A Different Way to Sequester Carbon
Johannes Lehmann, a soil scientist at Cornell University, has written an interesting article in the journal Nature on sequestering carbon in soil as biochar (subscription required). Some information on the science of this process is also available at ScienceDaily.com. The process involves heating biomass without oxygen, which produces biochar, a substance with twice as much carbon content than ordinary biomass. This material can then be added to soil.
Biochar locks carbon into the soil for hundreds to perhaps thousands of years, making it a very effective carbon sink. It improves the structure and fertility of soils. Capturing the exhaust from the heating process (pyrolysis) can produce energy such as heat, electricity, biofuel or hydrogen.
Lehmann says biochar sequestration has the potential to turn bioenergy into a carbon-negative industry. He believes this method of carbon sequestration will become attractive when the value of carbon dioxide emissions reaches $37 a tonne. Currently, the Chicago Climate Exchange is trading carbon dioxide at $4 a tonne.
Comments (10)
Laura,
Can you point me to any studies that truly tie CO2 concentrations above 280 ppm to the 1 degree increase we have seen over the last century? You must be annoyed with me or ignoring me by this point. If the study you point me to is sound science I promise I will sell my SUV and jump on the AGW bandwagon. Have you had a chance to read the article on several former AGW supporters? Here's the link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
These scientists are not neutral. They once took the AGW stance but after studying the issue for many years found it to be a poor theory and found that Natural forces were most likely the cause of our 1 degree increase in temp since recovering from the Little Ice Age. A 1.4 degree rise in temp does not sound so bad if you know that it followed a 1.2 degree decrease in temp. If 100 ppm more CO2 is the culprit, it is responsible for a whopping ~.2 degrees.
Posted by Steve | May 17, 2007 12:25 PM
So much for the oceans helping us out:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html
Posted by Mark | May 17, 2007 3:25 PM
The question of whether CO2 or organic/inorganic sediment constitute the largest carbon sink in the ocean needs to be researched. (I'd do it except I'm out of pocket for a few days.) Sediment may be the gift that keeps on giving, as opposed to CO2 solubility.
Posted by ClaudeC | May 17, 2007 8:14 PM
The data are in...April 2007 was the third warmest April globally, and warmest for the Northern Hemisphere.
But hey, it's just a cycle. NOAA are a bunch of socialists who rigged the thermometers so they can inflate the numbers because they want to take away our freedoms and have Communism spread over the world again. How could I be so naive?
Posted by Mark | May 18, 2007 1:54 PM
Isn't this past April warmth considered backyard weather and not climate? Mark you keep telling everyone there is a difference between what yesterday's weather was compared to climate. Please enlighten us to the point when weather can be called climate.
Posted by SM | May 18, 2007 3:28 PM
Mark,
Third warmest in how long? Since the beginning of time. Honestly, how much are you paid to promote panic?
Posted by Rose | May 18, 2007 9:52 PM
Uhhh, SM, I don't think GLOBAL temperatures constitute "backyard" weather. Unless the entire planet is your backyard. By itself, the April numbers I posted don't prove or disprove anything, but when placed in the context of the extreme warmth of the past 20 years, the picture continues to become clearer...and it shows humans contributing significantly to climate change.
Rose,
How much are you paid to stick your head in the sand? The only argument you ever make - it seems - is that we don't have weather records from, say, 3 billion years ago. It's a convenient argument to make because even if the Earth warmed by, for example, 10 degrees, you can always sit there and say, "Well, y'know, the weather was warmer right after the 'Big Bang' happened."
It's a foolish argument.
Posted by Mark | May 20, 2007 11:26 PM
Mark replied:
Uhhh, SM, I don't think GLOBAL temperatures constitute "backyard" weather. Unless the entire planet is your backyard.
I never said it was MY backyard, but it is SOMEONES backyard.
Mark replied: By itself, the April numbers I posted don't prove or disprove anything, but when placed in the context of the extreme warmth of the past 20 years, the picture continues to become clearer...and it shows humans contributing significantly to climate change.
So when one month of warmer than average weather occurs it solidifies your point but if it's cold weather it means nothing and you call it backyard weather.
Posted by SM | May 21, 2007 9:54 AM
SM,
GLOBAL temperatures relate to GLOBAL warming. It's all of our backyards, and the air temps above the ocean surface as well.
And what part of my statement saying that the April numbers are powerful when used in CONTEXT of the past 20 years don't you understand?
Key word: context.
Posted by Mark | May 23, 2007 10:26 AM
Mark,
Your claim of "extreme warmth" over the last 20 years is completely unsubstantiated.
Many arctic locations have been running well below normal this summer. Many places in the southern hemisphere have shown no warming over the last 20 years, and most US locations were warmer in the 1930s or 1950s than they are now.
Posted by Patrick Henry | June 5, 2007 10:16 AM