by natural or human action
• they are CO2sinks when they grow biomass or extend their area.
The earth's biosphere constitutes a carbon sink that absorbs approximately 2.3 GtC annually. This represents nearly 30 percent of all fossil fuel emissions (totaling from 6.3 to 6.5 GtC/year) and is comparable to the CO2emissions resulting from deforestation (1.6 and 2 GtC/year).
"Current scientific evidence suggests that managed and even old growth forests (of the temperate and boreal zone) sequester carbon at rates of up to 6 ton ha. These results question the paradigm that old growth forests are in equilibrium with a net carbon balance. On the other hand infrequent disturbances (fires, pest outbreaks, storms.) are triggering a sporadic, but massive return of carbon to the atmosphere"(Valentiniet al.,2000). A soil specialist has emphasized that "there is a potential for reversing some of these processes and sequestering carbon in soils in terrestrial ecosystems. The magnitude of the potential is estimated to be up to 50 to 75 percent of the historic carbon loss. Theoretically, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2can be nullified by restoration of 2 billion ha of degraded lands, which would increase their average carbon content by 1.5 ton / ha in soil and vegetation."(Lal, 2000)
The carbon cycle (photosynthesis, plant respiration and the degradation of organic matter)in a given forest is influenced by climatic conditions and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The distinction between natural and human factors influencing plant growth is thus sometimes very difficult to make.
The increase of CO2in the atmosphere has a "fertilizing effect" on photosynthesis and thus, plant growth. There are varying estimates of this effect: + 33 percent, + 25 percent, and + 60 percent for trees, + 14% for pastures and crops (IPCC, 2001). This explains present regional tendencies of enhanced forest growth and causes an increase in carbon absorption by plants. This also influences the potential size of the forests carbon pool.
There are still questions regarding the long-term future of the biospheric carbon pool. Several bio-climatic models indicate that the ecosystems' absorption capacity is approaching its upper limit and should diminish in the future, possibly even reversing direction within 50 to 150 years, with forests becoming a net source of CO2. Indeed, global warming could cause an increase in heterotrophic respiration and the decomposition of organic matter, and a simultaneous decrease of the sink effectiveness, thereby transforming the forestry ecosystems into a net source of CO2(Scholes, 1999).
To sum it up:
new forests are massive carbon sinks.
Existing forests that are disturbed tend to be around equilibrium. Climate change/invasive species/human harvesting all disturb forests.
The effects of climate change may help or hurt carbon absorption rates. There is some risk that forests could become a carbon source due to climate change.
And of course, it still means spending money to not do something so that natural processes can do their job.
That is what I said. Old trees die and release carbon but new trees use it. Net carbon of old forest is close to zero. This makes effective sequestration because the amount of sequestration is equal to the mass of trees. Increasing it takes carbon permanently out of the air.
Though specific to rainforests I expect a bit of an additional sink at stationary because the undergrowth definitely does capture decarying material.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
We should at the very least stop burning down our rainforests
Even then, as the trees die and decompose, most of the carbon will make its way back into the atmosphere. To be properly sequestered we would need to take the trees and then dump into landfills, subduction zones, etc.
No, because new trees grow on top and sequester what the prior free released*. Total sequestration is more or less constant to forest land area.
It should actually be a net positive. Decomposing things in rainforests get covered in vegetation and do not necessarily entirely release.
Trees take up carbon dioxide (CO2) and release oxygen (O2) through photosynthesis, transferring the carbon (C) to their trunks, limbs, roots, and leaves as they grow. When leaves or branches fall and decompose, or trees die, the stored C will be released by respiration and/or combustion back to the atmosphere or transferred to the soil. Because of these processes, forests and forested landscapes can store considerable carbon and their growth can provide a carbon sink; landscapes that have been recently converted or reconverted to forests (from another land cover) can provide a carbon sink that is considerably larger than other land cover types.
...
While individual trees or tracts release some or all of their carbon if harvested, burned, or otherwise disturbed, subsequent forest regrowth will sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Forested landscapes tend to include a mix of disturbed and regrowing forest stands, and have a carbon balance of near zero over the medium and longer term (6,7) (Figure 1).
