Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   New technology could stop global warming by turning CO2 into booze   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 133
    More: Hero, global warming, carbon dioxide, CO2 into booze, free electrons, Panasonic, greenhouse gases, Earth, artificial photosynthesis  
•       •       •

9188 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 10:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 11:47:17 AM  

theorellior: There are some experiments in using biochar (basically, charcoal) to both sequester carbon and to stabilize and enhance soils.


Reading more about this. Sounds like a good byproduct for agricultural waste products. Bio-oil and Syngas as well as biochar are the products of using essentially 'the rest of the plant'. Could be a potential intermediary in rural communities - sell the crop and instead of tilling the leavings back into the soil - process them for their energy value and reclaim some carbon as fertilizer. As long as the products can be sold for enough money to cover the costs of production + costs of hauling in plant waste into the facility this could work. Using technology to glean every last bit of energy out of the plant - not just harvesting the fruit and seeds.
 
2013-01-25 11:47:44 AM  

little Jeff: Um, I'm pretty sure the problem isn't CO2, it's CO.   Isn't Carbon MONOXIDE the primary pollutant from internal combustion engines and the source of all the greenie whining?


Have you ever heard of catalytic converters?
 
2013-01-25 11:50:24 AM  

Tatterdemalian: theorellior: Tatterdemalian: Yep, like biofuels.

Question for the novice--it is better to turn already-sequestered carbon into CO2, or use existing CO2 to make fuels to burn?

Doesn't matter. The sequestered CO2 is going to be burned off anyhow, at the refinery if not in your gas tanks.

/your solar cells aren't going to emerge fully formed from the crude oil, you know.


Uhm, if we leave the sequestered carbon alone (aka - not dig it up or pump it out) it isn't going anywhere - much less into a refinery.
 
2013-01-25 11:52:11 AM  

Tatterdemalian: /your solar cells aren't going to emerge fully formed from the crude oil, you know.


Solar cells are made from crude oil? Silly me, I thought they were made from amorphous silicon.
 
2013-01-25 11:52:27 AM  

little Jeff: Um, I'm pretty sure the problem isn't CO2, it's CO.   Isn't Carbon MONOXIDE the primary pollutant from internal combustion engines and the source of all the greenie whining?


No. Carbon monoxide is a concern for local air quality, but that's why cars now have catalytic converters. The greenhouse-effect one is carbon dioxide.
 
2013-01-25 11:53:27 AM  

dillengest: Have you ever heard of catalytic converters?


Catalytic converters turn carbon monoxide and various oxygenated nitrogen compounds into nitrogen and CO2 gases and water vapor.
 
2013-01-25 11:58:57 AM  

give me doughnuts: New technology? Like "agriculture" and "distilling."

Wow. These guys are the cutting edge. Just wait till they invent bronze.


The indrustry has to do something. The environmentalistas have them in their sites.
 
2013-01-25 12:00:56 PM  

madgonad: Uhm, if we leave the sequestered carbon alone (aka - not dig it up or pump it out) it isn't going anywhere - much less into a refinery.


Well, sure... if you don't mind having to downsize both your population and your standard of living to pre-industrial levels.

/the scary thing is that this actually can be done
//Pol Pot did it in Cambodia
 
2013-01-25 12:04:36 PM  

little Jeff: Um, I'm pretty sure the problem isn't CO2, it's CO.   Isn't Carbon MONOXIDE the primary pollutant from internal combustion engines and the source of all the greenie whining?


No.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:20 PM  
Why would I spend millions of dollars on one of these photosynthesis machines when I can plant a farking tree for like $5.00?
 
2013-01-25 12:14:09 PM  

little Jeff: Um, I'm pretty sure the problem isn't CO2, it's CO.   Isn't Carbon MONOXIDE the primary pollutant from internal combustion engines and the source of all the greenie whining?


Used to be. We found an industrial solution to that, though, which forced the Luddites to scramble to find a new way to force the world to go back to living in mud huts.

/their early focus testing, to see which disaster scenarios could cause enough panic to drive otherwise educated people to attack each other, still causes hilarious amounts of buttrage whenever anyone reminds them of it
//declaring that CO2 would start a new ice age, for example, flopped badly
 
2013-01-25 12:16:08 PM  

madgonad: theorellior: madgonad: Carbon sequestration either has to be elemental (like graphite) or a stable compound (like petroleum). Maybe the development of fast growing carbon nanotubes could be a solution (and a really useful product!)?

