Carbon Removal 8

[Carbodynamics]

thread730-443054
CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere and separated into solid carbon and oxygen gas. Essentially unburning carbon.
Switching to renewable energy sources will reduce CO2 emissions however it won't remove excess CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels.
2Mg + CO2 ⇌ 2MgO + C
Solid carbon submerged is relatively inert and compact.
Electrolytically recovering the Mg and collecting CO2 will require energy from renewable sources. This is the mechanism that I propose. Does anyone have any arguments against using it to sequester atmospheric CO2?

 

[IRstuff]

I normally have charcoal as a waste as the fire ends late at night.

It's the other "waste" that everyone is concerned about that went up the chimney, CO2, soot, etc.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[moltenmetal]

The CO2 from burning wood is not an issue. It was in the atmosphere between 1 and 100 yrs ago, you're just returning it as part of the carbon cycle.

Wood ash and char are excellent agricultural soil amendments when used properly.

The soot, NOx, CO etc. is a matter of HOW wood is combusted. A catalytic woodstove has pretty reasonable emissions but you certainly wouldn't want every house in a dense urban area heating with wood. Thank goodness there are heatpumps so we don't have to burn stuff every time we need low grade comfort heat, though of course if you ignore the cost of CO2 disposal to the atmosphere, natural gas is a very cheap fuel and hard for anything else to compete with.

(

http://www.spitfireresearch.com)

 

[cranky108]

Because my soil tends to be too low in the PH range. wood ash does not make a good soil amendment here. So it is land filled with the other trash. If you know of anyone who wants it, and is willing to pick it up, let me know.
Natural gas is not an option where I live, as I don't live in town.
Other heat options are propane, or electric. I suppose if I tried hard enough, I could get coal, but wood is much easer.
Besides, I use mostly waste wood that has been cut by someone else. I just pick it up and process it (cut, split, and stack).
Also available to me is construction waste, but those 2X4 cutoff's burn too fast.

I think pellet wood stoves is a good way to reduce waste wood, and heat a home, but the plastic bags they come in is a problem. Maybe if there was a delivery service that would fill a bin, like the oil services back east (or so I hear).
Most pellet stoves lend themselves well to a computer controller, and a thermostat control.

I did have one years ago, and the problem is the price break was at purchasing a ton, but I only have a half ton pickup.
It produced very little ash, which was nice, but parts were hard to get for things like blowers, and no service available.

 

[moltenmetal]

Wood ash will raise soil pH- it's a good amendment for that purpose, unless you want to grow something like rhododendrons or conifers.

(

http://www.spitfireresearch.com)

 

[cranky108]

Maybe I have the PH scale back words.
I need to add acid to my soil. Wood ash tends to make the soil so that only weeds grow.

 

[IRstuff]

low Ph --> (0 to 7) acidic

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[moltenmetal]

If your soil is too alkaline and you need to add acid, you're in a lucky situation. Just decomposing organic matter tends to lower soil pH. But yeah, in that case you wouldn't want to be adding wood ash. Most people have it the other way around- not enough carbonate in the soil to buffer pH and the impacts of previous acid rain etc. leaving soil pH too low to grow some things.

(

http://www.spitfireresearch.com)

 

[RobertJeffery]

1. How was it determined that there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere?
2. Haven't ice cores and ocean sediment sample found higher and lower CO2 concentrations in the past?
3. Didn't James Croll explain that the wobble of the earth, the feedback of snow reflecting heat back into space, and the spirograph type orbital patterns of earth around the sun over time leads to major climate change (Ice Age(s)) over time?
4. Is it not true that a unit of land with grass growing has more chlorophyll than an equal unit with trees? More chlorophyll equals more CO2 removed? The same ratio is for algae to grass to trees?

http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/james-croll-janitor-scientist-global-warming/

 

[LittleWheels]

Do we have to go through this crap again?

 

[cranky108]

Interesting note, grass has about the right ratio of C/N for composting. Or making biogas. Save your lawn clippings, they might become valuable.
Problem with trying to grow grass, is it needs lots of water, and many places just don't have the water.

Natural trees is the answer. No work feeding then, or watering them. And harvest is a one time process.