Our large carbon sink today is a legacy of harvesting and forest conversion that took place in the past. These disturbances released much carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere decades ago, and the regrowing forest is recovering some of that released CO2 on land that has not been permanently converted to non-forest cover (8) (Figure 2).
The persistence of the current U.S. forest carbon sink is uncertain because the effects of historic land use should taper off, while projected increases in the rates of natural disturbances such as fire may liberate current carbon stocks (4). Atmospheric factors may change forest growth rates, since increased nitrogen deposition and atmospheric CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel emissions can enhance tree growth. These factors may also augment current rates of carbon sequestration by forests (9). However, other global change factors, such as increased transpiration rates and atmospheric pollutants and the likelihood of increased drought, may offset potential increased sequestration rates (10).
The participation of forests in climate change is thus three-fold:
• they are carbon pools
• they become sources of CO2when they burn, or, in general, when they are disturbed by natural or human action
• they are CO2sinks when they grow biomass or extend their area.
The earth's biosphere constitutes a carbon sink that absorbs approximately 2.3 GtC annually. This represents nearly 30 percent of all fossil fuel emissions (totaling from 6.3 to 6.5 GtC/year) and is comparable to the CO2emissions resulting from deforestation (1.6 and 2 GtC/year).
"Current scientific evidence suggests that managed and even old growth forests (of the temperate and boreal zone) sequester carbon at rates of up to 6 ton ha. These results question the paradigm that old growth forests are in equilibrium with a net carbon balance. On the other hand infrequent disturbances (fires, pest outbreaks, storms.) are triggering a sporadic, but massive return of carbon to the atmosphere"(Valentiniet al.,2000). A soil specialist has emphasized that "there is a potential for reversing some of these processes and sequestering carbon in soils in terrestrial ecosystems. The magnitude of the potential is estimated to be up to 50 to 75 percent of the historic carbon loss. Theoretically, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2can be nullified by restoration of 2 billion ha of degraded lands, which would increase their average carbon content by 1.5 ton / ha in soil and vegetation."(Lal, 2000)
The carbon cycle (photosynthesis, plant respiration and the degradation of organic matter)in a given forest is influenced by climatic conditions and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The distinction between natural and human factors influencing plant growth is thus sometimes very difficult to make.
The increase of CO2in the atmosphere has a "fertilizing effect" on photosynthesis and thus, plant growth. There are varying estimates of this effect: + 33 percent, + 25 percent, and + 60 percent for trees, + 14% for pastures and crops (IPCC, 2001). This explains present regional tendencies of enhanced forest growth and causes an increase in carbon absorption by plants. This also influences the potential size of the forests carbon pool.
There are still questions regarding the long-term future of the biospheric carbon pool. Several bio-climatic models indicate that the ecosystems' absorption capacity is approaching its upper limit and should diminish in the future, possibly even reversing direction within 50 to 150 years, with forests becoming a net source of CO2. Indeed, global warming could cause an increase in heterotrophic respiration and the decomposition of organic matter, and a simultaneous decrease of the sink effectiveness, thereby transforming the forestry ecosystems into a net source of CO2(Scholes, 1999).
To sum it up:
new forests are massive carbon sinks.
Existing forests that are disturbed tend to be around equilibrium. Climate change/invasive species/human harvesting all disturb forests.
The effects of climate change may help or hurt carbon absorption rates. There is some risk that forests could become a carbon source due to climate change.
And of course, it still means spending money to not do something so that natural processes can do their job.
That is what I said. Old trees die and release carbon but new trees use it. Net carbon of old forest is close to zero. This makes effective sequestration because the amount of sequestration is equal to the mass of trees. Increasing it takes carbon permanently out of the air.
Though specific to rainforests I expect a bit of an additional sink at stationary because the undergrowth definitely does capture decarying material.