There are some experiments in using biochar (basically, charcoal) to both sequester carbon and to stabilize and enhance soils.

I like that, but how stable will charcoal be in most soils? It breaks down and gets sucked-up by plants in a huge hurry.


What? Where do you think plants get carbon from?
 
2013-01-25 12:17:42 PM  
In other news, plants already take CO2 and convert it to plant matter, and emit oxygen.

More CO2 means plants would grow faster, and since there are 7 billion+ people in the world and most are very hungry, I call that a good idea indeed..

More global warming would also result in longer growing seasons, more crops planted in northern latitudes, and more rainfall due to increased ocean water evaporation.

Melting the polar icecap would shorten navigation routes between Asia and Europe, and create prosperity by increasing trade.

Maybe we ought to clue the "warmers" in on Hapgood's theory of Pole Shift, that would REALLY freak them out!
 
2013-01-25 12:18:49 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Well, sure... if you don't mind having to downsize both your population and your standard of living to pre-industrial levels.


Hey, look,it's that slippery-slope strawman again. It's sad to see people so invested in dinojuice that they can't think around its limitations.
 
2013-01-25 12:26:47 PM  
FTFA: "The two-stage process begins by filling a nitride semiconductor photo-electrode with water and then exposing it to sunlight or artificial light."

Ahhhh ha ha ha! They are suggesting you should generate light with electricity that has CO2 as a byproduct in order to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere! I wonder if they have a consensus on their proposed use.
 
2013-01-25 12:31:40 PM  

theorellior: Tatterdemalian: Well, sure... if you don't mind having to downsize both your population and your standard of living to pre-industrial levels.

Hey, look,it's that slippery-slope strawman again. It's sad to see people so invested in dinojuice that they can't think around its limitations.


No sadder than seeing people so terrified of the dino juice that they will open their wallets to any snake-oil salesman they can find.

/your loss is China's gain
 
2013-01-25 12:32:03 PM  

GORDON: FTFA: "The two-stage process begins by filling a nitride semiconductor photo-electrode with water and then exposing it to sunlight or artificial light."

Ahhhh ha ha ha! They are suggesting you should generate light with electricity that has CO2 as a byproduct in order to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere! I wonder if they have a consensus on their proposed use.


I still laugh at burning coal so electric cars can run is "clean."
 
2013-01-25 12:46:35 PM  

Carn: jehovahs witness protection: Stopping something that doesn't exist can't be very difficult.

I know right? I just rode my unicorn down to Hell and killed Satan. God liked it so much he made me god. Don't respond negatively to this post or I'll turn you into a newt.


should I respond negatively, and get turned into a newt, will I get better?
 
2013-01-25 12:52:56 PM  

Tatterdemalian: madgonad: Uhm, if we leave the sequestered carbon alone (aka - not dig it up or pump it out) it isn't going anywhere - much less into a refinery.

Well, sure... if you don't mind having to downsize both your population and your standard of living to pre-industrial levels.

/the scary thing is that this actually can be done
//Pol Pot did it in Cambodia


Yeah, those damn greenies and their fearmongering attempts to cause panic.
 
2013-01-25 12:53:07 PM  

maltedmothball: Carn: jehovahs witness protection: Stopping something that doesn't exist can't be very difficult.

I know right? I just rode my unicorn down to Hell and killed Satan. God liked it so much he made me god. Don't respond negatively to this post or I'll turn you into a newt.

should I respond negatively, and get turned into a newt, will I get better?


upload.wikimedia.org
Only Newt's wife doesn't get better.
cdn.ricochet.com
 
2013-01-25 12:57:01 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: I still laugh at burning coal so electric cars can run is "clean."


Burning coal at a single source of pollution with 50% efficiency and transmitting it over powerlines to vehicles with 90% efficiency is still probably better than using a fleet of trucks to distribute gasoline to a diffuse army of pollution sources with 20% efficiency.
 
2013-01-25 12:58:11 PM  

Tatterdemalian: No sadder than seeing people so terrified of the dino juice that they will open their wallets to any snake-oil salesman they can find.


You're just annoyed I don't buy into your post-petroluem apocalyptic fantasy.
 
2013-01-25 01:00:35 PM  

Vegetative reproduction: madgonad: theorellior: madgonad: Carbon sequestration either has to be elemental (like graphite) or a stable compound (like petroleum). Maybe the development of fast growing carbon nanotubes could be a solution (and a really useful product!)?

