CO2-negative industries

[emordnilap]

Thanks to Undercover Elephant for the following:

Burning coal is returning carbon to the biosphere that was locked away during a period of evolution that can't be repeated. It was a one-off removal of carbon, the cause of which was co-incidentally explained during a BBC4 documentary this evening about decay. There was a 50 million year gap between the appearance of the first trees (the first wood) and the point when fungi figured out how to break down lignin (which is what makes wood tough.) That's why the trees didn't rot. So for 50 million years, carbon was being taken out of the system and buried - permanently, at least for most of it and until humans started digging it up in the form of coal and burning it.

By burning all that coal, humans are creating conditions that have never existed in the history of life on Earth. What we are doing is just as significant in terms of the evolution of the earth's ecosphere as the original process of carbon deposition during the carboniferous age.

As a side question, what about the rest of the biomass (not just trees) that we're told makes up oil etc?

Whatever, how do we put that CO2 (plus whatever you're having yourself) back or put it not the atmosphere? We talk about planting trees, producing biochar, but that's not enough, is it? What else is there?

Is an industry which takes (let's say as a for instance) 10 tonnes of CO2 and sequesters it permanently, for every (say) 1 tonne of CO2 emitted in doing so - while still feeding the people running it - even possible?

[RenewableCandy]

The only other Carbon-negative process I can think of off the top of my head is a solar-powered* device for making limestone. How much use that would be in strictly economic terms, though, is anybody's guess.

*Not necessarily PV, it could be process heat.

[UndercoverElephant]

Thanks to Undercover Elephant for the following:

Burning coal is returning carbon to the biosphere that was locked away during a period of evolution that can't be repeated. It was a one-off removal of carbon, the cause of which was co-incidentally explained during a BBC4 documentary this evening about decay. There was a 50 million year gap between the appearance of the first trees (the first wood) and the point when fungi figured out how to break down lignin (which is what makes wood tough.) That's why the trees didn't rot. So for 50 million years, carbon was being taken out of the system and buried - permanently, at least for most of it and until humans started digging it up in the form of coal and burning it.

By burning all that coal, humans are creating conditions that have never existed in the history of life on Earth. What we are doing is just as significant in terms of the evolution of the earth's ecosphere as the original process of carbon deposition during the carboniferous age.

As a side question, what about the rest of the biomass (not just trees) that we're told makes up oil etc?

Oil and gas are trickier, because they have more varied origins. The conditions for forming them could still happen (too slowly for us, of course). Some theories link bursts of oil formation to previous episodes of climate change altering ocean currents and causing mass die-offs of phytoplankton. Maybe somebody else can add more about this.

Whatever, how do we put that CO2 (plus whatever you're having yourself) back or put it not the atmosphere? We talk about planting trees, producing biochar, but that's not enough, is it? What else is there?

Bury it again, of course!

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Glo ... ption.html

Is an industry which takes (let's say as a for instance) 10 tonnes of CO2 and sequesters it permanently, for every (say) 1 tonne of CO2 emitted in doing so - while still feeding the people running it - even possible?

It can't feed the people running it. It is an industry which produces nothing at all, so it would have to be paid for by everybody else.

[UndercoverElephant]

Doesn't answer your questions, but may be of interest. This person has a slightly different take on what happened:

http://thedragonstales.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... n-age.html

The really interesting thought is that barring a mass extinction that wipes out the vast, vast majority of everything, perhaps everything in the terrestrial environment, the coal lay down that gave the Carboniferous its name will be a one time event. It will simply be impossible to to have the detrivores that we have today simply go away. The burrowing will not go away. Nor will the fact that the detrivores can now eat a lot more of the fallen plant matter. In fact, angiosperms have a lot less lignin which makes them easier to digest and that in turn makes them more likely to have their nutrients and carbon cycled back through the ecosystem. All of that adds up to there not ever being that much coal being laid down ever again. Ever.

Like the climates of times past, the ecologies never repeat themselves either.

[biffvernon]

The only other Carbon-negative process I can think of off the top of my head is a solar-powered* device for making limestone.

Sea shells? You know, the little things in the sea that turn calcium and carbonate ions into calcite. Trouble is, if there's an excess of carbonate over calcium it all goes into reverse, which makes the shell dissolve.

