At last evening's after-SPOC Advanced Training Session the subject came up about carbon sequestration. It occurred to me that most (if not all) of the talk I've heard on the subject has been about sequestering CO2 (mostly oxygen) and not just the carbon. Have I got that right? If so, why hide away the oxygen with the carbon rather than just to carbon? Any ideas? Thanks, patrick
Patrick, You ever use a rebreather? I mean a 100 percent closed circuit, complete with CO2 scrubbers? Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>:
At last evening's after-SPOC Advanced Training Session the subject came up about carbon sequestration.
It occurred to me that most (if not all) of the talk I've heard on the subject has been about sequestering CO2 (mostly oxygen) and not just the carbon.
Have I got that right?
If so, why hide away the oxygen with the carbon rather than just to carbon?
Any ideas?
Thanks,
patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Patrick, You can sequester CO2 but to only sequester carbon requires the separation of the carbon and oxygen. This requires as much energy as that was released when the carbon was oxydized. In other words, when you burn hydrocarbons and then try to separate the oxygen from the Carbon, you have now spent as much energy in the separation as you consumed in the first place and hence no gain. Rodger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Wiggins" <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
At last evening's after-SPOC Advanced Training Session the subject came up about carbon sequestration.
It occurred to me that most (if not all) of the talk I've heard on the subject has been about sequestering CO2 (mostly oxygen) and not just the carbon.
Have I got that right?
If so, why hide away the oxygen with the carbon rather than just to carbon?
Any ideas?
Thanks,
patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On 27 Jul 2008, at 22:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
You can sequester CO2 but to only sequester carbon requires the separation of the carbon and oxygen. This requires as much energy as that was released when the carbon was oxydized.
Thanks Rodger. That makes sense. Utah-Astronomy knows all. :) patrick
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen: I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced. After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down. Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that. My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Well... Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff. Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this? I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not. On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter. http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits. You can listen to the program via the web at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956 Enjoy! Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that. My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Thats what Portland residents tell me, and my barbecue ashes mix well in my garden areas. Plant life seems to thrive in Portland.
You have to wonder if man is really capable of replacing the function of plants. Seems like a really basic connection between plants and animals, we give them CO2 and they give us O2 and food. It does not seem like pumping CO2 into caverns is "mother nature". Do minerals really have the same potential for processing CO2? Research is great, but limiting CO2 emissions seems more practical. CO2 issues aside... Conservation seems to be being downplayed, too bad government did not take steps 20 years ago. Erik Well...
Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff.
Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this?
I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not.
On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html
Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits.
You can listen to the program via the web at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956
Enjoy!
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Seth pulled this off of wiki-pedia,
Ashfall breaks down over time, forming highly fertile soil, which has made many volcanic regions densely cultivated and inhabited despite the inherent dangers. Erik Well...
Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff.
Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this?
I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not.
On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html
Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits.
You can listen to the program via the web at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956
Enjoy!
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Erik, Thanks for expanding on that theme. I get it that volcanic "ash" breaks down with time and that this enriches the soil. Hawaii is famous for its fertile soils. Is it the phosphorous? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:44 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Seth pulled this off of wiki-pedia,
Ashfall breaks down over time, forming highly fertile soil, which has made many volcanic regions densely cultivated and inhabited despite the inherent dangers. Erik Well...
Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff.
Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this?
I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not.
On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html
Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits.
You can listen to the program via the web at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956
Enjoy!
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Mount Saint Helen Ash is typical of that in the Cascade Range. You are right about the fact that it contains oxides of silica and aluminates but volcanic ash does contain many soluble minerals that are very good for plants. This is one of the reasons that the vegetation in the area has rebounded so well. It does contribute to the growth of plants when mixed with soil. Rodger fry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Jarvis" <SJarvis@slco.org> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Well...
Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff.
Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this?
I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not.
On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html
Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits.
You can listen to the program via the web at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956
Enjoy!
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Geologist Rodger,
What is mechanism of CO2 deposits in minerals? This is what is used in carbon dating right? My impression is that it mostly comes from the plants that decomposed when the rocks formed. Erik Mount Saint Helen Ash is typical of that in the Cascade Range. You are
right about the fact that it contains oxides of silica and aluminates but volcanic ash does contain many soluble minerals that are very good for plants. This is one of the reasons that the vegetation in the area has rebounded so well. It does contribute to the growth of plants when mixed with soil.