There are some experiments in using biochar (basically, charcoal) to both sequester carbon and to stabilize and enhance soils.

I like that, but how stable will charcoal be in most soils? It breaks down and gets sucked-up by plants in a huge hurry.

What? Where do you think plants get carbon from?


Specifically, it comes from the light reaction in photosynthesis - which is atmospheric carbon.

HOWEVER, plants absorb all kinds of compounds through their roots. There is a lot more to plants than CO2 and H2O. Those other compounds are acquired from the soil through the roots. THAT is where the charcoal will be acquired and utilized throughout the plant.
 
2013-01-25 01:02:59 PM  

maltedmothball: Carn: jehovahs witness protection: Stopping something that doesn't exist can't be very difficult.

I know right? I just rode my unicorn down to Hell and killed Satan. God liked it so much he made me god. Don't respond negatively to this post or I'll turn you into a newt.

should I respond negatively, and get turned into a newt, will I get better?


Depends on which kind of newt, but probably.
 
2013-01-25 01:05:34 PM  

glass_ibis: So it would be sequestered out of the biosphere for what, 18 hours?


Well:

"Currently, the main substance produced is formic acid, but in the future, we'd like to produce even more useful substances, such as hydrocarbons or alcohol."

Apparently they're already making mostly industrial precursors, but even if it was just ethanol it's not rocket science to make EtOH into a polymer like HDPE and then bury it somewhere, sequestering it essentially forever.

olddinosaur: In other news, plants already take CO2 and convert it to plant matter, and emit oxygen.


If you'll read TFA, you'll realize that that's basically the point, mimicing plant chemistry on a scalable and controllable fashion so that we can directly regulate the atmosphere's CO2 content... sort of photosynthesis on uppers, as it were.
//Honestly, my favorite result of the funding surge toward renewable energy isn't this, it's the "turn plants into heavy-key petroleum in a matter of hours" tech that came out a few years ago.
 
2013-01-25 01:08:10 PM  

olddinosaur: In other news, plants already take CO2 and convert it to plant matter, and emit oxygen.

More CO2 means plants would grow faster, and since there are 7 billion+ people in the world and most are very hungry, I call that a good idea indeed..

More global warming would also result in longer growing seasons, more crops planted in northern latitudes, and more rainfall due to increased ocean water evaporation.

Melting the polar icecap would shorten navigation routes between Asia and Europe, and create prosperity by increasing trade.

Maybe we ought to clue the "warmers" in on Hapgood's theory of Pole Shift, that would REALLY freak them out!


Outside of rainforests - CO2 is not a limiting factor. Having food on the shelves doesn't make you fat. There is more than enough CO2 available for plants to use as they photosynthesize. It happens very slowly - it isn't like a field of corn resembles a bus load of fatties hitting a buffet at lunch.

The northern passage is intermittently open. Even if open year round, iceberg hazards and remoteness of the arctic sea is inherently riskier than going the extra 2000 miles and taking the canal (which the ships are already designed to fit through).

As to Hapgood, scientists have already worked that over. It comes down to a degree over pole movement per million years. aka - geologic time
 
2013-01-25 01:10:37 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Honestly, my favorite result of the funding surge toward renewable energy isn't this, it's the "turn plants into heavy-key petroleum in a matter of hours" tech that came out a few years ago.


Yep.

That pretty much provides a simple solution to our problem. Be a little more efficient, lean more on electricity from renewable sources, and tell OPEC to take a flying fark
 
2013-01-25 01:13:28 PM  

theorellior: StoPPeRmobile: I still laugh at burning coal so electric cars can run is "clean."

Burning coal at a single source of pollution with 50% efficiency and transmitting it over powerlines to vehicles with 90% efficiency is still probably better than using a fleet of trucks to distribute gasoline to a diffuse army of pollution sources with 20% efficiency.


So it's "probably" clean?

//mmmmm. tasty, tasty radiation.
 
2013-01-25 01:17:34 PM  

madgonad: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Perhaps, but I always thought their purpose was to reduce dependency on petroleum for fuel. And fund the corn industry.

That's what happens when politics sticks its nose in science. When money and power is involved, everything is distorted.

The simple reality is that if we want the planet to remain as close to the way that we found it, we need to control our impact on it. That means recycling limited resources, not overdrawing from groundwater supplies, not taking more fish than can be recovered, and not disturbing the natural balance in the atmosphere.