But that doesn't actually solve the problem we're talking about. Forests being near zero in carbon footprint just means that existing forests should stay in place in order to sequester the carbon contained within. What people are talking about when they talk about carbon sequestration is removing carbon from the environment and then sequestering it where it is totally removed from the system. We need an output to the carbon cycle that completely removes carbon from the cycle at a rate greater than the level at which new carbon is being added to the system.
Forests are not that output, they're neutral. To do that with trees we'd need to remove dead trees from the environment before their carbon is reintroduced, either through some form of processing or via physical isolation from the environment.
Yes... the suggestion was adding new rainforests...Which sequesters the carbon needed for the trees. Just like burying it would. You said it would not work because trees die. That isn’t true unless they died because they were clear cut.
Would a tree farm be more efficient in terms of land use, then? In that scenario, the same acreage is constantly consuming new carbon, which is shipped off and sequestered in boxes of hardwood flooring.
If you can permanently prevent the decomposition of the wood then yes you should be able to provide a net on acreage over time. At the very least you could increase the sequestration density by delaying the decomposition of the growth.
It’s like a pipe that water flows down. Flow out equals flow in. Net is always zero but total water sequestration is the volume of the pipe. If you make the pipe bigger you hold more carbon.
Would a tree farm be more efficient in terms of land use, then? In that scenario, the same acreage is constantly consuming new carbon, which is shipped off and sequestered in boxes of hardwood flooring.
We're talking massive amounts of land that would be needed to be reforested just to make up the amount lost due to deforestation, and then we'd still have to deal with the carbon added through coal and hydrocarbons. But the land that was reclaimed through deforestation is not all viable land for forestation anymore. Destruction of soil through urbanization, farming, and acidification has made an amount of it no longer viable for raising diverse forest biomes necessary to have the same level of carbon intake as the forests that used to exist there.
Lot and lot of wood houses.
Sure it's not permanent, but it can buy a few decades while we look for a better idea.
And we kinda need housing.
Minus the carbon cost of the construction and non-wood materials. It’s not necessarily a gain
We still need housing.
And we're going to build that housing.
So might as well make it of wood.
Permanent houses, where you don't change the wood for hundreds of years. I don't think we're talking about sequestrating carbon for a couple of decades whilst we switch to 100% renewables, we're needing to reverse the amount of carbon in the system permanently - and we're adding 36 billion tonnes annually.
I think the thing to remember here is, oil isn't dinosaurs despite how often we use that meme. It's trees, but it's trees from a very specific time period - oil is not how trees naturally fossilise. It's all the trees from the Carboniferous period (which lasted around 60 million years) that existed before the appearance of microbes that were able to digest Lignin, one of the major proteins in tree bark. So when trees died, they just fell over and were eventually buried - they didn't rot. So fossil fuels are the remains of 60 million years of trees that weren't recycled into the carbon system - which have now been released into the atmosphere over the course of a few hundred years.
Clearly, no level of reforestation can hope to counter that.
Three satellites: One to vacuum the CO2 from the atmosphere into space, one to build a giant absorptive/reflective carbon filament net around the earth to block and absorb a fraction of solar and geo warming, and one to dismantle it once the crisis is over. We'll call it the Highlander project
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Lot and lot of wood houses.
Sure it's not permanent, but it can buy a few decades while we look for a better idea.
And we kinda need housing.
Minus the carbon cost of the construction and non-wood materials. It’s not necessarily a gain
We still need housing.
And we're going to build that housing.
So might as well make it of wood.
Permanent houses, where you don't change the wood for hundreds of years. I don't think we're talking about sequestrating carbon for a couple of decades whilst we switch to 100% renewables, we're needing to reverse the amount of carbon in the system permanently - and we're adding 36 billion tonnes annually.
I think the thing to remember here is, oil isn't dinosaurs despite how often we use that meme. It's trees, but it's trees from a very specific time period - oil is not how trees naturally fossilise. It's all the trees from the Carboniferous period (which lasted around 60 million years) that existed before the appearance of microbes that were able to digest Lignin, one of the major protein in tree bark. So when trees died, they just fell over and were eventually buried - they didn't rot. So fossil fuels are the remains of 60 million years of trees that weren't recycled into the carbon system - which have now been released into the atmosphere over the course of a few hundred years.