[emordnilap]

Is an industry which takes (let's say as a for instance) 10 tonnes of CO2 and sequesters it permanently, for every (say) 1 tonne of CO2 emitted in doing so - while still feeding the people running it - even possible?

It can't feed the people running it. It is an industry which produces nothing at all, so it would have to be paid for by everybody else.

This is what I'm trying to get at - is there a use for CO2? Can it be converted into anything? If so, at what energy cost?

I really don't know what the hell I'm asking.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is an industry which takes (let's say as a for instance) 10 tonnes of CO2 and sequesters it permanently, for every (say) 1 tonne of CO2 emitted in doing so - while still feeding the people running it - even possible?

It can't feed the people running it. It is an industry which produces nothing at all, so it would have to be paid for by everybody else.

This is what I'm trying to get at - is there a use for CO2?

Fire extinguishers, making soft drinks fizzy, producing stage "smoke", powering paintball guns, can be used as a refrigerant, and also as a raw material for various chemical processes.

But we produce far more of the stuff than are needed for all these things, and also in most cases the CO2 ends up back in the atmosphere.

[emordnilap]

Right. So it can't be made into something solid (apart from trees and biochar)? Just goes to show my technical knowledge...

[UndercoverElephant]

Right. So it can't be made into something solid (apart from trees and biochar)? Just goes to show my technical knowledge...

It can be turned into calcium carbonate by shelled sea creatures, and that is pretty solid. There just isn't any point in industrially converting it into calcium carbonate, because it's much cheaper to just dig that up

You are searching for something useful to do with all the spare CO2, but there isn't anything.

[UndercoverElephant]

Some places don't have limestone (calcium carbonate) so...

http://www.economist.com/node/14396594

Another way of getting rid of carbon dioxide

Sep 7th 2009

IF HUMANITY is to continue burning fossil fuels in large quantities and yet curb the climate-changing effects of the resulting carbon dioxide, then somewhere other than the atmosphere will have to be found to put that CO2. The leading candidates at the moment are geological traps of the sort that hold natural gas in place; old coal mines; and carbonised plant matter (so-called biochar), which cannot rot and may help improve soil quality. There is even talk of dumping the stuff at the bottom of the sea.

There is, however, another possibility. That is to short-circuit the natural geological process of weathering and use the CO2 to convert volcanic rocks into limestone. A pilot project called CarbFix, intended to test this idea, is under way in Iceland.

Iceland is not overendowed with natural resources. It has fish in its seas, and hydro and geothermal power in its rivers and volcanoes (though only a small market for the resulting electricity). But one thing it is not short of is volcanic rock—and CarbFix may turn this, too, into a resource.

[Tarrel]

Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but isn't growing food one of the best ways to sequester carbon dioxide? Every growing plant will take in carbon dioxide, from root vegetables to fruit trees. The more we plant the more carbon gets taken up.

Who knows, we might even start to lay down a nice reserve of fossil fuels for the folks who follow us in about 500 million years.

Oh yeah, and we get to eat too.

[biffvernon]

No, no. you must not eat it. That way lies respiration and the exhalation of CO2.

And did you miss the piece about why coal formed when it did and can't ever again?

[raspberry-blower]

"Industrial" hemp would be a very useful Carbon negative crop to grow - not only does it sequester Carbon but is also good at soil conditioning. It can be used for a whole range of products - such as plastics, as a building material etc - to boot.

[Tarrel]

Maybe I could eat some of it?

Yes, I missed that bit, but have found it now. The thought of intelligent fungi stalking the earth is quite disconcerting.

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but isn't growing food one of the best ways to sequester carbon dioxide? Every growing plant will take in carbon dioxide, from root vegetables to fruit trees. The more we plant the more carbon gets taken up.

Yes, but it won't be enough. That's what the discussion about geology and evolutionary history is about. Nearly all of the carbon that goes into the vegetation will end up back in the ecosystem, but humans have spent the last 150 years burning a load of coal which was taken out of the ecosystem 300 million years ago. We've been increasing the total amount of carbon in the active ecosystem, and we can't correct that imbalance by growing plants. We have to actually get rid of the CO2 as permanently as the coal was.