Thermal expansion
As mentioned in Ten dangers of Global Warming, one of the biggest dangers is that, without dramatic action, the atmosphere will reach certain tipping points beyond which sudden dramatic and catastrophic changes will take place.
As Earth warms up, tectonic plates will expand and some areas will come under increasing pressure, especially along fault lines where tectonic plates collide. As described in this comment and this post, this could lead to earthquakes. Thermal expansion of land and water could put more stress on areas prone to seismic activity, triggering earthquakes that can make the greenhouse effect much worse. The danger is that such seismic activity will cause slope failure in regions with methane hydrates that are already unstable and vulnerable due to global warming.
Ice and glaciers melting away
Links between climate change and geological and geomorphological phenomena were the theme of this 2009 conference. Several speakers addressed the danger that, as ice and glaciers in the mountains melt away, a substantial weight is disappearing, changing pressures that act on the Earth's crust and contribute to seismic activity. This link was confirmed in several scientific studies, such as this one dating back to 2003.
Hydrates disturbed by drilling and fracking
There is also an indirect risk. Melting of Arctic sea ice may open up sea routes to hydrates. Drilling and fracking in these hydrates could trigger earthquakes, especially if they're already under extra stress, resulting in the release of huge amounts of methane. This is particularly worrying in the Arctic, where waters can be very shallow, leaving less opportunity for methane to be broken down in the water.
Deep Ocean Warming
The ocean conveyor belt transports water--and heat--around the globe, as shown on the image left, from a NSF press release describing recent research by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, which found that deep oceans can warm by 18% to 19% more during a period corresponding with a La NiƱa event.
Global warming is likely to cause thermal expansion of the oceanic crust, putting stress on areas where tectonic plates meet. Such a warming peak deep in the ocean could put enough extra stress on these areas to trigger earthquakes that in turn disturb hydrates, resulting in huge amounts of methane to be released. The NOAA image below shows how the Mid-Atlantic Ridge continues into the Arctic Ocean.
Gakkel Ridge
One place to watch is Gakkel Ridge, the boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate. Earthquake activity along Gakkel Ridge has been rising since 1970. Earthquakes in the Gakkel Ridge area could send shockwaves into the shallows of the Arctic Ocean.
Between 1999 and 2000 alone, there was an anomalously large number of earthquakes along the Arctic Gakkel Ridge (more than 250). In addition, two very unusual and extremely violent submarine pyroclastic eruptions occured in the central Gakkel Ridge region.
Of the earthquakes measured on the Arctic Gakkel Ridge between March 19th 1980 and the 31st December 2010, most (94%) were strong enough to cause widespread collapse of the methane hydrates and release of methane plumes into the water column and atmosphere. [source: globalwarmingmlight.blogspot.com]
Runaway Warming
In conclusion, global warming can accelerate in a number of ways, including thermal expansion of tectonic plates, causing landslides and shocks from earthquakes, while extra stress can be added due to deep ocean warming peaks and a change in weight as ice retreats on land. This could be ameliorated by drilling and fracking activities.
The danger is that this will put increasing stress on hydrates that can contain huge amounts of methane. If such hydrates are disturbed, huge plumes of methane can be released, causing supersaturation of waters with methane. As a result, further methane releases will enter the atmosphere without being oxidized in the water. The risk is that such methane releases lead to runaway global warming.
This risk is unacceptable, making it imperative to reduce emissions and bring atmospheric carbon dioxide down, which is best achieved by means of feebates and requires a number of geoengineering techniques, as discussed in Sustainable Economy. In Geoengineering the climate (Royal Society, 2009) various geoengineering methods are compared. These methods may differ in timescale, cost-effectiveness and wider impact (see e.g. this posts on Biomass), but the urgency to act on global warming is such that we may well need all of them to avoid runaway global warming.