Rodger fry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Jarvis" <SJarvis@slco.org> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Well...
Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff.
Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this?
I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not.
On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html
Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits.
You can listen to the program via the web at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956
Enjoy!
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
The charcoal used for soil ammendment & carbon sequestration is definitely NOT equatable at all with volcanic "ash", nor the charcoal byproducts of fire. Read my original post. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material, mostly some form of cellulose, in a closed vessel in the absence of oxygen. The scientist I heard speak was talking about pure carbon charcoal, not burned or otherwise processed. Minerals and water are absorbed by carbon in this form (ever hear of charcoal filters?) and plant roots retrieve them. The idea is to convert organic material to charcoal because it is a "green" process (sequesters more CO2 than it produces, and if done using reflective solar vessels, consumes no other energy) and it effectively sequesters the carbon for tens of thousands of years if tilled into the soil. It also does not tie-up oxygen, which was Patrick's original question. Too, solid carbon in the form of charcoal is much denser that gaseous carbon (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide), therefore is in a much more efficient form for sequestration in terms of volume. It works regardless of soil temperature or location. And by enriching the soil, it becomes more productive, which in turn produces a greater living carbon sink of crops and other plants.
Here is the podcast of the original story I referred to, about using charcoal as both a soil ammendment, and a carbon sink. Also a related story, both from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89562594 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92455289
Erik, In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral. Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones. Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial. ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Geologist Rodger,
What is mechanism of CO2 deposits in minerals? This is what is used in carbon dating right? My impression is that it mostly comes from the plants that decomposed when the rocks formed.
Erik
Mount Saint Helen Ash is typical of that in the Cascade Range. You are
right about the fact that it contains oxides of silica and aluminates but volcanic ash does contain many soluble minerals that are very good for plants. This is one of the reasons that the vegetation in the area has rebounded so well. It does contribute to the growth of plants when mixed with soil.
Rodger fry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Jarvis" <SJarvis@slco.org> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Well...
Calling what came out of Mt. Saint Helens "ash" is a misnomer. It's really a collection of oxides of silica, aluminum, iron, etc. It's basically a bunch of highly abrasive, low-density glass and is pretty nasty stuff.
Are you sure about the gardens benefiting from this?
I'm betting that only way that what fell on Portland would be a beneficial carbon-rich "ash" is if forest fires associated with the eruption mingled their genuine ash with the volcanic fallout. I don't know if that happened or not.
On the subject of using mother nature as a long-term storage facility for unwanted carbon (or CO2), there has just been some pretty cool research published showing the complex and surprisingly effective ways that the waters in the vicinity of the mouth of the Amazon river are fixing atmospheric CO2 and locking them up in plant matter.
http://www.physorg.com/news135878497.html
Also, NPR's "Science Friday" program this past week had an interview with a researcher who proposes piping liquid CO2 from west coast power plants to subterranean caverns _far beneath the Pacific Ocean_ and using the pressure of the ocean to help force the CO2 to bind with minerals in these caverns to form limestone deposits.
You can listen to the program via the web at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92921956
Enjoy!
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
Portland received a couple of feet of that charcoal (volcanic ash) when Mt St Helens went off. The gardens there really benefited from that.
My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on
sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen:
I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced.
After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down.
Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi Rodger, Thanks for your input on this. It's nice to have a geologist on the list. Just goes to prove that UA knows all. I downloaded the latest Science Friday podcasts and, by coincidence, one of the segments was on "Deep-Sea Carbon Sequestration" and featured the director of something called the Borehole Research Group. They talked about liquifying CO2 and pumping it into voids in the ocean floor. The idea is since it's heavier than water it would stay put and eventually react with whatever's down there and turn permanently into chalk. They stated there's room enough in a spot off the NW corner of the us to sequester the next 150 year's worth of the US's CO2 output. More details here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807255 patrick On 28 Jul 2008, at 17:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral.
Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones.
Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial.
As I understand the scrubbing of CO2 is still on the drawing board and a long way off, and unproven. Are not the coal and oil deposits we are mining and drilling natures method of carbon sequestration? Problem is we are using it, and releasing that sequestered CO2, in a couple hundred years when it took nature billions of years to deposit it. The problem of CO2 emissions is manifest in all aspects of society, we have agriculture products that must be shipped long distances at great energy cost, urban sprawl.... Seems we need basic change in energy production and use. It is a process that will take along time and we should go to renewable energy now and not delay.
