4 ms·
It's a far better idea to dump the carbon in after it has been used for it's energy and is bound up in a more stable configuration, ie biochar (a.k.a. terra pre
by nanomonkey 10y ago
It's a far better idea to dump the carbon in after it has been used for it's energy and is bound up in a more stable configuration, ie biochar (a.k.a. terra preta or low temp charcoal). Biochar is stable in the soil for thousands of years, and provides a matrix on which soil organisms can thrive. There are also some indications that the biochar induces greater plant growth because the residual bio-oils and aromatic hydrocarbons cause the plants to think that there was a recent fire and this is there opportunity to take over.
But more importantly, and to your point, it is a carbon sink, and if made through gasification produces a carbon negative energy source.
- sevenless 10y agoBiochar is also alkaline. Why not dump it in the sea? Then we get a two-fer: capturing carbon and de-acidifying the ocean.
- niels_olson 10y agoPlenty of empty tankers leaving US shores, I'm sure the captains wouldn't mind having a heavier ship, and it shouldn't hurt the fuel efficiency much at all. But, mechanically, how to empty it into the sea? Put conveyers on deck and dump it over the side as you go?
- sevenless 10y agoOr pump it in and out as a slurry. That's typically the most convenient way to handle granular solids.