Geo-engineering is the study and implementation of technical ways to change (and arguably improve) things like weather patterns, river paths, soils, climates and sea currents on Earth. Recently, geo-engineering has received special attention for efforts to combat global warming.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Geoengineering field testing
A team of British academics will in October 2011 start conducting field-tests, pumping water into the air from a balloon at a height of 1km. Ultimately, they aim to test pumping sulphates into the stratosphere from a balloon at 20 km height.
The balloon could also be used to test "cloud whitening", i.e. pumping up fine sea salt crystals and spraying them into the air to increase the number of droplets and the reflectivity in clouds.
Source: Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
Also see: Space Hose
Press Release: The SPICE project: a geoengineering feasibility study (September 14, 2011)
Editor's note: The test, part of the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project that receives £1.6m support from UK research councils, has meanwhile been put on hold, following the councils' advisory panel's recommendation to delay the project.
Source: Climate fix technical test put on hold (BBC News, September 30, 2011)
Also see: Political backlash to geoengineering begins (New Scientist, October 3, 2011)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The way back to 280 ppm
Given the dangers of global warming, carbon dioxide needs to get back to 280ppm. Emission cuts alone will not be able to accomplish this, so what more can be done?
Emissions cut 80% by 2020, Sam Carana, March 18, 2008 |
At first glance, one may suggest implementation of policies such as cap-and-trade or cap and capture to make those who put carbon into the atmosphere pay for its removal. More effective, though, is a combination of two types of feebates, working separately, yet complimentary, to get emissions cut 80% by 2020 and carbon dioxide on the way back to 280ppm.
Many carbon dioxide removal methods are energy-intensive. As long as the energy used is expensive and polluting, not much can be achieved. A rapid shift to clean energy is necessary, which is best facilitated through energy feebates.
As the number of solar and wind facilities grows, large amounts of clean electricity will become available at off-peak hours, when there's little demand for electricity. This will make such electricity cheap, bringing down the cost of methods such as enhanced weathering, which can take place at off-peak hours. Such energy will also make carbon dioxide removal more effective, since the energy is clean to start with.
Energy feebates as pictured above can best clean up energy, while other feebates can best raise revenue for carbon dioxide removal.
Energy feebates can phase themselves out, completing the necessary shift to clean energy within a decade. Carbon dioxide removal will need to continue for much longer, so funding will need to be raised from other sources, such as sales of livestock products, nitrogen fertilizers and Portland cement.
Energy feebates can phase themselves out, completing the necessary shift to clean energy within a decade. Carbon dioxide removal will need to continue for much longer, so funding will need to be raised from other sources, such as sales of livestock products, nitrogen fertilizers and Portland cement.
A range of methods to remove carbon dioxide would be eligible for funding under such feebates. To be eligible for rebates, methods merely need to be safe and remove carbon dioxide. Methods could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or from the oceans.
Rebates favor methods that also have commercial viability. In case of accelerated weathering, this will favor production of building materials, road pavement, etc. Such methods could include water desalination and pumping of water into deserts, in efforts to achieve more vegetation growth. Selling a forest where once was a desert could similarly attract rebates.
Some methods will be immediately viable, such as afforestation and biochar burial. It may take some time for methods such as enhanced weathering to become economically viable, but when they do, they can take over where afforestation has exhausted its potential to get carbon dioxide back to 280ppm.
Rebates favor methods that also have commercial viability. In case of accelerated weathering, this will favor production of building materials, road pavement, etc. Such methods could include water desalination and pumping of water into deserts, in efforts to achieve more vegetation growth. Selling a forest where once was a desert could similarly attract rebates.
Some methods will be immediately viable, such as afforestation and biochar burial. It may take some time for methods such as enhanced weathering to become economically viable, but when they do, they can take over where afforestation has exhausted its potential to get carbon dioxide back to 280ppm.
For further discussion, also see Towards a Sustainable Economy |
Labels:
biochar,
enhanced weathering,
feebates
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Geoengineering Politics: Research Moving Ahead in the UK
Geoengineering Politics: Research Moving Ahead in the UK:
"The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), a British government funding agency, has released initial funding for two g..."