Chuck's home garden, charcoal aside, is probably one of the best things individuals can do, grow your own veggies and save energy. Seems wind and solar power are really more proven and do not require storing the waste products. CO2 or spent nuclear. Why is it that Europe wants to send their nuclear waste to the United States? I hear some people suggesting oil shale is the answer, but I have also heard that it takes a huge amount of water. I doubt we can put more demands on Western water. Seems in the West water is going to be a bigger issue than energy. Also, one of things climate change will effect greatly in that a lot of fresh water is produced from glacier melt. Mt Killimangero is a major source of fresh water in E. Africa and its glacier is all but gone. Erik Erik Hi Rodger,
Thanks for your input on this. It's nice to have a geologist on the list. Just goes to prove that UA knows all.
I downloaded the latest Science Friday podcasts and, by coincidence, one of the segments was on "Deep-Sea Carbon Sequestration" and featured the director of something called the Borehole Research Group.
They talked about liquifying CO2 and pumping it into voids in the ocean floor. The idea is since it's heavier than water it would stay put and eventually react with whatever's down there and turn permanently into chalk. They stated there's room enough in a spot off the NW corner of the us to sequester the next 150 year's worth of the US's CO2 output.
More details here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807255
patrick
On 28 Jul 2008, at 17:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral.
Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones.
Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Erik, You are absolutely right that our stores of hydrocarbons are in fact natures way of sequestering CO2. The fact that we are combusting these and releasing the CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on CO2 levels in our atmosphere. One of the biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is vulcanism which we have no control. Globally, there exists many very large active volcanoes that collectively contribute significant, (more than man caused) amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. The big concern is to not interfere with the natural oceanic thermocline which acts as a conveyor belt to transport mineral saturated waters into the deep ocean floors where the precipitation of carbonate rocks occur. Without this, the CO2 level in our atmosphere would spiral out of control and life on earth would probably come to an end. Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
As I understand the scrubbing of CO2 is still on the drawing board and a long way off, and unproven. Are not the coal and oil deposits we are mining and drilling natures method of carbon sequestration? Problem is we are using it, and releasing that sequestered CO2, in a couple hundred years when it took nature billions of years to deposit it. The problem of CO2 emissions is manifest in all aspects of society, we have agriculture products that must be shipped long distances at great energy cost, urban sprawl.... Seems we need basic change in energy production and use. It is a process that will take along time and we should go to renewable energy now and not delay.
Chuck's home garden, charcoal aside, is probably one of the best things individuals can do, grow your own veggies and save energy. Seems wind and solar power are really more proven and do not require storing the waste products. CO2 or spent nuclear. Why is it that Europe wants to send their nuclear waste to the United States?
I hear some people suggesting oil shale is the answer, but I have also heard that it takes a huge amount of water. I doubt we can put more demands on Western water. Seems in the West water is going to be a bigger issue than energy. Also, one of things climate change will effect greatly in that a lot of fresh water is produced from glacier melt. Mt Killimangero is a major source of fresh water in E. Africa and its glacier is all but gone.
Erik
Erik
Hi Rodger,
Thanks for your input on this. It's nice to have a geologist on the list. Just goes to prove that UA knows all.
I downloaded the latest Science Friday podcasts and, by coincidence, one of the segments was on "Deep-Sea Carbon Sequestration" and featured the director of something called the Borehole Research Group.
They talked about liquifying CO2 and pumping it into voids in the ocean floor. The idea is since it's heavier than water it would stay put and eventually react with whatever's down there and turn permanently into chalk. They stated there's room enough in a spot off the NW corner of the us to sequester the next 150 year's worth of the US's CO2 output.
More details here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807255
patrick
On 28 Jul 2008, at 17:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral.
Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones.
Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Rodger,
The people who study the ice cores say the start of the industrial revolution is clearly recorded in the cores, by a dramatic increases in CO2 levels. They claim it to be a major atmospheric event in relation to CO2 levels. This seems quite compelling. When CO2 accounts for less than 1% of atmosphere, who really knows what levels will harm homeostasis in our biosphere. How fast does carbonate production occur? My view comes from a biologic POV and biology is ripe with negative human impacts to our environment. Humans can have a profound impact. Erik Erik,
You are absolutely right that our stores of hydrocarbons are in fact natures way of sequestering CO2. The fact that we are combusting these and releasing the CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on CO2 levels in our atmosphere. One of the biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is vulcanism which we have no control. Globally, there exists many very large active volcanoes that collectively contribute significant, (more than man caused) amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere.
The big concern is to not interfere with the natural oceanic thermocline which acts as a conveyor belt to transport mineral saturated waters into the deep ocean floors where the precipitation of carbonate rocks occur. Without this, the CO2 level in our atmosphere would spiral out of control and life on earth would probably come to an end.
Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
As I understand the scrubbing of CO2 is still on the drawing board and a long way off, and unproven. Are not the coal and oil deposits we are mining and drilling natures method of carbon sequestration? Problem is we are using it, and releasing that sequestered CO2, in a couple hundred years when it took nature billions of years to deposit it. The problem of CO2 emissions is manifest in all aspects of society, we have agriculture products that must be shipped long distances at great energy cost, urban sprawl.... Seems we need basic change in energy production and use. It is a process that will take along time and we should go to renewable energy now and not delay.
Chuck's home garden, charcoal aside, is probably one of the best things individuals can do, grow your own veggies and save energy. Seems wind and solar power are really more proven and do not require storing the waste products. CO2 or spent nuclear. Why is it that Europe wants to send their nuclear waste to the United States?
I hear some people suggesting oil shale is the answer, but I have also heard that it takes a huge amount of water. I doubt we can put more demands on Western water. Seems in the West water is going to be a bigger issue than energy. Also, one of things climate change will effect greatly in that a lot of fresh water is produced from glacier melt. Mt Killimangero is a major source of fresh water in E. Africa and its glacier is all but gone.
Erik
Erik
Hi Rodger,
Thanks for your input on this. It's nice to have a geologist on the list. Just goes to prove that UA knows all.
I downloaded the latest Science Friday podcasts and, by coincidence, one of the segments was on "Deep-Sea Carbon Sequestration" and featured the director of something called the Borehole Research Group.
They talked about liquifying CO2 and pumping it into voids in the ocean floor. The idea is since it's heavier than water it would stay put and eventually react with whatever's down there and turn permanently into chalk. They stated there's room enough in a spot off the NW corner of the us to sequester the next 150 year's worth of the US's CO2 output.
More details here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807255
patrick
On 28 Jul 2008, at 17:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral.
Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones.
Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I have to agree with Erik, The question is not what creates the highest percentage of C02, it is what is causing the C02 cycle to become unbalanced. For centuries, the oceans and photosynthesis have been able to remove the C02 put into the atmosphere by animal life, volcanic activity, and the oceans (yes they produce a few percent less than they absorb). The increase in C02 from human petroleum based activity, cement production, and deforestation, adds only about 5%. It is hard to believe that 5% can make such a big difference, until you think about interest rates, or overspending your salary by 5% per year, year after year, or gaining 5% of your base weight each year. After a shorter time than you think, you are either bankrupt, or twice your base weight... (Hmm, does this mindset explain why we are so obese... we don't think 5% is a problem... says the pot of indiscriminate color to the kettle of equally indiscriminate color...) Anyway, yes volcanoes produce a lot of C02, and the earth evolved to handle that amount, It is not that petroleum use is the only source, only that it is the straw that is breaking the camels back, and the only straw that we have real control over. Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
Rodger,
The people who study the ice cores say the start of the industrial revolution is clearly recorded in the cores, by a dramatic increases in CO2 levels. They claim it to be a major atmospheric event in relation to CO2 levels. This seems quite compelling. When CO2 accounts for less than 1% of atmosphere, who really knows what levels will harm homeostasis in our biosphere. How fast does carbonate production occur?
My view comes from a biologic POV and biology is ripe with negative human impacts to our environment. Humans can have a profound impact.
Erik
Erik,
You are absolutely right that our stores of hydrocarbons are in fact natures way of sequestering CO2. The fact that we are combusting these and releasing the CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on CO2 levels in our atmosphere. One of the biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is vulcanism which we have no control. Globally, there exists many very large active volcanoes that collectively contribute significant, (more than man caused) amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere.
