7 ms·

Hi, European here Yes, Carbon sequestering and storage underground is something that brings out all the usual tin-foil hatters from Greenpeace to the alt-right

by iSnow 5y ago

Hi, European here Yes, Carbon sequestering and storage underground is something that brings out all the usual tin-foil hatters from Greenpeace to the alt-right who fantasize about "gassing the population". What I am wondering is why we are not planting billions of trees, harvest them, make charcoal and stuff it underground. Or grow algae on roofs and use them to harvest carbon.

tito 5y ago
I like those solutions! We aren't doing that because few people are working on solutions. About 1,000 people work in carbon removal worldwide. The solution space is large. Lots to work on.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Reforesting is a complicated task, it is nothing like for (int i = 0; i<= 100000000; i++) { Tree t = new Tree(); t.plant(); } You need specific types of trees for specific microclimates, otherwise they won't thrive and might die. You need a healthy species mixture, otherwise you are creating monocultures vulnerable to mass pest infestation. You need the right amount of rain. You should not reforest good arable land, because we are almost 8 billion now and everyone wants to eat. Israelis are very good at reforestation, but it took them over 100 years to recreate some modest forests there.
- gitanovic 5y ago
  we should just stop cutting, burning, and remove forest space... trees are very good at replanting themselves, they had hundred of million of years to perfect it
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Oh, yes, no doubt about that. We shouldn't be reducing total tree cover.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    but a stable forest is carbon neutral. The actual removal occurs when you cut the large trees and bury their wood in deep mines.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      Why would you bury perfectly good wood? What you are talking about already happens, there is net reforestation just due to the demand for wood. As far as pure sequestration goes, fast growing plants like hemp are better candidates.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
      Better than burying wood: Make charcoal. Use the waste heat. Put the charcoal back in the soil, so you're not depleting it of phosphates, minerals, or nitrogen. Repeat. Maybe you can even use the waste heat to run the Haber process.
FooHentai 5y ago
I'll echo this - The technological developments we need to sequester gigatonnes of carbon at the level that it would make a difference already exists and are in common use, at scale, today. In my assessment most work on novel carbon capture technology is really working out how to make something that's profitable. I'm not confident it's an area of research likely to bear fruit although I also don't want to sound like I'm putting down folks who are doing much more than me here armchair judging. Aside from growing then burying cellulose or cooking it off into carbon, you could also pyrolize it into a liquid form via a self-feeding process if your preferred form of sequestration is to pump it back underground i.e. into previous extraction fields. Direct air capture is something that makes me doubly wary - Aside from the carbon-density-in-air issue, return-on-energy-invested is a key metric I don't see enough emerging encouraging information about. Incorporating the acres of wind, solar, or hydro required to power a DAC solution, the usual land-use objection to a forestry-based carbon removal approach would seem to evaporate pretty quick.
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Certainly. Organic farms dump tonnes of compost per acre on their farms every year, almost all of it imported from off their property. I would love to have a good clean home biochar solution to increase the carbon content of the soil of my farm. Something I can stuff prunings and grass and brush cuttings and leaves into, flip a switch, and get carbon out of. But right now it's mostly DIY solutions that look of varying quality and still generate some smoke. Wouldn't it be great if every suburban neighbourhood had an efficient pyrolysis chamber that processed the organic waste from the surrounding area?
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  I feel that terra preta is the way to go. You use plants to concentrate carbon. You make biochar. And then you put it back in the soil, so you're not depleting it of nitrogen, phosphates, and minerals. The waste heat that you get from making the biochar is useful energy -- solar energy, really -- that you can use to heat homes, make hot water, and run heat engines. Maybe even the Haber process too? The chief challenge I see is how to reduce human labor requirements without increasing capital requirements too much. I'm also a little concerned about eventually diluting the soil with too much biochar. Because you're sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, but the amount of phosphates and such is remaining constant.

by iSnow 5y ago

tito 5y ago

I like those solutions! We aren't doing that because few people are working on solutions. About 1,000 people work in carbon removal worldwide. The solution space is large. Lots to work on.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Reforesting is a complicated task, it is nothing like for (int i = 0; i<= 100000000; i++) { Tree t = new Tree(); t.plant(); } You need specific types of trees for specific microclimates, otherwise they won't thrive and might die. You need a healthy species mixture, otherwise you are creating monocultures vulnerable to mass pest infestation. You need the right amount of rain. You should not reforest good arable land, because we are almost 8 billion now and everyone wants to eat. Israelis are very good at reforestation, but it took them over 100 years to recreate some modest forests there.

gitanovic 5y ago
we should just stop cutting, burning, and remove forest space... trees are very good at replanting themselves, they had hundred of million of years to perfect it
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Oh, yes, no doubt about that. We shouldn't be reducing total tree cover.
- enriquto 5y ago
  but a stable forest is carbon neutral. The actual removal occurs when you cut the large trees and bury their wood in deep mines.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Why would you bury perfectly good wood? What you are talking about already happens, there is net reforestation just due to the demand for wood. As far as pure sequestration goes, fast growing plants like hemp are better candidates.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    Better than burying wood: Make charcoal. Use the waste heat. Put the charcoal back in the soil, so you're not depleting it of phosphates, minerals, or nitrogen. Repeat. Maybe you can even use the waste heat to run the Haber process.

FooHentai 5y ago

I'll echo this - The technological developments we need to sequester gigatonnes of carbon at the level that it would make a difference already exists and are in common use, at scale, today. In my assessment most work on novel carbon capture technology is really working out how to make something that's profitable. I'm not confident it's an area of research likely to bear fruit although I also don't want to sound like I'm putting down folks who are doing much more than me here armchair judging. Aside from growing then burying cellulose or cooking it off into carbon, you could also pyrolize it into a liquid form via a self-feeding process if your preferred form of sequestration is to pump it back underground i.e. into previous extraction fields. Direct air capture is something that makes me doubly wary - Aside from the carbon-density-in-air issue, return-on-energy-invested is a key metric I don't see enough emerging encouraging information about. Incorporating the acres of wind, solar, or hydro required to power a DAC solution, the usual land-use objection to a forestry-based carbon removal approach would seem to evaporate pretty quick.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

Certainly. Organic farms dump tonnes of compost per acre on their farms every year, almost all of it imported from off their property. I would love to have a good clean home biochar solution to increase the carbon content of the soil of my farm. Something I can stuff prunings and grass and brush cuttings and leaves into, flip a switch, and get carbon out of. But right now it's mostly DIY solutions that look of varying quality and still generate some smoke. Wouldn't it be great if every suburban neighbourhood had an efficient pyrolysis chamber that processed the organic waste from the surrounding area?

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
I feel that terra preta is the way to go. You use plants to concentrate carbon. You make biochar. And then you put it back in the soil, so you're not depleting it of nitrogen, phosphates, and minerals. The waste heat that you get from making the biochar is useful energy -- solar energy, really -- that you can use to heat homes, make hot water, and run heat engines. Maybe even the Haber process too? The chief challenge I see is how to reduce human labor requirements without increasing capital requirements too much. I'm also a little concerned about eventually diluting the soil with too much biochar. Because you're sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, but the amount of phosphates and such is remaining constant.