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Earth at Boiling Point
Silence before the Storm
Here's an analogy to describe the precarious situation we're in. When heat is added to water at boiling point (100°C or 212°F), vapor will appear at the surface, while bubbles of gas are formed throughout the water, but the water's temperature will not rise. All added energy is absorbed in the water, transforming it from a liquid to a gas. This is illustrated by the image below, adapted from ilpi.com.
Similarly, Earth is now at boiling point, i.e. the situation has reached a point where - at first glance - it may appear as if there's little or no change. Rises in global temperature, as illustrated by the chart below, based on data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with standard polynomial trendline added, may seem only mild.
Many will hardly notice global warming, due to the variability of short-term weather conditions locally.
Furthermore, we’ve had a strong La NiƱa, which pushes temperatures down, while we’ve been in a solar minimum, as some call it: “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century”.
As the image on the right shows, differences in irradiation can amount to a difference in warming of up to 0.25 W/m2.
So, impressions that the impact of global warming was only mild can be deceptive.
The NOAA image below shows a steady increase in carbon dioxide over the years. At the same time, the image also shows little or no increase at all for some other emissions over the past decade, particularly for methane (CH4).
Again, such impressions can be deceptive, as this may make people assume that methane will continue to show little or no increase in future. Instead, the boiling-point analogy is more appropriate to describe the situation regarding methane. Similar to bubbles that start forming in water at boiling point, methane bubbles are forming in the Arctic.
Arctic Sea Ice losses
At the European Geosciences Union annual meeting, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, unveiled the results of advanced computer modeling that produces a "best guess" date of 2016 for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers. The study follows his team's 2007 projection that the dramatic loss of ice extent in 2007 set the stage for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Also illustrative is the image below, from Arctic Sea Ice Blog.
Feedback Effects in the Arctic
Disappearing sea ice will cause albedo changes in the Arctic, amplifying the warming taking place there. The color of the sea is darker than the ice that previously covered it.
Another albedo change is taking place on land. The forested landscape in Siberia may over the course of a year absorb between 2 and 7% more solar radiation, reinforcing local warming trends.
Temperature rises are further amplified by additional feedback effects such as releases of nitrous oxide and methane.
So, while it may appear that there has been little or no rise in methane for some time, the prospect of future methane emissions looks very scary.
Due to amplification of global warming in the Arctic, temperatures can now be 10°C or 18°F higher than average temperatures were 1951-1980 (NASA image left)..
Most methane emissions occur at the northern hemisphere's high latitudes (Wikipedia image below).
At first glance, it may seem as if there's nothing to worry about. Methane releases have historically been stronger at high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, as illustrated by the NOAA image left (with Mauna Loa data highlighted in red).
However, levels of methane in the Arctic can be expected to rise dramatically, as discussed below.
The image below shows the current extent of Arctic permafrost, as part of a study by Edward Schuur that estimates that there is some 1672 petagrams (GT or billion metric tons, see table below) of carbon in the Arctic permafrost - roughly equivalent to a third of all carbon in the world's soils and about twice the amount of carbon contained in the atmosphere.
The figures mentioned in above paragraph were also used in the report by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, where authors further pointed at the amplifying feedback effect in high northern latitudes of microbial transformation of nitrogen trapped in soils to nitrous oxide.
Apart from Arctic releases of carbon dioxide, there is the potential for releases of nitrous oxide and methane. Much methane is also present in Arctic waters and in sediments underneath the water. Due to methane's high initial global warming potential (GWP), large abrupt releases of methane could lead to runaway global warming, as further discussed below.
The terrifying prospect is that, within a time-span of only a few years, huge methane releases in the Arctic will spread around the globe, covering Earth in a heat-trapping blanket and moving our biosphere beyond its biological boiling point.
