Carbon Sequestration

[Robert Covelli]

I wonder how Bioneers folks feel about carbon sequestration, ie. is the cost of the energy needed to sequester it worth the benefit and where and how (as in WIPP) is the carbon sequestered, for how long and with what eventual outocme? I came to this by way of a story in the Nation magazine about a green industrial policy. According to the story, after bailing out auto makers, the governent is allowing the auto makers to send plants and jobs overseas. The story argued that a grass roots movement can change the geovernment's policy in this regard, maintaining (the story did) that many plants in America are ready to be re-tooled, now, along the lines of green energy. If manufacturing has largely caused the problems in the environment, maybe manufacturing can solve them, too. I wonder if anyone is interested in a grass roots action in New Mexico, or if it's already happening--forgive my ignorance. But I also wonder if clean coal really is one feasible solution. Thus, my questions are these two: 1) Anybody want to start a movement to act for a green domestic industrial policy? and 2) Does CCS have any relevance to my first question?

[Charley Quinton]

Yes and yes.

You're from Santa Fe? From what I've seen, most (or many) of the Bioneers are from Santa Fe and you are in a grassroots mecca. I've only been here at the Bioneers site for a week or so, and it moves a little slow. But stick around. Here is one group that may be relevant: Alternative Energy Solutions

Can you elaborate on the acronyms WIPP and CCS and post a link to the magazine article?

[Robert Covelli]

Thank you for responding so quickly and for providing a starting point. CCS is Carbon capture and sequestration. WIPP is Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the controversial project for storing nuclear waste. CCS has short term and long term recommendations. Short term is putting CO2 in the Earth and letting the ecosystems absorb it; and, of course, long term is shooting it into space or splashing it deep in the ocean, the effects of which would seem to me to be unknowable. What magazine article are you referring to?

[Charley Quinton]

Oh. I was referring to "a story in the Nation magazine about a green industrial policy" that you mentioned.

[Robert Covelli]

I read it on-line, Charley, and now it's gone. It was written by Katrina vanden Heuvel, who's the Editor of the Nation, and man named Robert Borosage, who's the president of a leftist think-tank (as it were?) named Institute for America's Future. Maybe you can find it in an archive.

[Charley Quinton]

Ah. here we go -> http://www.ourfuture.org/institute/

Lots of stuff to chew on here -> http://www.ourfuture.org/search/node/Katrina+vanden+Heuvel

[John Rainbird]

Hi Robert,

I did spend a bit of time looking in CCS and I think it is a misguided approach to trying to deal with GHG emissions. It adds enormous costs to energy production and comes with enormous risks - given it will still take 10-15 years to prove and implement, I think by the time they get anywhere near it alternative energy sources will have already well and truly proved themselves and become very cost competitive - who then would want to invest in a technology with higher costs and higher risks?

Most of the discussion has focused on the capturing of CO2 from the power plant, and so far this is not a very retrofitable solution for the hundreds of existing plants. Given CO2 only has to be at a concentration of around 7-9% in the air to be lethal, and it has no odor, we face great risks of leakages (given the hundreds of billions of tons we would have to bury - and not forgetting that some nations may have far lower standards for dealing with this than the US or Australia - my home) together with the additional energy and infrastructure costs of pumping the stuff out to where it needs to be buried... - for my money it is just another strategy by the coal companies and coal based power utilities to prolong the inevitable death of the use of coal to generate power.

Best wishes
John

[Robert Covelli]

Hi John:

You seem to know a good bit more about it than I do, but what you're written agrees with the little I've read thus far. What troubled me is that Secretary Chu (the American Department of Energy) was quoted saying that CCS is a feasible option. I think he may have said that it was well worth looking into for the future, and I don't know how that translates from bureaucratese--bureaucrats have to survive the Big Money. I've always thought that coal was bad news for the environment and the people anywhere near any burning of it, and the early discussion of clean coal largely discounted the idea as pretty thoroughly bogus. But I respect Steven Chu. That's why I asked. Thanks for replying.

Robert

[Andrew Fynn]

The really interesting and sustainable for of carbon sequestration is terrestrial: in trees and soils. Soils can contain more carbon than the forests above them. Globally soils hold up to four times as much carbon as the atmosphere. Only at some point in the C20th did emissions from fossil fuels outpace those from changes in land use and poor land management practices, which see the loss of carbon from soil organic matter and woody biomass to atmospheric CO2. Soils are vast sinks with great potential to sequester more. Thus there are win-win opportunities for local sustainable food production. habitat and ecosystem health, and climate change mitigation. The world has been aware of forestry carbon sequestration for a decade, now soil carbon sequestration is gaining ground at the highest levels. Expect to hear about it in Copenhagen in December. One good source of info: www.carboncoalition.com.au

[Robert Covelli]

Thank you, Andrew! Pumping the CO2 into the Earth was the scariest possibility, even more so because it seemed to me to be the most likely. Thank you again for providing a link to the website. I'll certainly look into it. If you're correct, this opens a vast new area of thought and potential. New to me, I reckon! Do you agree with the proponents of clean coal? Do you believe that such a thing can exist in harmony with ecosystems, through the good offices of human wisdom and techne?

[Andrew Fynn]

Robert, short answer: no. Have you seen this week's "clean coal" ads on the web? They say words to the effect of 'see the location that makes clean coal possible.' Interesting word--"possible". Not a reality, not here and now.

It used to amaze me in a society that invests so much time, money and faith into (Cartesian/Euclidian/ Newtonian) science, that more science does not necessarily equate to better answers! Good science, bad science. My science, your science. CCS is designed by oil industries as a means to suck every last drop of oil from the Earth, and get props for doing it! Does it work? Will there be fatal CO2 gas burps from the ground? Like other untested "scientific" wonders, we just don't know, but some believe that lobbying trumps reason.

As for soils, bear in mind that over 50% of soil organic matter (SOM) is carbon in organic form. SOM is the reason we are alive: it is the difference between a desertified soil and the rich chocolatey loam of a 30 year organic farm. Every ton of soil carbon preserved or sequestered represents 3.67 tons of CO2 kept or removed from the atmosphere. Soils are the basis for ecosystem health. It is no overstatement to say that the win-win opportunities are astounding. Rangelands for example (wild unmanaged grasslands, tundra, desert soils, etc.) cover around 50% of the ice free planet surface. The size of this sink and the consequent effect on atmospheric CO2 of a small increase or decrease in soil carbon levels is extremely high.

The task is to design and support mechanisms (protocols, etc.) that allow people (land owners and land managers) to be compensated for adding to soil carbon stocks, against Business As Usual projections. On the other hand, win-win scenarios mean that for example a land manager may see benefit in terms of increased yield, whereas a project developer or landowner could reap the financial rewards from the carbon crop.


Expect to see more and more carbon farmers (a term originated in Australia, I believe) and the focus of "farms" and ranches shift to include 'ecosystem services', including preservation of terrestrial carbon and sequestration of additional amounts of it. (Carbon sequestration is considered by many as an ecosystem service.) Bear in mind that as a commodity (even natural capital) becomes more and more scarce, its value increases exponentially. Also bear in mind that the carbon cycle is inextricably linked to the water and nitrogen cycles. The massive surface area of the carbon molecule represents stability for soil water holding capacity and microbial habitat. Think about it--we are made of carbon: structure, strength, stability (debatable), and water.

Beware also the advocates who are paid to blog, or spread the astounding idea that nuclear power is renewable! As if the future has nothing to do with the future...In fact, I was rather surprised to see Bioneers add this item to this year's conference. Legitimacy facilitates acceptance, whether the debate is intense or not.

OK, I'll stop now...

[Susan Horn]

Pumping CO2 into earth and/or space is inherently scary. It is using mechanistic thinking to solve problems caused by mechanistic thinking. According to the definition of insanity, that's not the way to solve a problem (doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result) or as Einstein said (paraphrased), you can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it.

I would suggest looking into Terra Preta, an ancient method of using charcoal in the ground to improve soil tilth, fertility, microflora, etc., and also sequesters carbon. Seems this would be a super potent way to sequester naturally in soil while improving plants' ability to do the same and make more oxygen with enhanced fertility, but I don't recall any actual numbers I can quote here (not a detail person).

Big story about this in a recent issue of National Geographic, and lots of info available for the googling. I ordered some biochar and am trying to sort out the best way to incorporate it into our no-till garden without disrupting too much. Hoping to learn to make it out of waste prunings and use it to build next couple of beds.

Apparently this can be done on backyard scale all the way up to commercial/industrial scale.

[Andrew Fynn]

Terra Preta is aka biochar (modern fancy name). A very interesting substance; google biochar or Johannes Lehmann (Cornell Professor, one of the leading researchers); also IBI, the International Biochar Institute. Making biochar converts biomass carbon from a form that is likely to return to the atmosphere due to rapid cycling through the atmosphere (labile carbon), to a form that will stick around for hundreds or thousands of years (recalcitrant carbon). This is the crux of the issue: changing the dynamics of baseline carbon cycling through the ecosystem.

Terra Preta or 'dark earth' Amazonian soils have carbon up to 3 times deeper in the soil profile than surrounding soils. They are so fertile that they are self-regenerating! Locals harvest layers of TP soil and sell it in the cities. As long as they leave a sufficient layer in place, the TP soil grows back. All the areas of TP soil in the Amazon add up to an area the size of France. TP soils are featured in Thomas Mann's book and article "1491"--which is an eye opener about native American societies and stewardship pre-contact.

What is critical for biochar projects now is to establish projects that are without doubt carbon negative, i.e. that less CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is generated in their operation than that which is removed from the atmosphere due to project activity, in net terms. This should not be difficult, technically speaking, because the process of making char (pyrolysis, or burning biomass in conditions of zero or constrained oxygen) is exothermic and generates enough heat to keep the process going.

Different regional scenarios will require different biochar technologies. From simple kiln-in-kilns in Africa and India, perhaps, to expsensive plants in the US that provide renewable energy to the grid, and/or a fuel oil, and/or biochar for agricultural or research purposes. Activated carbon sells for ~$500 a ton. Conversion ratios from dry biomass to biochar are usually somewhere around 4:1.

Exciting news for sustainability: Biochar can replace NPK artificial fertilizer on a 1:1 basis. Also, mixed with compost, it greatly improves the effectiveness of that compost (which particularly in dry climates tends to disappear rather quickly.) Because of the water holding capacity of carbon, biochar is very promising for regions where water is an issue. There is some work going on in New Mexico, in this regard, for example.

There is also a new book out by J Lehmann and Stephen Joseph (see IBI website), with extensive recent research findings on biochar. Very technical work.