Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[Sam Carana]

The "only" method? Why not start with biochar burial? That would have
the additional benefit of making soil more fertile, help water
retention and prevent erosion. Current farming practices all too often
result in loss of carbon from the soil, which eventually ends up in
the atmosphere. This would also mitigate the point that Greg Rau
brings up, i.e. that removing crop waste from the land would come with
a need for additional fertilization of the soil.

Apart from the benefits for the soil, it would seem to me that this a
cheaper solution than to bury carbon deep underneath the ocean.
Furthermore, some of the carbon could be used for industrial purposes,
such as for making carbon fiber, in the building industry, etc.

So, why not start with pyrolysis of organic waste at relatively low
temperatures, and then using the char for agricultural and industrial
purposes.

Cheers!
Sam Carana




On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Greg Rau <ra...@llnl.gov> wrote:
> Congrats!. Will read with interest. In the meantime my questions are:
> 1) does this differ in concept from Metzger and Benford 2001?
> 2) crop residues contain other things besides C, such as N, P, trace
> elements, etc. By removing these from land won't this require greater
> fertilizer use to maintain crop production?
> 3) Barring dumping in existing anoxic zones, might (some) decomposition in
> water column/sed surface impact deep (and eventually via circulation,
> surface) ocean chemistry and biology?
> Thanks,
> Greg
> go dawgs
>
> We have just published the following peer reviewed article in Environmental
> Science and Technology:
>
>
>
> Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon
> Back to Deep Sediments
>
> Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford
>
>
>
> For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must
> process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester carbon
> for thousands of years, be practical, economical and be implemented soon.
> The only method that meets these criteria is removal of crop residues and
> burial in the deep ocean. We show here that this method is 92% efficient in
> sequestration of crop residue carbon while cellulosic ethanol production is
> only 32% and soil sequestration is about 14% efficient. Deep ocean
> sequestration can potentially capture 15% of the current global CO2 annual
> increase, returning that carbon back to deep sediments, confining the carbon
> for millennia, while using existing capital infrastructure and technology.
> Because of these clear advantages, we recommend enhanced research into
> permanent sequestration of crop residues in the deep ocean.
>
>
>
> Available on line here:
>
>
>
> http:// pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag
>
>
>
> or email me requesting a reprint
>
>
>
> = Stuart =
>
>
>
> Stuart E. Strand
>
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
>
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
>
> skype: stuartestrand
>
> http:// faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/
>
>
>
> Using only muscle power, who is the fastest person in the world?
>
> Flying start, 200 m 82.3 mph! http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham
>
> Hour http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
>
> 55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first!
>
>
>
>
> >
>