Units of measurement
Multiple Name Symbol
English Multiple (SI) Name (SI) Symbol (SI) English(SI)
100 gram g gram
103 kilogram Kg thousand g
100 tonne t 1 tonne 106 megagram Mg million g
103 kilotonne kt 1 thousand tonnes 109 gigagram Gg billion g
106 megatonne Mt 1 million tonnes 1012 teragram T trillion g
109 gigatonne Gt 1 billion tonnes 1015 petagram Pg quadrillion g
1012 teratonne Tt 1 trillion tonnes 1018 exagram Eg
1015 petatonne Pt 1 quadrillion tonnes 1021 zettagram Zg
1018 exatonne Et 1024 yottagram Yg
Methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP)
The image below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shows that methane levels have already been rising dramatically since the industrial revolution.
Over the years, the IPCC has upgraded methane's global warming potential (GWP). In 1995, the IPCC used a figure of 56 for methane's GWP over 20 years, i.e. methane being 56 times more powerful than carbon dioxide by weight when comparing their impact over a period of 20 years. In 2001, the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 62 over 20 years, and in 2007 the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 72 over 20 years.
Large releases could make that much of the methane could remain in the atmosphere longer, without getting oxidized. Initially, much of the methane is oxidized in the sea by oxygen (when released from underwater sediments) and in the atmosphere by hydroxyl. Over time, however, accumulation of methane could cause oxygen and hydroxyl depletion, resulting in ever more methane entering the atmosphere and remaining there for a longer period.
A two-part study by Berkeley Lab and Los Alamos National Laboratory shows that, as global temperature increases and oceans warm, methane releases from clathrates would over time cause depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and trace metals needed by methane-eating microbes, resulting in ever more methane escaping into the air unchanged, to further accelerate climate change.
A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. shows that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the IPCC. The study shows that increases in global methane emissions have already caused a 26% decrease in hydroxyl (OH). Because of this, methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide.
A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in hydroxyl of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic.
Extension of methane's lifetime further amplifies its greenhouse effect, especially for releases that are two or three times as large as current releases.
The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane's lifetime extends as more methane is released.
The image below, from a study by Dessus et al., shows how the impact of methane decreases over the years. In the first five years after its release, methane will have an impact more than 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.
The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane levels (image below,medium light colors) would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m-2.
Such an increase in methane would thus add more than double the entire current net anthropogenic warming (for comparison, see Wikipedia image below).
For many years, the amount of methane has remained stable at about 5 Gt annually (NOAA image below). A scenario of 7x this amount would lift the amount of methane in the atmosphere to about 35 Gt.
A scenario of seven times the amount of methane we're used to having in the atmosphere would give the methane a lifetime of more than 18 years, so there's no relief from this burden in sight, while this would triple the entire net effect of all emissions added by people since the industrial revolution.
Arctic concentration makes the situation even worse
What makes things even worse is that all this methane would initially be concentrated in the Arctic, whereas GWP for greenhouse gases is typically calculated under the assumption that the respective greenhouse gas is spread out globally.
All this methane will initially be concentrated locally, causing huge Arctic amplification of the greenhouse effect in summer, when the sun doesn't set.
The methane will heat up the sea, causing further lack of of oxygen in the water, while algae start to bloom, making this worse, and lack of hydroxyl in the air.
In a vicious circle that will further accelerate the permafrost melt, this will cause further releases from permafrost and clathrates.
Uninhabitable Planet
Back in 2009, I pointed at projections of a MIT study showing that, without rapid and dramatic action on global warming, global median surface temperature will rise by 9.4oF (5.2oC) by 2100.
The wheel on the right depicts the MIT's estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature rise by 2100 if no policy is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted, and projects a lower rise.
The projections show rises ranging up to 13.3oF (7.4oC), based on probabilities revealed by 400 simulations.
But even the worst-case scenario in the above MIT-study may actually understate the problem and the speed with which this may eventuate, since the model does not fully incorporate positive feedbacks such as large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane.