Clearly, no level of reforestation can hope to counter that.
I'm not seeing that as permanent solution, but it can be used beside other things to buy time.
THere is no one solution, but a thousand small ones might work, planting new trees while you cut down old ones can help.
And couple of decades is not really accurate.
Properly constructed wooden house can last a century or more, just need to protect it from water damage.
Actually the way the Co2 in the atmosphere works is pretty much...
fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine hmm oh uh oh shit!
We are currently at hmm, rapidly heading towards uh oh. If we reach oh shit, we all die. All the trees we chopped down moved us about two steps to the right. All the coal did the rest. Replanting the trees will get us back to fine, even though co2 levels will be much higher than when they started.
Hell, it doesn’t even have to be rainforest. We can replant the trees in the Russian steppe and so on. Trees that were only cut down for fuel, not for crop land or housing.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Lot and lot of wood houses.
Sure it's not permanent, but it can buy a few decades while we look for a better idea.
And we kinda need housing.
Minus the carbon cost of the construction and non-wood materials. It’s not necessarily a gain
We still need housing.
And we're going to build that housing.
So might as well make it of wood.
Permanent houses, where you don't change the wood for hundreds of years. I don't think we're talking about sequestrating carbon for a couple of decades whilst we switch to 100% renewables, we're needing to reverse the amount of carbon in the system permanently - and we're adding 36 billion tonnes annually.
I think the thing to remember here is, oil isn't dinosaurs despite how often we use that meme. It's trees, but it's trees from a very specific time period - oil is not how trees naturally fossilise. It's all the trees from the Carboniferous period (which lasted around 60 million years) that existed before the appearance of microbes that were able to digest Lignin, one of the major protein in tree bark. So when trees died, they just fell over and were eventually buried - they didn't rot. So fossil fuels are the remains of 60 million years of trees that weren't recycled into the carbon system - which have now been released into the atmosphere over the course of a few hundred years.
Clearly, no level of reforestation can hope to counter that.
I'm not seeing that as permanent solution, but it can be used beside other things to buy time.
THere is no one solution, but a thousand small ones might work, planting new trees while you cut down old ones can help.
And couple of decades is not really accurate.
Properly constructed wooden house can last a century or more, just need to protect it from water damage.
As someone who lives in Florida, this last part simply isn't possible unless you live in a very dry area, or one that freezes. Both are things that are becoming rarer.
Lot and lot of wood houses.
Sure it's not permanent, but it can buy a few decades while we look for a better idea.
And we kinda need housing.
Minus the carbon cost of the construction and non-wood materials. It’s not necessarily a gain
We still need housing.
And we're going to build that housing.
So might as well make it of wood.
Permanent houses, where you don't change the wood for hundreds of years. I don't think we're talking about sequestrating carbon for a couple of decades whilst we switch to 100% renewables, we're needing to reverse the amount of carbon in the system permanently - and we're adding 36 billion tonnes annually.
I think the thing to remember here is, oil isn't dinosaurs despite how often we use that meme. It's trees, but it's trees from a very specific time period - oil is not how trees naturally fossilise. It's all the trees from the Carboniferous period (which lasted around 60 million years) that existed before the appearance of microbes that were able to digest Lignin, one of the major protein in tree bark. So when trees died, they just fell over and were eventually buried - they didn't rot. So fossil fuels are the remains of 60 million years of trees that weren't recycled into the carbon system - which have now been released into the atmosphere over the course of a few hundred years.
Clearly, no level of reforestation can hope to counter that.
I'm not seeing that as permanent solution, but it can be used beside other things to buy time.
THere is no one solution, but a thousand small ones might work, planting new trees while you cut down old ones can help.
And couple of decades is not really accurate.
Properly constructed wooden house can last a century or more, just need to protect it from water damage.
As someone who lives in Florida, this last part simply isn't possible unless you live in a very dry area, or one that freezes. Both are things that are becoming rarer.
Yes, not everything works everywhere.
