What is Carbon Sequestration?

International bodies (including the UN) are already convinced about increasing forest cover as the best available option for sequestering CO2. I am proposing a study to find out the amount of CO2 that can be sequestered by a unit acre of forest.

I am convinced that sequestration is affected by tree species, age and location. I need research funding of $10,000 for this research in tropical rain forests of Uganda. Robert S., MSc student, Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources.

according to me, we need to think about the sources from where co2 is increasing and we need to focus our mind to manage the co2 level.

And instead of capturing it by other means, we should accept a simple way of reforestation. With this we can make our ecosystem stronger and more stable. It wouldn't cause any disasters as a result. The o2 and co2 ratio would be balanced to sustain.

I believe the issue lies within more effective forest management. We need to optimize the use of forests for storing CO2. If we can sustain healthy ecosystems and biodiversity more CO2 can be absorbed in forests and there is no need for spending money on carbon capture technology. Its a win-win situation: we get the benefits of preserving biodiversity and store more carbon in the biosphere.

According to some scientists all the planets are getting hotter because of a natural cycle of the sun. It seems no one knows for sure.

Wind and solar are OK for homes but how do you supply an electric arc furnace at a steel mill with wind and solar? The arc furnace can go from 0 to 100 megawatts in 5 minutes. We have one near my coal plant and they have to plan their melts with us so we have the capacity to accommodate them.

Nuclear is the answer for base load. Renewables are problematic when it comes to major swings in load.

Additionally the construction of distribution necessary to get power from the areas where renewables work best to where the power is needed will cost a lot. When there are windmills off of Martha's Vineyard then I will believe there is a chance. If CO2 and Mercury are the problem, nuclear is the answer.

the issue here exists because the entire concept is only halfway there -

the problem with CO2 storage is that,

one does *not* store the CO2, but, instead one processes it into something useful in an ongoing fashion and, mimicking nature, as is the best way, returns it to the environment, turned to some good use.

elle fagan

response for mmcmenus,

So that commercial is true that states, "There is no such thing as *clean coal".

Wouldn't it be more responsible fiscally then to avoid the whole problem and work on a full national plan to create recyclable energies such as wind and solar, but to the extent to make it affordable for the average home buyer to purchase or at least be a part of? Why can't we do this? Germany has a law that states "every new home needs a solar panel to aid in the nations energy program" Are we that far behind that we don't have a means to do so? If we can do it, then how does one go about it?

The issue is so simple: We must drastically lower the rates of CO2 into the atmosphere, otherwise it will kill us.

Is it possible to transport excess carbon dioxide into the sun in rockets where it brakes up or disintegrates? The immense expense for this transport should decidedly compensate by the clean air we get. Every nation should contribute about 5% of their income annually for this. This program should be managed by the U.N.

It is far better than taking it to the sea bottom because eventually the gas gets back into the atmosphere.

I am an environmental manager at a coal fired power plant. I can say that carbon sequestration is harder than changing lead into gold. My plant generates 1.8 million standard cubic feet per minute of flue gas with about 12% CO2. The kind of equipment this would take to capture this much CO2 would use about 50% of the gross megawatts my power plant makes. So for every two operating power plants we would have to build a third one to power the pollution control systems.

There is a way to sequester carbon and actually perform several other important functions.

Research in the Amazon has discovered that the indigenous people admixed charcoal into their soil. Some farm plots have been farmed continuously for over 40 years without adding fertilizer. This is because the charcoal contains a percentage of activated carbon, which captures and holds nutrients which would otherwise wash away. While these nutrients cannot be leached away, they are still readily available for plants.

So, by admixing activated carbon into our farmlands, we can simultaneously sequester carbon, reduce or eliminate manufactured fertilizer use, increased crop productivity, reduce energy costs related to transporting and applying fertilizer. It works. It only needs be done *once*, it is relatively inexpensive, and the payback is fairly rapid--a matter of a few years at most, a couple seasons perhaps.

Reducing fertilizer use cuts energy to manufacture, transport, and apply fertilizer and in preventing leaching, helps preserve the waterways by eliminating run-off pollution (non-point source.)

Google "Amazon Dark Earth" for more information.

wizodd

Climate change:

The cause is not so much C02 as human population growth. Governments around the world are paying people to have more children than Earth can support.

TB