Uncorking a ton of fossil fuels will cause some climate change and acidify the oceans for a while. In a couple thousand years it will all be back in balance again. The side effects of this are changing local climates, slight change in sea levels, and pressure on the life cycles of ocean plants and animals. It isn't the end of the world. We aren't going to turn into Venus. On the plus side, Canada will become a lot nicer place to live. Wheat production in Kansas will decline and grazing will replace it. Nebraska will grow more wheat to balance things out. Coral reefs will noticeably shrink - which I think sucks - but the fish will recover. Good news for sea turtles - more jellyfish for them to eat! Central Canada will produce less canola oil and might start turning to corn. In 100 years North Carolina will probably lose their outer banks - which is bad news for the coast when the next hurricane arrives. Lots of little things. Oh, and crop yields will be down overall, so expect starvation in unexpected places in the world. Maybe even here, because China can spend some of their dollars on food grown here.

/rant


Yeah, I played SimEarth when I was a kid, too. Our climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. Life will adapt. But I'd rather not have to adapt to food riots and other consequences of a sudden (on a geological scale) climate change if we can make machines that pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into a decent scotch. Then, we'd only have to worry about Cuban cigar riots :-)
 
2013-01-25 01:17:43 PM  

I_C_Weener: Science, you have my attention!


That's about right
 
2013-01-25 01:21:28 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: So it's "probably" clean?

//mmmmm. tasty, tasty radiation.


Look, I'm not saying coal-fired power plants are the way to go. In order of preference, I'd rather have large-scale thermal solar, wind, PV, nuclear or gas co-generation power plants. But if were comparing powering inefficient vehicles with gasoline verses powering efficient vehicles with coal, the thermodynamic throughput favors the coal.
 
2013-01-25 01:24:51 PM  
Great, what then will we do with an over-abundance of booze?
 
2013-01-25 01:28:30 PM  

theorellior: Look, I'm not saying coal-fired power plants are the way to go. In order of preference, I'd rather have large-scale thermal solar, wind, PV, nuclear or gas co-generation power plants. But if were comparing powering inefficient vehicles with gasoline verses powering efficient vehicles with coal, the thermodynamic throughput favors the coal.


There is also a hidden bonus that is essentially never mentioned.

EVs have very low maintenance and repair costs. The only two expensive parts in them - the battery and motors are 100% recyclable. All of those common car problems - transmission, fuel systems, alternator, cooling, exhaust, and the engine itself - no longer exist. The motors and battery 'just work'. No oil changes. Scheduled maintenance is almost non-existent. Just check some connections every 2-3 years.
 
2013-01-25 01:33:02 PM  

no_dice: theorellior: 0.2% efficiency? I'm sorry, plants have that beat hands down. And they make far more delicious substances than formic acid.

Effing reading, how does it work?

"Panasonic claimed that at efficiency levels of 0.2 per cent - that is, the energy proportion of synthesised materials to input light - the system is on a par with real plants"


"On a par" does not mean equal or better. It just means vaguely comparable.

"On par" is one of those weasel phrases people use fake-brag without technically lying. Like saying "premier" instead of "best".
 
2013-01-25 01:33:06 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Yeah, I played SimEarth when I was a kid, too. Our climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. Life will adapt. But I'd rather not have to adapt to food riots and other consequences of a sudden (on a geological scale) climate change if we can make machines that pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into a decent scotch. Then, we'd only have to worry about Cuban cigar riots :-)


Yeah, I don't think making ethanol is an ideal sequestration product. Too flammable and eghm, useful.

Now making carbon nanotube girders would be ideal. Carbon-dense. Useful and recyclable (or at least stackable) and unlikely to re-enter the carbon cycle anytime soon. Besides, I like my Scotch just the way it is - made from a single malt and cask aged.
 
2013-01-25 01:44:30 PM  

whatsupchuck: I can't speak with any great authority on this, but unless you're farting CO2 I can't think of how it would return as a gas to the atmosphere.


Does your toilet launch your poop into outer space?

If you don't directly exhale or fart carbon out as CO2 and methane, it will be emitted at a waste treatment plant, or otherwise returned to the biosphere where some biological process can ultimately cycle it into the atmosphere.

One irony in all of this is that the traditional fermentation process for creating alcohol releases a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if this process replaces some of that it seems like it would help.