And i don't mean you can't let wood get wet (you can use paint or other protective coatings), just don't let it be submerged for extended amount of time because that will make the wood rot.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Land-based algae plants? We can already grow algae in enormous quantities for food and other uses - it's called kelp, it grows in sea water not needing high tech elaborate setups and technology that still needs work. Kelp farmers can grow 30 tons of kelp per acre (.4 hectare) which blows any land-based crops out of the water, plus kelp provides habitat for fish and can grow so fast that they extract enough CO2 out of the water to provide a local de-acidifying effect, so kelp farms are also great places to farm oysters and other shellfish. And yeah, kelp can be turned into biofuel or whatnot if you really want to.
Or sequester it. One good way would be terra preta. Rainforest soils are usually very poor because all the rain leeches out nutrients, but Amazonian peoples long ago figured out that if they worked charcoal into the soil, nutrients would stay put. Those nutrients (and that carbon) has been stable for hundreds if not thousands of years. This would not just store carbon in the soil for the long term (longer than a wooden house) but improve degraded farmland, since farming practices up to now have not been gentle on the soils that we need to grow food to not starve to death.
Hell, it doesn’t even have to be rainforest. We can replant the trees in the Russian steppe and so on. Trees that were only cut down for fuel, not for crop land or housing.
Don't want to plant trees over permafrost - that melts it faster. Restoring the old highly productive mammoth steppe (via reintroducing lots of large herbivores) would keep the carbon in the permafrost in the ground and also restore the former biological functions that sequestered that carbon in the first place. Grasslands/prairies/steppe can store just as much carbon as forests, mostly in soil and roots, but they've been degraded worse than forests.
I could keep going. Look, the thing is, we already have a thousand tools for working on the climate. The problem is the will to do so, which right now is more like anti-will because the people with the money and power are actively working against it because they might pay more taxes short term or they just want to stick it to liberals or something. I'm hoping a green movement in the US can piggyback off the current youth gun control movement, since the most fervent anti-environmental groups just so happen to be the same ones that accept money from the NRA, that whole far-right complex, so voting them out should make environmental regulations and actions a bit less difficult.
+1
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I got a idea. We attach a balloon to every smokestack and cow butt. When it's full we float it into the sun.
UK is having a late spring this year. Of course this is one weather event, so usual weather vs climate disclaimer, but the UK is going to see this more and more often as the gulf stream slows.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
How do y'all stay positive while signs increasingly point to "we're fucked"? :sad:
because there's nothing we can do but what we're already doing. I'm not going to sit in a corner and weep, I'm going to educate my kids, continue to recycle and pick up recyclables I see, vote dem, and hope for the best.
Humans naturally acclimate towards contentment, unless you're facing a depressive disorder.
I was really distraught by it all but now I'm ok. Give it time.
If you're facing depression though, do seek help.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
How do y'all stay positive while signs increasingly point to "we're fucked"? :sad:
Do what you can, but the wheels of this vehicle aren't in our direct control, they're under the control of people who are supposed to represent us. So do what you can about it, but don't worry about it all the time. If it's too overwhelming, there's medication for that that doesn't make you not care, just makes it livable.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Also, human ingenuity is pretty great. We've seen carbon-trap projects and ozone-layer seeding projects succeed. We've seen natural populations and areas replenished and renewed with focused effort. As a species, we have fucked up a lot, but we are also making impressive strides to figure out how to fix things.
As Mr. Rogers said: Look for the helpers. There are a lot out there in climate science and geoengineering.
Posts
1) Contain the carbon in a storable form
2) Do nothing with that carbon in order to sequester it long term.
Basically we took carbon out of the ground that was sequestered, introduced it into the environment, and now we need a way to reverse that. We could still farm algae to collect CO2, but we would then need to sequester that algae or, if it's the kind designed to turn that into hydrocarbons, sequester it's carbon output. We're talking about a process without a viable terrestrial product at the end.
If algae can replace some amount of hydrocarbon production that is currently being pulled out of the ground, it's still a net reduction in the amount being released to the environment. It doesn't have to do sequestration to be beneficial.