Several teams of scientists warn that we can expect a rise of 4oC within decades. A rapid rise in temperature is likely to make the areas where most people now live uninhabitable, leaving humans, mammals and plants little on no time to migrate to cooler areas. The image below (edited from New Scientist) shows that the currently inhabited part of the planet would become largely uninhabitable with a global temperature rise of 4oC.
Above image gives some suggestions as to action that can be taken, such as reforestation and construction of clean energy facilities. The image also shows that habitable areas may be restricted to the edges of the world where there's little sunshine. A specific area can become uninhabitable due to sea level rises or heat stress. Humans simply cannot survive prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 95°F (35°C), explains Steven Sherwood. An area can also become uninhabitable due to recurring wildfires, floods, droughts, storms and further extreme weather events that cause erosion, desertification, crop losses and shortages of fresh water.
Back in 2007, I pointed at the danger of tipping points beyond which human beings face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear. The boiling point analogy shows that there may be a window of time to act, like a silence before the storm. This realization should prompt us to speed up implementation of the necessary policies while we can. In fact, abrupt large releases of methane may close that window rather quickly, as described in Runaway Global Warming and The potential for methane releases in the Arctic to cause runaway global warming.
Here's an analogy to describe the precarious situation we're in. When heat is added to water at boiling point (100°C or 212°F), vapor will appear at the surface, while bubbles of gas are formed throughout the water, but the water's temperature will not rise. All added energy is absorbed in the water, transforming it from a liquid to a gas. This is illustrated by the image below, adapted from ilpi.com.
Many will hardly notice global warming, due to the variability of short-term weather conditions locally.
Arctic Sea Ice losses
At the European Geosciences Union annual meeting, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, unveiled the results of advanced computer modeling that produces a "best guess" date of 2016 for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers. The study follows his team's 2007 projection that the dramatic loss of ice extent in 2007 set the stage for Arctic waters to be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Feedback Effects in the Arctic
Disappearing sea ice will cause albedo changes in the Arctic, amplifying the warming taking place there. The color of the sea is darker than the ice that previously covered it.
Another albedo change is taking place on land. The forested landscape in Siberia may over the course of a year absorb between 2 and 7% more solar radiation, reinforcing local warming trends.
The figures mentioned in above paragraph were also used in the report by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, where authors further pointed at the amplifying feedback effect in high northern latitudes of microbial transformation of nitrogen trapped in soils to nitrous oxide.
Methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP)
The image below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), shows that methane levels have already been rising dramatically since the industrial revolution.
Over the years, the IPCC has upgraded methane's global warming potential (GWP). In 1995, the IPCC used a figure of 56 for methane's GWP over 20 years, i.e. methane being 56 times more powerful than carbon dioxide by weight when comparing their impact over a period of 20 years. In 2001, the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 62 over 20 years, and in 2007 the IPCC upgraded methane's GWP to 72 over 20 years.
A 2009 study by Drew Shindell et al. shows that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the IPCC. The study shows that increases in global methane emissions have already caused a 26% decrease in hydroxyl (OH). Because of this, methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide.
A Centre for Atmospheric Science study suggests that sea ice loss may amplify permafrost warming, with an ice-free Arctic featuring a decrease in hydroxyl of up to 60% and an increase of tropospheric ozone (another greenhouse gas) of up to 60% over the Arctic.
Extension of methane's lifetime further amplifies its greenhouse effect, especially for releases that are two or three times as large as current releases.
The graph on the right, based on data by Isaksen et al. (2011), shows how methane's lifetime extends as more methane is released.
The image below, from a study by Dessus et al., shows how the impact of methane decreases over the years. In the first five years after its release, methane will have an impact more than 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.
The GWP for methane typically includes indirect effects of tropospheric ozone production and stratospheric water vapor production. The study by Isaksen et al. shows (image below) that a scenario of 7 times current methane levels (image below,medium light colors) would correspond with a radiative forcing of 3.6 W/m-2.