All of that CO2 comes from plants that captured the CO2 from the atmosphere, so it's not a net gain. Making grain into beer is not nearly as bad for the environment as making coal and oil into beer.

/We'll call it "Sooty Nose"
 
2013-01-25 01:48:19 PM  

dillengest: little Jeff: Um, I'm pretty sure the problem isn't CO2, it's CO.   Isn't Carbon MONOXIDE the primary pollutant from internal combustion engines and the source of all the greenie whining?

Have you ever heard of catalytic converters?


upload.wikimedia.org

They have.
 
2013-01-25 01:50:05 PM  

redundantman: Great, what then will we do with an over-abundance of booze?


I'm sorry, is that a rhetorical question?
 
2013-01-25 01:57:56 PM  

madgonad: There is also a hidden bonus that is essentially never mentioned.

EVs have very low maintenance and repair costs. The only two expensive parts in them - the battery and motors are 100% recyclable. All of those common car problems - transmission, fuel systems, alternator, cooling, exhaust, and the engine itself - no longer exist. The motors and battery 'just work'. No oil changes. Scheduled maintenance is almost non-existent. Just check some connections every 2-3 years.


Interesting. That is one thing I never think of when discussing EVs. However, I'd say that regular lubrication would probably be something you'd still need to do, if only to repack the bearings in the drive axle every 50,000 miles or so.
 
2013-01-25 02:15:35 PM  
Turning CO2 into fuel is net 0 on global carbon flux - when the fuel is burned it turns back in CO2.

CO2 --> fuel --> CO2

At least this way we aren't adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

The only way to sequester CO2 is to either bury it (which some people are doing in empty oil fields) or convert it to inorganic carbon such as CaCO3 (which is done on large scale by photosynthetic algae and some sea creatures).
 
2013-01-25 02:25:22 PM  

Xcott: whatsupchuck: I can't speak with any great authority on this, but unless you're farting CO2 I can't think of how it would return as a gas to the atmosphere.

Does your toilet launch your poop into outer space?

If you don't directly exhale or fart carbon out as CO2 and methane, it will be emitted at a waste treatment plant, or otherwise returned to the biosphere where some biological process can ultimately cycle it into the atmosphere."


It's probably safe to assume that some of the ethanol will be converted to fatty acid and sequestered in the body, too. I wasn't arguing that the carbon doesn't eventually return to the atmosphere, just the part about "within 18 hours". I'll give you that some would be exhaled.
 
2013-01-25 02:28:53 PM  

theorellior: StoPPeRmobile: So it's "probably" clean?

//mmmmm. tasty, tasty radiation.

Look, I'm not saying coal-fired power plants are the way to go. In order of preference, I'd rather have large-scale thermal solar, wind, PV, nuclear or gas co-generation power plants. But if were comparing powering inefficient vehicles with gasoline verses powering efficient vehicles with coal, the thermodynamic throughput favors the coal.


thermodynamic throughput favors = clean = disingenous or fraudulant
 
2013-01-25 02:29:48 PM  
DesertDemonWY:

More proof that CO2 is NOT a pollutant

By itself it is, especially if you keep a) cutting down plants which would aborb the CO2 and also create oxygen and b) burning stuff to create more CO2.

The simple solution is more plants and less burning. The easiest way to do that, because you're not going to get 7 billion people to agree to do the right thing, is to reduce the population.

Maybe the USA should nuke China's big cities before they have the capacity to strike back. One benefit of that is that most of China's population is of child-bearing age, so we'd also reduce future breeders. Another good thing is it will no longer matter how much the USA owes China. In the short run that will also drastically lower world temperature from nuclear winter, and once the dust settles there will be not only several hundred million fewer Chinese but also a lower population world-wide. Another benefit to "the West" is that the developed NATO countries will have an easier time riding out the consequences, while the poor brown peoples who drive up the population will die in droves -- also reducing the number of available breeders. In fact it might well do to include a few populous cities in India and Pakistan in our global holocaust as well.

As long as we leave Russia out of it the US is not likely to face significant retaliation. In fact, as our interest won't include doing much with what's left of China the Russians might well welcome a larger sphere of influence on the Asian continent. And if Russia does not strike us then the rest of the world will quickly learn to accomodate the New World Order, a de facto alliance of Russia and the USA against the rest of the planet.