At this point even if we stopped oil and coal burning right now it'd be about several years too late. We need sequestration to have any net positive effect.
I think that our solar resources are better used for actual making of electricity.
5 Gt of CO2 is about 1.3 billion trees. The amazon contains about 300 billion trees. The way to sequester enough CO2 to make a difference is to restore rainforests. a 1% growth in number of trees in the Amazon rainforest each year would sequester about 10 Gt each year. Much better than we can ever hope to do with artificial sequestration.
edit - Eh, I guess trees take a while to grow! So those new trees are only going to pop up about 10% of their mass each year. So we'll need to increase the area of the Amazon by 4% a year.
No, because new trees grow on top and sequester what the prior free released*. Total sequestration is more or less constant to forest land area.
It should actually be a net positive. Decomposing things in rainforests get covered in vegetation and do not necessarily entirely release.
That's...not entirely what I've read?
(spoiled for long quotes)
To sum it up:
And of course, it still means spending money to not do something so that natural processes can do their job.
The problems are twofold.
1) We removed a large amount of forested area on the earth's surface. To offset the carbon output from that process and the industrial processes resulting from that deforestation we would need to replant those forests, and that's not really a viable option. Not only are those areas now heavily settled, many areas are no longer able to easily sustain forests due to natural and manmade processes done to the land.
2) We introduced previously sequestered carbon into the mix. Carbon that was already sequestered naturally. We cannot replicate the exact processes that created those sequestered deposits, and the release of this additional carbon into the environment is what has tipped the scale in terms of global warming.
I'm less concerned about the carbon that was already present in the environment in trees or other natural processes than I am about the new carbon added to the environment. We could sequester carbon using trees, but to actually sequester it we couldn't just let it rot we'd need to actually sequester the carbon from it. Planting new trees is a good option where viable but it's not going to offset the additional carbon added via coal and hydrocarbons.
I don't think total reforestation is anything more than a dream scenario at this point, and efforts should be put towards sequestration instead in order to offset industrial processes. That should include sequestration at an independant level (areas intended to create output for long-term sequestration) and at an industrial level (industrial CO2 emissions should be cut as close as possible to 0 and captured CO2 output should be sequestered).
That is what I said. Old trees die and release carbon but new trees use it. Net carbon of old forest is close to zero. This makes effective sequestration because the amount of sequestration is equal to the mass of trees. Increasing it takes carbon permanently out of the air.
Though specific to rainforests I expect a bit of an additional sink at stationary because the undergrowth definitely does capture decarying material.
But that doesn't actually solve the problem we're talking about. Forests being near zero in carbon footprint just means that existing forests should stay in place in order to sequester the carbon contained within. What people are talking about when they talk about carbon sequestration is removing carbon from the environment and then sequestering it where it is totally removed from the system. We need an output to the carbon cycle that completely removes carbon from the cycle at a rate greater than the level at which new carbon is being added to the system.
Forests are not that output, they're neutral. To do that with trees we'd need to remove dead trees from the environment before their carbon is reintroduced, either through some form of processing or via physical isolation from the environment.
It’s like a pipe that water flows down. Flow out equals flow in. Net is always zero but total water sequestration is the volume of the pipe. If you make the pipe bigger you hold more carbon.
Sure it's not permanent, but it can buy a few decades while we look for a better idea.
And we kinda need housing.
Minus the carbon cost of the construction and non-wood materials. It’s not necessarily a gain
We still need housing.
And we're going to build that housing.
So might as well make it of wood.
We're talking massive amounts of land that would be needed to be reforested just to make up the amount lost due to deforestation, and then we'd still have to deal with the carbon added through coal and hydrocarbons. But the land that was reclaimed through deforestation is not all viable land for forestation anymore. Destruction of soil through urbanization, farming, and acidification has made an amount of it no longer viable for raising diverse forest biomes necessary to have the same level of carbon intake as the forests that used to exist there.
Permanent houses, where you don't change the wood for hundreds of years. I don't think we're talking about sequestrating carbon for a couple of decades whilst we switch to 100% renewables, we're needing to reverse the amount of carbon in the system permanently - and we're adding 36 billion tonnes annually.
