4 ms·

Burning Crops to Capture Carbon?

15 points by prostoalex 4y ago

ericabiz 4y ago
https://archive.ph/lYc66 https://archive.ph/lYc66
reacharavindh 4y ago
I wonder if there are a certain variety of plants that use more CO2 from air to grow, we could farm them industrially and at a point when they are not suing as much CO2 from air, we cut them down to bur them deep underground(as carbon storage). Sure, this trades fresh water, usable land, and labor for capturing CO2, but at times of dire need, could it be an alternative to Direct Air Capture systems?
- mdorazio 4y ago
  You’ve just described trees. And forestry in general, except with a different endpoint for the felled trees. This has been proposed many times for as long as I can remember, but the bottom line is the same as other sequestration methods: someone has to pay for it and no one is willing to.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    I feel like this proposal (from the article) is a little novel. We usually see biofuels for carbon-neutral power (the plants get the carbon from the air, we release it back) or carbon-capture from fossil fuels (we dig up coal and capture the CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere), and we've previously seen "bury a bunch of trees" as a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This proposal is biofuels + carbon-capture to both generate power and remove carbon from the atmosphere. The advantage of this solution is that -- while it's still more costly than biofuels alone or carbon-capture alone or just digging up oil and burning it into the atmosphere -- it should at least be an energy/money-generating operation, just less profitable than many of the competitors.
- adrianN 4y ago
  The least labor intensive option for biological carbon capture are probably algae farms. But to make a dent in our emissions you'd need a mind boggling area dedicated to them.
- sophacles 4y ago
  Well some plants use C4 photosynthesis rather than C3[1]. Im not sure if the efficiency[2] of that process results in more net carbon capture though when it's all said and done. I should note I'm not a biologist at all, hoping someone with more knowledge can chime in.[3] [1] https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-... [2] https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_supply/student_materials/1167 https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_... [3] I don't think I'm advocating for more industrial corn, a C4 plant either, unless that actually helps.
axus 4y ago
A modified organism that produced carbon heavy enough to sink to the ocean floor and stay there would be ideal. Getting rid of it after enough carbon has been captured could be an issue, though.

15 points by prostoalex 4y ago

https://archive.ph/lYc66 https://archive.ph/lYc66

I wonder if there are a certain variety of plants that use more CO2 from air to grow, we could farm them industrially and at a point when they are not suing as much CO2 from air, we cut them down to bur them deep underground(as carbon storage). Sure, this trades fresh water, usable land, and labor for capturing CO2, but at times of dire need, could it be an alternative to Direct Air Capture systems?

mdorazio 4y ago
You’ve just described trees. And forestry in general, except with a different endpoint for the felled trees. This has been proposed many times for as long as I can remember, but the bottom line is the same as other sequestration methods: someone has to pay for it and no one is willing to.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  I feel like this proposal (from the article) is a little novel. We usually see biofuels for carbon-neutral power (the plants get the carbon from the air, we release it back) or carbon-capture from fossil fuels (we dig up coal and capture the CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere), and we've previously seen "bury a bunch of trees" as a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This proposal is biofuels + carbon-capture to both generate power and remove carbon from the atmosphere. The advantage of this solution is that -- while it's still more costly than biofuels alone or carbon-capture alone or just digging up oil and burning it into the atmosphere -- it should at least be an energy/money-generating operation, just less profitable than many of the competitors.
adrianN 4y ago
The least labor intensive option for biological carbon capture are probably algae farms. But to make a dent in our emissions you'd need a mind boggling area dedicated to them.
sophacles 4y ago
Well some plants use C4 photosynthesis rather than C3[1]. Im not sure if the efficiency[2] of that process results in more net carbon capture though when it's all said and done. I should note I'm not a biologist at all, hoping someone with more knowledge can chime in.[3] [1] https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-... [2] https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_supply/student_materials/1167 https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/food_... [3] I don't think I'm advocating for more industrial corn, a C4 plant either, unless that actually helps.

axus 4y ago

A modified organism that produced carbon heavy enough to sink to the ocean floor and stay there would be ideal. Getting rid of it after enough carbon has been captured could be an issue, though.