Inevitably this will mean greater global dominance for white people, but more US power would benefit blacks in America as much as whites: it's hard to imagine black Americans doing anything but being glad they're on the winning side, as regardless of rhetoric the fact is that black Americans benefit from US global dominance as much as white Americans do. When it comes down to it black Americans are black Americans, a fact the rest of the world has acknowledged for decades. Nevertheless we will also be heading off internal dissent from those quarters by not including Africa in our surgical strike, an "omission" that's easily justifiable by the global weakness of African countries: in fact sub-Saharan Africans might well benefit by lessened competition for the world's resources from the Earth's other colored peoples.

And by the way, if say Nigeria or Iran and their best buddies were the world's preeminent nuclear powers I'd be arguing that they should blast away instead, even if that meant wiping out say southern California and the Bos-Wash corridor. And of course if there were a way to reduce the Earth's population by the same percntage among all groups equally I'd be all for that as well, but we'll have to make the most of the global holocaust we can have instead of sitting idly by because our only solution is sub-optimal in some practically trivial respects.

Granted this is one wild-ass "thought experiment," but it's hard to imagine any other measure that will do as much to counteract the most disturbing ecological and economic trends in the shortest time. If anybody else has a practical plan to drastically reduce global warming and the world's population in less than 100 years I'd like to hear it: all I've heard so far is that NATO's peoples ought to worry more and try harder to tread water while the rest of the world makes our situation even more difficult all the time.
 
2013-01-25 02:32:49 PM  
Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.
 
2013-01-25 02:32:51 PM  

theorellior: Interesting. That is one thing I never think of when discussing EVs. However, I'd say that regular lubrication would probably be something you'd still need to do, if only to repack the bearings in the drive axle every 50,000 miles or so.


Uhm, what axle?

Many designs put the motors inside the wheels with a simple shock/strut attachment to the frame. It allows precise adjustment of power to specific wheels and moves more weight to the wheel itself, which is ideal.

What we think of now as cars is defined by the necessities of a large engine/powertrain apparatus. That simply doesn't exist with EVs. The battery can go anywhere and be any shape (or even broken up) and the motors can go inside of the wheels. That leaves the 'car' as a blank slate for the designers and engineers to play with.
 
2013-01-25 02:33:59 PM  

ecor1: Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.


I know. India is growing at a much higher rate.
 
2013-01-25 02:37:30 PM  

madgonad: Vegetative reproduction: madgonad: theorellior: madgonad: Carbon sequestration either has to be elemental (like graphite) or a stable compound (like petroleum). Maybe the development of fast growing carbon nanotubes could be a solution (and a really useful product!)?

There are some experiments in using biochar (basically, charcoal) to both sequester carbon and to stabilize and enhance soils.

I like that, but how stable will charcoal be in most soils? It breaks down and gets sucked-up by plants in a huge hurry.

What? Where do you think plants get carbon from?

Specifically, it comes from the light reaction in photosynthesis - which is atmospheric carbon.

HOWEVER, plants absorb all kinds of compounds through their roots. There is a lot more to plants than CO2 and H2O. Those other compounds are acquired from the soil through the roots. THAT is where the charcoal will be acquired and utilized throughout the plant.


Yes, root uptake of organic carbon containing compounds can occur. However, root uptake of carbon containing compounds is not a significant source of plant carbon, nor it is a the major factor contributing to soil carbon loss. Here is a very basic figure. You will notice that there is no arrow pointing towards roots.
 
2013-01-25 02:42:14 PM  

madgonad: ecor1: Well that escalated quickly.

Nuking chinese cities? Wouldn't do much to world population in the long term. Besides being horrific and totally unnecessary.

I know. India is growing at a much higher rate.


India is far less militarily ands economically powerful than China, as well as using fewer natural resources and producing less CO2, so they're not the main target. One goal is to reduce competition from current global powers: India simply does not qualify. Neither does Nigeria or Brazil, for that matter.
 
2013-01-25 02:43:26 PM  

The One True TheDavid: DesertDemonWY:

More proof that CO2 is NOT a pollutant

By itself it is, especially if you keep a) cutting down plants which would aborb the CO2 and also create oxygen and b) burning stuff to create more CO2.

The simple solution is more plants and less burning. The easiest way to do that, because you're not going to get 7 billion people to agree to do the right thing, is to reduce the population.



Approves
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-25 02:45:35 PM  
Vegetative reproduction:

You will notice that there is no arrow pointing towards roots.

Have you noticed that 3/5 underground arrows point to microbes? What effect do soil microbes have on global warming?
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report