I think the thing to remember here is, oil isn't dinosaurs despite how often we use that meme. It's trees, but it's trees from a very specific time period - oil is not how trees naturally fossilise. It's all the trees from the Carboniferous period (which lasted around 60 million years) that existed before the appearance of microbes that were able to digest Lignin, one of the major proteins in tree bark. So when trees died, they just fell over and were eventually buried - they didn't rot. So fossil fuels are the remains of 60 million years of trees that weren't recycled into the carbon system - which have now been released into the atmosphere over the course of a few hundred years.
Clearly, no level of reforestation can hope to counter that.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
THere is no one solution, but a thousand small ones might work, planting new trees while you cut down old ones can help.
And couple of decades is not really accurate.
Properly constructed wooden house can last a century or more, just need to protect it from water damage.
fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine hmm oh uh oh shit!
We are currently at hmm, rapidly heading towards uh oh. If we reach oh shit, we all die. All the trees we chopped down moved us about two steps to the right. All the coal did the rest. Replanting the trees will get us back to fine, even though co2 levels will be much higher than when they started.
Hell, it doesn’t even have to be rainforest. We can replant the trees in the Russian steppe and so on. Trees that were only cut down for fuel, not for crop land or housing.
As someone who lives in Florida, this last part simply isn't possible unless you live in a very dry area, or one that freezes. Both are things that are becoming rarer.
And i don't mean you can't let wood get wet (you can use paint or other protective coatings), just don't let it be submerged for extended amount of time because that will make the wood rot.
Or sequester it. One good way would be terra preta. Rainforest soils are usually very poor because all the rain leeches out nutrients, but Amazonian peoples long ago figured out that if they worked charcoal into the soil, nutrients would stay put. Those nutrients (and that carbon) has been stable for hundreds if not thousands of years. This would not just store carbon in the soil for the long term (longer than a wooden house) but improve degraded farmland, since farming practices up to now have not been gentle on the soils that we need to grow food to not starve to death.
Don't want to plant trees over permafrost - that melts it faster. Restoring the old highly productive mammoth steppe (via reintroducing lots of large herbivores) would keep the carbon in the permafrost in the ground and also restore the former biological functions that sequestered that carbon in the first place. Grasslands/prairies/steppe can store just as much carbon as forests, mostly in soil and roots, but they've been degraded worse than forests.
I could keep going. Look, the thing is, we already have a thousand tools for working on the climate. The problem is the will to do so, which right now is more like anti-will because the people with the money and power are actively working against it because they might pay more taxes short term or they just want to stick it to liberals or something. I'm hoping a green movement in the US can piggyback off the current youth gun control movement, since the most fervent anti-environmental groups just so happen to be the same ones that accept money from the NRA, that whole far-right complex, so voting them out should make environmental regulations and actions a bit less difficult.
Just cross-post from the SE++ science thread and go straight to wood rockets
That's a very NIMBY attitude.
https://weather.com/news/news/2018-04-12-gulf-stream-slowing-climate-change-study
Things aren't looking good for the Atlantic.
Related: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/14/farmers-crops-livestock-turmoil-beast-from-east-climate-change
UK is having a late spring this year. Of course this is one weather event, so usual weather vs climate disclaimer, but the UK is going to see this more and more often as the gulf stream slows.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You don't have to worry about positivity if you're a nihilist.
because there's nothing we can do but what we're already doing. I'm not going to sit in a corner and weep, I'm going to educate my kids, continue to recycle and pick up recyclables I see, vote dem, and hope for the best.
I just wish it would happen before millions or billions of people die.
I was really distraught by it all but now I'm ok. Give it time.
If you're facing depression though, do seek help.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Do what you can, but the wheels of this vehicle aren't in our direct control, they're under the control of people who are supposed to represent us. So do what you can about it, but don't worry about it all the time. If it's too overwhelming, there's medication for that that doesn't make you not care, just makes it livable.
As Mr. Rogers said: Look for the helpers. There are a lot out there in climate science and geoengineering.