SkepticLance Posted December 27, 2008 Author Posted December 27, 2008 scalbers I agree with your conclusions. Ocean fertilisation is just too uncertain to make use of to sequester carbon at this point in time. I am more of a fan of the terra preta system, myself. It ties in beautifully with the need to generate biofuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta Imagine that we start with, say wood waste from the forest industry. That waste is heated in the absense of oxygen, to drive off volatiles while leaving carbon behind. Hydrogen gas is generated on site - perhaps using nuclear power? Hydrogen gas is mixed with the volatile stream and the whole is passed over a heated catalyst, before distillation and catalytic cracking. Result - hydrocarbon fuel. The carbon is then mixed with fertiliser and plowed into fields. This makes a long term carbon storage - up to thousands of years - and improves soil tilth and fertility. It has been calculated that if the half of the Earth's land area that is arable were to gain 2 mm in thickness from this method over 50 years, it woud sequester all the CO2 released by humans over that time. It would also immeasurably improve soil structure and fertility, and make food production far more productive. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004815.html
scalbers Posted December 27, 2008 Posted December 27, 2008 (edited) Yes, I'm also a Terra Preta fan so glad to see more of them on this forum. There is a thread on TP that you may have seen here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23533 Edited December 27, 2008 by scalbers
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now