 

[GregLocock]

The climate of the Earth is difficult to characterise and measure. One subset of climate is the average global temperature over a suitable time period, measured near the Earth's surface. This temperature has varied historically over a wide range. It is affected by many factors, both known and unknown. The main factor is the albedo of the Earth and the incoming energy from the Sun. These two directly interact and the combined effect raises the temperature of the Earth by about 250 deg C, from the background temperature of space which is about -270 deg C . The next most significant effect is the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which raises the temperature by about 33 deg C. This is due to several mechanisms associated with turning incoming EM waves into heat (badly phrased) , and also complex interactions with the heat radiated by the Earth's surface, and probably some other knowns and unknowns. The greenhouse effect is affected by the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, and clouds. The most important gas for greenhouse is water vapour, approximately 80% of the non-cloud greenhouse effect is due to that. Water also directly affects the albedo of the Earth by forming clouds and snow and ice. Of the remainder the majority is due to CO2. In the absence of any other effects a further doubling of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere would be expected to raise the temperature by rather less than, but approximately, 1 deg C. However, this is a very weak effect and is easily dominated over any timescale from hours to hundreds of millions of years by the many known and unknown factors. There may be positive or negative feedbacks associated with temperature changes, which may modify this 1 deg figure. There are certainly simple feedback effects associated with CO2 levels, eg the greening of the Earth (

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth)

which will affect both the Earth's albedo and weather patterns. On the other hand the melting of the Arctic ice cap will reduce the earth's albedo, so that's a positive feedback. One other overwhelmingly strong effect on an hourly to century timescale (at least) is the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere. The thermal capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times that of the atmosphere. That is, cooling the ocean by 0.01 deg C (that's the limit of resolution of a thermometer typically, accuracy is perhaps 0.1 deg C) would provide enough heat to heat the atmosphere by 10 deg C. The interaction between oceans and atmosphere is hugely complex and data is lacking.

As to where the CO2 comes from - if you add up all the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels since 1880, it is about twice as much as the change in CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the DOE we've emitted 389 E12 kg of C. In that time the ppm of CO2 has increased from 280 to 400 and the mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480E18. The mean molecular mass of the atmosphere is 29 and CO2 is 44 obviously. So the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 280E-6*44/29*5.1E18=2.2E15 kg to 400E-6*44/29*5.1E18=3.1E15 kg

And from the above we've created 389E12*44/12=1.4 E15 kg, of which 0.9E15 is still in the atmosphere (glad that came out right!)


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[3DDave]

What I'm waiting for is the exposure and release of truly amazing amounts of methane that has been trapped in the permafrost; methane is significantly more effective at capturing infrared radiation. In thermal cameras release of natural gas can appear opaque. When Alaska and Siberia all rot the pace will really take off.

 

[davefitz]

The "natural " way to sequester carbon is to grow trees. What is more important is that the argument that anthropogenic CO2 is warming the environment in a significant or negative manner is technically incorrect.

Refer to Youtube videos by Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark and Murry Salby for the technical presentations of how the earth's climate is primarily modified by the amount of low level ( tropospheric) clouds, and how the amount of clouds is related to the amount of cosmic radiation recieved by the earth. That radiation varies over time as the earth( and the solar system) moves closer to ( or farther from ) supernovas ( over millions of years) and also the strength of the sun's magnetic field , which varies over centuries. The current low level of solar magnetic activity points to a coming reduction in earth's tropospheric temperatures over the next 40 yrs ( similar to the Maunder minimum). This will likely lead to crop failures as the growing season shrinks, and history records such climate cooling events with coincident crop failures. The computer models used by the IPCC do not recognize this effect and as a result all of its predictions and claims have been proven false. It is amazing how many times they can cry wolf and anyone pays attention to them.

Higher levels of CO2 improve crop production, and consuming additional energy in order to remove CO2 from the atmosphere not only harms crop production but also increases the rate at which we consume finite fossil fuels. The main problem that current society faces is not global warming, but is the need to adjust the rate of consumption of fossil fuels so as to enable a stable future for society. While most of the measures proposed to stop "climate change" are also consistent with the reduction of consumption of fossil fuels, the idea that we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is actually the worst thing we should be doing.In economic terms, the primary economic driver for removal of CO2 is for its industrial use in tertiary oil recovery and proposed methanation of hydrogen derived from electrolysis.

Another side comment on the false "climate change" issue includes the fact that the historical record for CO2 vs time and Temp vs time demonstrate that the temperature changes first and the CO2 changes about 800 yrs later ( due to de-gassing of CO2 from the ocean) .

Other "limits to growth" that may be feeding the eugenicist's fantasies and may be used to justify the ongoing measures to lower fertility include a limit on available fertilizer components and a loss of control of information to the masses ( internet) , similar to the social changes that occurred after the Guttenberg printing press. May you live in interesting times.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick