h a l f b a k e r yRIFHMAO
(Rolling in flour, halfbaking my ass off)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The guys selling undeliverable future pensions have sequestered my money.
The guys selling domestic water (full of pesticides), alcohol and tobacco have sequestered my gonads - that's kind of natural.
But I'm not convinced about the carbon sequestration thing. There's a lot of guys out there wanting
to market and sell the compression and burial of CO2 when just putting charcoal back in a deep pit seems like a better solution.
I know burying coal isn't quite as catchy ,but even in a decade's time i'll still need my O2 bit.
[link]
|
| |
FT, just out of curiosity, did your plans involve growing anything green, that could like deconstruct naturally. |
|
| |
I like your idea of "carbon sequestering means carbon sequestering" though [+]. |
|
| |
O2 21% of atmosphere, CO2 0.04% (now) 0.03% (~prehistory) - so this is about 1/2000 parts? |
|
| |
just ran it again and got a totally bizarre figure using Wikipedia (one stop shopping): |
|
| |
Combustion
Carbon dioxide
World energy resources and consumption |
|
| |
Meanwhile...
I don't think you'd even need a big pit: just burying it should suffice. |
|
| |
//so this is about 1/2000 parts// |
|
| |
Yes, but how much of that gets cycled ? If as a policy we bury CO2 and not C, then over 2000 years do we end up with no oxygen left at all ? No fossil fuel has O2 in it does it ? |
|
| |
I think there's enough O2 in the atmosphere that that isn't an issue, but I don't see how burying CO2 would help: at best you'd just be killing off limestone deposits or something. |
|
| |
//so this is about 1/2000 parts//
It isn't about the poisonous aspects of CO2, but the effect of global warming caused by having too much of it in the atmosphere. Though I think that's where the bees went... there's too much CO2 in the air for them to look for flowers or something. |
|
| |
Weird isn't it. I would think the easiest way of getting rid of the stuff was to plant a forest, partially burn it until there was just charcoal left and then bury it. Repeat as necessary. So both a fuel source and carbon sequestration scheme. |
|
| |
Why bother with growing forests just to burn them, when you could just as easily turn argricultural waste into char? |
|
| |
Furthermore, instead of landfilling that char, you can simultaneously sequester *and* make use of it by powdering it and mixing it with your soil. |
|
| |
[goldbb] The idea is about restoring some kind of equilibrium. Using existing cycles might not be enough especially relating to diminished land area for forests and the like. By having a side economy dedicated to restoring the equilibrium e.g. by using a rapidly growing plant and then partially burning it, you get a space efficient sequesterer which can also be modulated according to demand. |
|
| |
I'm sorry, how is this an invention exactly? |
|
| |
Biochar burial is one of the hot topics in greenhouse mitigation right now, and although it may not be known widely outside the circles where such things are discussed, within, it certainly is. All I see here is advocacy of an existing technique, veering dangerously close to an [m-f-d]-able rant. |
|
| |
That said, I agree with the rant. At least the relevant paragraphs. |
|
| |
And what is with the category, and for that matter, the title? |
|
| |
//Biochar burial is one of the hot topics in greenhouse mitigation right now// |
|
| |
See what I started a month ago ! The title and category probably reflect the accounting of atoms. |
|
| |