The big concern is to not interfere with the natural oceanic thermocline which acts as a conveyor belt to transport mineral saturated waters into the deep ocean floors where the precipitation of carbonate rocks occur. Without this, the CO2 level in our atmosphere would spiral out of control and life on earth would probably come to an end.
Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
As I understand the scrubbing of CO2 is still on the drawing board and a long way off, and unproven. Are not the coal and oil deposits we are mining and drilling natures method of carbon sequestration? Problem is we are using it, and releasing that sequestered CO2, in a couple hundred years when it took nature billions of years to deposit it. The problem of CO2 emissions is manifest in all aspects of society, we have agriculture products that must be shipped long distances at great energy cost, urban sprawl.... Seems we need basic change in energy production and use. It is a process that will take along time and we should go to renewable energy now and not delay.
Chuck's home garden, charcoal aside, is probably one of the best things individuals can do, grow your own veggies and save energy. Seems wind and solar power are really more proven and do not require storing the waste products. CO2 or spent nuclear. Why is it that Europe wants to send their nuclear waste to the United States?
I hear some people suggesting oil shale is the answer, but I have also heard that it takes a huge amount of water. I doubt we can put more demands on Western water. Seems in the West water is going to be a bigger issue than energy. Also, one of things climate change will effect greatly in that a lot of fresh water is produced from glacier melt. Mt Killimangero is a major source of fresh water in E. Africa and its glacier is all but gone.
Erik
Erik
Hi Rodger,
Thanks for your input on this. It's nice to have a geologist on the list. Just goes to prove that UA knows all.
I downloaded the latest Science Friday podcasts and, by coincidence, one of the segments was on "Deep-Sea Carbon Sequestration" and featured the director of something called the Borehole Research Group.
They talked about liquifying CO2 and pumping it into voids in the ocean floor. The idea is since it's heavier than water it would stay put and eventually react with whatever's down there and turn permanently into chalk. They stated there's room enough in a spot off the NW corner of the us to sequester the next 150 year's worth of the US's CO2 output.
More details here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807255
patrick
On 28 Jul 2008, at 17:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral.
Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones.
Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I took a class in Environmental Physiology (in my misspent youth) and the when talking about deforestation, CO2 issues are not on top of the list. What it does to rainfall is number one and in the US, the dust bowl area (from the 30's) is far from stable. One of my professors studied transpiration rates (he tortured plants) and was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work. Global Warming is not really a crisis to earth (whatever the cause) but could be to humans, at least by how many humans the planet can abide. I have heard a lot of the arguments debunking that humans cause CO2 increases but I have never heard their explanation for the spike in CO2 at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The carbon foot print of most Americans is measured in tonnage. The debunkers offer little data of their own and seem to misconstrue the data of others. In God we trust all others bring data. Erik I have to agree with Erik, The question is not what creates the
highest percentage of C02, it is what is causing the C02 cycle to become unbalanced. For centuries, the oceans and photosynthesis have been able to remove the C02 put into the atmosphere by animal life, volcanic activity, and the oceans (yes they produce a few percent less than they absorb). The increase in C02 from human petroleum based activity, cement production, and deforestation, adds only about 5%. It is hard to believe that 5% can make such a big difference, until you think about interest rates, or overspending your salary by 5% per year, year after year, or gaining 5% of your base weight each year. After a shorter time than you think, you are either bankrupt, or twice your base weight... (Hmm, does this mindset explain why we are so obese... we don't think 5% is a problem... says the pot of indiscriminate color to the kettle of equally indiscriminate color...) Anyway, yes volcanoes produce a lot of C02, and the earth evolved to handle that amount, It is not that petroleum use is the only source, only that it is the straw that is breaking the camels back, and the only straw that we have real control over.
Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
Rodger,
The people who study the ice cores say the start of the industrial revolution is clearly recorded in the cores, by a dramatic increases in CO2 levels. They claim it to be a major atmospheric event in relation to CO2 levels. This seems quite compelling. When CO2 accounts for less than 1% of atmosphere, who really knows what levels will harm homeostasis in our biosphere. How fast does carbonate production occur?
My view comes from a biologic POV and biology is ripe with negative human impacts to our environment. Humans can have a profound impact.