Such an increase in methane would thus add more than double the entire current net anthropogenic warming (for comparison, see Wikipedia image below).
For many years, the amount of methane has remained stable at about 5 Gt annually (NOAA image below). A scenario of 7x this amount would lift the amount of methane in the atmosphere to about 35 Gt.
A scenario of seven times the amount of methane we're used to having in the atmosphere would give the methane a lifetime of more than 18 years, so there's no relief from this burden in sight, while this would triple the entire net effect of all emissions added by people since the industrial revolution.
Arctic concentration makes the situation even worse
What makes things even worse is that all this methane would initially be concentrated in the Arctic, whereas GWP for greenhouse gases is typically calculated under the assumption that the respective greenhouse gas is spread out globally.
All this methane will initially be concentrated locally, causing huge Arctic amplification of the greenhouse effect in summer, when the sun doesn't set.
The methane will heat up the sea, causing further lack of of oxygen in the water, while algae start to bloom, making this worse, and lack of hydroxyl in the air.
In a vicious circle that will further accelerate the permafrost melt, this will cause further releases from permafrost and clathrates.
Uninhabitable Planet
Back in 2009, I pointed at projections of a MIT study showing that, without rapid and dramatic action on global warming, global median surface temperature will rise by 9.4oF (5.2oC) by 2100.
The wheel on the right depicts the MIT's estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature rise by 2100 if no policy is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted, and projects a lower rise.
The projections show rises ranging up to 13.3oF (7.4oC), based on probabilities revealed by 400 simulations.
But even the worst-case scenario in the above MIT-study may actually understate the problem and the speed with which this may eventuate, since the model does not fully incorporate positive feedbacks such as large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane.
Several teams of scientists warn that we can expect a rise of 4oC within decades. A rapid rise in temperature is likely to make the areas where most people now live uninhabitable, leaving humans, mammals and plants little on no time to migrate to cooler areas. The image below (edited from New Scientist) shows that the currently inhabited part of the planet would become largely uninhabitable with a global temperature rise of 4oC.
Above image gives some suggestions as to action that can be taken, such as reforestation and construction of clean energy facilities. The image also shows that habitable areas may be restricted to the edges of the world where there's little sunshine. A specific area can become uninhabitable due to sea level rises or heat stress. Humans simply cannot survive prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 95°F (35°C), explains Steven Sherwood. An area can also become uninhabitable due to recurring wildfires, floods, droughts, storms and further extreme weather events that cause erosion, desertification, crop losses and shortages of fresh water.
Back in 2007, I pointed at the danger of tipping points beyond which human beings face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear. The boiling point analogy shows that there may be a window of time to act, like a silence before the storm. This realization should prompt us to speed up implementation of the necessary policies while we can. In fact, abrupt large releases of methane may close that window rather quickly, as described in Runaway Global Warming and The potential for methane releases in the Arctic to cause runaway global warming.
Labels:
arctic,
clathrate,
climate,
climate change,
greenhouse effect,
methane,
permafrost,
tipping point
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Biomass
Traditionally, biomass has been used in four ways:
The table below also incorporates above-mentioned traditional use of biomass, while using a wider footprint, i.e. with scores not only reflecting the ability of the method to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but also looking at emissions other than carbon.
