4 ms·

Some sort of carbon capture and storage situation seems more likely at this point, though I haven't yet seen any proposals that I think would get the backing th

Some sort of carbon capture and storage situation seems more likely at this point, though I haven't yet seen any proposals that I think would get the backing they need to be effective. Is this what you meant by terraforming, or something else entirely?

chewbacha 9y ago
How about we grow corn (or other fast growing biomass like kelp) and bury it?
- thinkling 9y ago
  I believe decaying plant matter generally emits green house gasses. (See for example emissions from biomass collecting behind dams; there were headlines about this in the past year.) So you'd have to bury the biomass to prevent rot and/or gas leaks. That means digging big holes and/or transporting biomass to the holes and/or fabricating/moving material to cover the biomass. All that work uses energy and thus produces GHG. It's probably hard to come out ahead.
  - chewbacha 9y ago
    The carbon it emits comes from carbon fixation from photosynthesis. So long as some carbon is sequestered in the soil, it’s net negative.
- bluGill 9y ago
  it still decays to things that release that CO2, plus burying things uses a lot of energy. If this a serious proposal you should be thinking grow it, wait for it to dry out and burn it - the fire will not be hot enough to turn all the carbon into CO2, the remainder is elemental carbon (read charcoal) in a form not usable to life. That carbon is also biochar which is actually useful to improve the soil. This is most easily done in forest, but note that you need regular forest fires, otherwise the fire is hot enough to run all the carbon into CO2 and we didn't gain anything. Thus most of the forest fires you read about are bad - but if we change our policy after the fire and burn those forests often we can make them a net negative CO2.
  - Reason077 9y ago
    Alternatively we could also grow forests and, rather than burn them, harvest the wood for constructing furniture, buildings, etc, that will survive long-term. Hopefully, the wood can be recycled when the buildings reach their end of life rather than being burnt or decomposed. But I suspect we'll need a lot of forests to compensate for the current rate of fossil-fuel use.
    - Roodgorf 9y ago
      As I understand it a push for more bamboo would be great for this. It's relatively quick growing and useful for a lot of various building materials. You could sequester a lot of CO2 in bamboo that would be fairly useful and take a lot less processing than other types of wood.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        The trouble is that even bamboo requires marginally arable land which is at premium, fails to grow in cold conditions of most Europe and chunk of US and Russia. The area required to make a dent in CO2 sequestration would be a bunch of countries sized. Secondary problem would be handling all of that junk. You cannot burn it, have to bury it instead.
        Roodgorf 9y ago
        That's fair. Though I will say I don't think any single armed approach to sequestration will be anywhere close to reasonable, so exploring any avenue with decent margins, especially if there's any current practical value to it, seems like a smart idea. What do you mean by "you can't burn it"? It would release some amount of CO2, but as another commenter points out, there would still be a non-zero amount of left over carbon, no?
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        Well, exploring bad options is a waste of time, luxury we don't have unfortunately. If you want to go full genetic engineered plants, there are better options out there.
super-serial 9y ago
My favorite is crushing and spreading olivine rocks: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... It's a natural process and we just have to mine as many rocks as we dig up oil. We just need to catch up for the last few hundred years where we only dug up oil and no rocks. It still seems like the least expensive option.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  It is certainly an option, but likely not enough. Even catalysed, the rock work very slow and require additional power input to maintain at optimal condition. The other problem is transporting them rt places where they would be most effective - near cities and factories.

chewbacha 9y ago

How about we grow corn (or other fast growing biomass like kelp) and bury it?

thinkling 9y ago
I believe decaying plant matter generally emits green house gasses. (See for example emissions from biomass collecting behind dams; there were headlines about this in the past year.) So you'd have to bury the biomass to prevent rot and/or gas leaks. That means digging big holes and/or transporting biomass to the holes and/or fabricating/moving material to cover the biomass. All that work uses energy and thus produces GHG. It's probably hard to come out ahead.
- chewbacha 9y ago
  The carbon it emits comes from carbon fixation from photosynthesis. So long as some carbon is sequestered in the soil, it’s net negative.
bluGill 9y ago
it still decays to things that release that CO2, plus burying things uses a lot of energy. If this a serious proposal you should be thinking grow it, wait for it to dry out and burn it - the fire will not be hot enough to turn all the carbon into CO2, the remainder is elemental carbon (read charcoal) in a form not usable to life. That carbon is also biochar which is actually useful to improve the soil. This is most easily done in forest, but note that you need regular forest fires, otherwise the fire is hot enough to run all the carbon into CO2 and we didn't gain anything. Thus most of the forest fires you read about are bad - but if we change our policy after the fire and burn those forests often we can make them a net negative CO2.
- Reason077 9y ago
  Alternatively we could also grow forests and, rather than burn them, harvest the wood for constructing furniture, buildings, etc, that will survive long-term. Hopefully, the wood can be recycled when the buildings reach their end of life rather than being burnt or decomposed. But I suspect we'll need a lot of forests to compensate for the current rate of fossil-fuel use.
  - Roodgorf 9y ago
    As I understand it a push for more bamboo would be great for this. It's relatively quick growing and useful for a lot of various building materials. You could sequester a lot of CO2 in bamboo that would be fairly useful and take a lot less processing than other types of wood.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      The trouble is that even bamboo requires marginally arable land which is at premium, fails to grow in cold conditions of most Europe and chunk of US and Russia. The area required to make a dent in CO2 sequestration would be a bunch of countries sized. Secondary problem would be handling all of that junk. You cannot burn it, have to bury it instead.
      - Roodgorf 9y ago
        That's fair. Though I will say I don't think any single armed approach to sequestration will be anywhere close to reasonable, so exploring any avenue with decent margins, especially if there's any current practical value to it, seems like a smart idea. What do you mean by "you can't burn it"? It would release some amount of CO2, but as another commenter points out, there would still be a non-zero amount of left over carbon, no?
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        Well, exploring bad options is a waste of time, luxury we don't have unfortunately. If you want to go full genetic engineered plants, there are better options out there.

super-serial 9y ago

My favorite is crushing and spreading olivine rocks: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli... It's a natural process and we just have to mine as many rocks as we dig up oil. We just need to catch up for the last few hundred years where we only dug up oil and no rocks. It still seems like the least expensive option.

AstralStorm 9y ago
It is certainly an option, but likely not enough. Even catalysed, the rock work very slow and require additional power input to maintain at optimal condition. The other problem is transporting them rt places where they would be most effective - near cities and factories.