Erik
Erik,
You are absolutely right that our stores of hydrocarbons are in fact natures way of sequestering CO2. The fact that we are combusting these and releasing the CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on CO2 levels in our atmosphere. One of the biggest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is vulcanism which we have no control. Globally, there exists many very large active volcanoes that collectively contribute significant, (more than man caused) amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere.
The big concern is to not interfere with the natural oceanic thermocline which acts as a conveyor belt to transport mineral saturated waters into the deep ocean floors where the precipitation of carbonate rocks occur. Without this, the CO2 level in our atmosphere would spiral out of control and life on earth would probably come to an end.
Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: <erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
As I understand the scrubbing of CO2 is still on the drawing board and a long way off, and unproven. Are not the coal and oil deposits we are mining and drilling natures method of carbon sequestration? Problem is we are using it, and releasing that sequestered CO2, in a couple hundred years when it took nature billions of years to deposit it. The problem of CO2 emissions is manifest in all aspects of society, we have agriculture products that must be shipped long distances at great energy cost, urban sprawl.... Seems we need basic change in energy production and use. It is a process that will take along time and we should go to renewable energy now and not delay.
Chuck's home garden, charcoal aside, is probably one of the best things individuals can do, grow your own veggies and save energy. Seems wind and solar power are really more proven and do not require storing the waste products. CO2 or spent nuclear. Why is it that Europe wants to send their nuclear waste to the United States?
I hear some people suggesting oil shale is the answer, but I have also heard that it takes a huge amount of water. I doubt we can put more demands on Western water. Seems in the West water is going to be a bigger issue than energy. Also, one of things climate change will effect greatly in that a lot of fresh water is produced from glacier melt. Mt Killimangero is a major source of fresh water in E. Africa and its glacier is all but gone.
Erik
Erik
Hi Rodger,
Thanks for your input on this. It's nice to have a geologist on the list. Just goes to prove that UA knows all.
I downloaded the latest Science Friday podcasts and, by coincidence, one of the segments was on "Deep-Sea Carbon Sequestration" and featured the director of something called the Borehole Research Group.
They talked about liquifying CO2 and pumping it into voids in the ocean floor. The idea is since it's heavier than water it would stay put and eventually react with whatever's down there and turn permanently into chalk. They stated there's room enough in a spot off the NW corner of the us to sequester the next 150 year's worth of the US's CO2 output.
More details here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807255
patrick
On 28 Jul 2008, at 17:41, Rodger Fry wrote:
In the oceans, CO2 precipitates out of water via biochemical & physical action. Many marine organisms absorb CO2 from sea water and use this in forming their shell in the case of mallusks and crustaceons or their colony as in the case of coral.
Chemically, when CO2 rich waters are drawn deep in the benthic areas of the oceans, the pH and temperature conditions are right for the precipication of Calcium and Magnesium carbonates. This forms the minerals Calcite and Dolomite that are the two most common minerals in marine limestones.
Removal of CO2 from the biosphere occurs through photosynthesis in the chloroplasts of plants both marine and sub-aerial.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Chuck, I heard the same broadcast and I wondered how one could cheaply obtain enough charcoal for a modest yard or garden. Briquettes, as you found, are just too expensive to cover an entire yard. Perhaps the savings in water (one of the benefits, as I recall) would pay for such an investment. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:13 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon? My reply didn't answer Patrick's question. But I can offer this detail on sequestering only the carbon without the oxygen: I heard a recent interview with a scientist on NPR, who advocates using charcoal (relatively pure carbon) as a soil ammendment worldwide. It has the double bonus of both enriching the soil by capturing nutrients, as well as sequestering carbon. Charcoal is produced by heating organic material in an oxygen-poor environment, so one doesn't produce greenhouse-gasses and pollution the way burning the material would. It can be made using sealed solar-heated vessels, and is stable for tens of thousands of years once produced. After hearing this, I purchased a couple bags of commercially made BBQ charcoal, pulverized it with a small sledge hammer, and used it in my vegetable garden this spring. Those bags of charcoal will never be burned- the scientist (who had a strong Chinese accent) said that regular BBQ charcoal was ideal for this purpose if broken down into smaller size pieces. Something I noticed is that BBQ charcoal is surprisingly hard. It took a lot of beating to reduce the size of those chunks. Using a rock tumbler or some kind of crusher mill would be easier, provided powering it didn't release more carbon than the charcoal being broken-down. Too early to tell if the charcoal has had positive results as far as a soil ammendment, I've got good soil to begin with. I also didn't use as much as the scientist recommended per unit area, because of cost and time factors. I might do a couple of bags per year until I'm too old to do it anymore. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I've read, terrestrial carbon sinks are a tiny fraction of the capacity of oceanic sinks. Also, anything humans do in the way of re-forestation or other sequestration is a drop in the bucket compared to the coal tonnage and crude oil volumes brought to the surface and burned.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1577 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 6:55 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1577 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 6:55 AM