1. For industrial purposes (shelter, building materials, furniture, utensils, etc)
2. Burning (for domestic energy use such as heating, lighting and cooking, and for land clearance)
3. Conservation (left on land or added to soil as compost, to enrich soil and biodiversity, avoid erosion, etc.)
4. For food (including livestock feed, while using fertilizers and with waste dumped in landfills or sea)
In the light of rising costs of fossil fuel and climate change concerns, other uses are considered, specifically:
5. Low-footprint food (reduced meat and reduced use of chemical fertilizers, with waste processed)
6. Commercial combustion in power plants, furnaces, kilns, ovens and internal combustion engines
7. Burial
8. BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture & Storage)
9. Biochar (Pyrolysis resulting in biochar, syngas and bio-oils)
10. Biochar + BECCS (Biochar + Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture & Storage)
Table 1. Comparison of methods to process biomass (Energy and Carbon)
Combustion | Burial | BECCS | Biochar | Biochar + BECCS | |
Energy - year 0 | 1.0 | -0.1 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Carbon - year 0 | -0.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.9 |
Energy - out years | 0.4 | 0.4 | |||
Carbon - out years | 0.5 | 0.5 | |||
Total | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.3 |
Above table by Ron Larsen, from this message, shows five methods to process biomass, rated (with 1.0 being the highest score) for their ability to supply energy and for their ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Above table shows that each way to process biomass waste has advantages and disadvantages:
6. Combustion may seem attractive for its supply of energy, while having negative impact due to emissions
7. Burial can minimize emissions, but it doesn't provide energy, in fact it costs energy
8. BECCS can score high on immediate energy supply as well as on avoiding carbon emissions
9. Biochar scores well regarding immediate energy supply and emissions, with additional future benefits
10. Biochar + BECCS has all the benefits of biochar, while also capturing and storing pyrolysis emissions
The table below also incorporates above-mentioned traditional use of biomass, while using a wider footprint, i.e. with scores not only reflecting the ability of the method to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but also looking at emissions other than carbon.
Table 2. Comparison of ten uses of biomass (Energy and Footprint)
Energy - year 0 | Footprint - year 0 | Energy - out years | Footprint - out years | Total | |
Industrial | -0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | ||
Burning | 1.0 | -1.0 | 0.0 | ||
Conservation | -0.2 | -0.2 | |||
Food | -0.3 | -0.3 | |||
Low-footprint food | 0.0 | ||||
Combustion | 1.0 | -0.1 | 0.9 | ||
Burial | -0.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | ||
BECCS | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.6 | ||
Biochar | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.9 |
Biochar +BECCS | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 2.3 |
Biochar gets its positive "out years" scores for increasing vegetation growth over time, as it improves soil's water and nutrients retention, while also reducing the need for chemical fertilizers.
These qualities of biochar are also helpful in efforts to bring vegetation into the desert by means of desalinated water, as proposed by a number of scientists. A study by Leonard Ornstein, a cell biologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and climate modelers David Rind and Igor Aleinov of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, all based in New York City, concludes that it's worth while to do so.
They envision building desalination plants to pump seawater from oceans to inland desert areas using pumps, pipes, canals and aqueducts. The idea is that this would result in vegetation, with the tree cover also bringing more rain -- about 700 to 1200 millimeters per year -- and clouds, which would also help reflect sunlight back into space.
This would not only make these deserts more livable and productive, it would also cool areas, in some cases by up to 8°C .
Importantly, vegetation in the deserts could draw some 8 billion tons of carbon a year from the atmosphere -- nearly as much as people now emit by burning fossil fuels and forests. As forests matured, they could continue taking up this much carbon for decades.
The researchers estimate that building, running, and maintaining reverse-osmosis plants for desalination and the irrigation equipment will cost some $2 trillion per year.
Links
Forest a Desert, Cool the World - ScienceNow Daily News
Ornstein et al. 2009 in press - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Animations of 10-year average precipitation anomalies - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming - Springerlink
Sahara Forest Project
Green machine takes root in Jordan
Afforestation - bringing life into the desert - Sam Carana
Vortex Towers could vegetate deserts - Sam Carana
Biochar - Sam Carana
Forest a Desert, Cool the World - ScienceNow Daily News
Ornstein et al. 2009 in press - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Animations of 10-year average precipitation anomalies - Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming - Springerlink
Sahara Forest Project
Green machine takes root in Jordan
Afforestation - bringing life into the desert - Sam Carana
Vortex Towers could vegetate deserts - Sam Carana
Biochar - Sam Carana
Labels:
afforestation,
BECCS,
biochar,
biofuel,
biomass,
carbon burial
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)