Yep, it's definitely nothing we're going to make our money back on. I bought the cheapest brand I could find. I just ground-up two large bags, made about a wheelbarrow bull of charcoal granules and dust (man, what a dirty job!) and dumped a trowel-full into each planting hole before I stuck my tomato start into the hole. The leftover was spaded-under into an area where I typically have a pile of compost cooking, for use next year. I think the scientist was advocating the idea as a start-up industry, and as a way to revitalize over-worked soil in many third-world countries. It's certainly within the technical ability of you or I to make our own solar-powered charcoal generator vessels and make our own, using raw materials that are essentially free. But for now, I did it mostly as an experiement and for the "warm fuzzy" feeling of actually having sequestered some carbon in my own yard, for thousands of years to come. Worth a few dollars. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
Chuck, I heard the same broadcast and I wondered how one could cheaply obtain enough charcoal for a modest yard or garden. Briquettes, as you found, are just too expensive to cover an entire yard. Perhaps the savings in water (one of the benefits, as I recall) would pay for such an investment.
The sun provides energy for plants to take CO2 and turn it into O2, (transpiration). Algae are the major plants that do this, on earth, and I understand there is a belief that the oceans are losing a lot of their ability to sequester the CO2 on the earth. The increase ocean temps are hurting a major species of algae. At least this is what some scientist or saying.
Patrick,
You can sequester CO2 but to only sequester carbon requires the separation of the carbon and oxygen. This requires as much energy as that was released when the carbon was oxydized. In other words, when you burn hydrocarbons and then try to separate the oxygen from the Carbon, you have now spent as much energy in the separation as you consumed in the first place and hence no gain.
Rodger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Wiggins" <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Why not just the carbon?
At last evening's after-SPOC Advanced Training Session the subject came up about carbon sequestration.
It occurred to me that most (if not all) of the talk I've heard on the subject has been about sequestering CO2 (mostly oxygen) and not just the carbon.
Have I got that right?
If so, why hide away the oxygen with the carbon rather than just to carbon?
Any ideas?
Thanks,
patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Algae aside, remember that the solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases as temperature increases. Colder oceans hold more Carbon dioxide...just like beer and soft drinks. The oceans are going "flat" as they warm. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:43 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
The sun provides energy for plants to take CO2 and turn it into O2, (transpiration). Algae are the major plants that do this, on earth, and I understand there is a belief that the oceans are losing a lot of their ability to sequester the CO2 on the earth. The increase ocean temps are hurting a major species of algae. At least this is what some scientist or saying.
Transpiration rates are also affected by temperature. Algae in the Ocean produces the majority of our O2. When they decrease CO2 uptake they also decrease O2 production. We should protect our oceans better.
Algae aside, remember that the solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases
as temperature increases.
Colder oceans hold more Carbon dioxide...just like beer and soft drinks. The oceans are going "flat" as they warm.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:43 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
The sun provides energy for plants to take CO2 and turn it into O2, (transpiration). Algae are the major plants that do this, on earth, and I understand there is a belief that the oceans are losing a lot of their ability to sequester the CO2 on the earth. The increase ocean temps are hurting a major species of algae. At least this is what some scientist or saying.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Patrick Wiggins wrote:
If so, why hide away the oxygen with the carbon rather than just to carbon?
Good question. The technology for carbon fixation, in which carbon from CO2 is captured while releasing O2 to the atmosphere, is not new, but the process requires a reducing agent, typically water, in addition to energy. Fortunately, the required water doesn't have to be particularly pure; even muddy swampwater will usually suffice. The planet is littered with self-replicating machines which implement this technology. We call them plants. :-) Chris
participants (9)
-
Chris -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Josephine Grahn -
Kim -
Patrick Wiggins -
Rodger Fry -
Seth Jarvis