|
|
Post by Jared Conner on Jun 19, 2014 8:15:27 GMT
One of the goals of this forum is to develop and find the best solutions to problems like climate change. There are multiple ways to sequester carbon, including Carbon Capture and Storage(CCS), planting trees, turning biomass into inert elemental carbon, and dumping massive quantities of calcium oxide into the oceans. What is the most efficient and practical method, and why?
|
|
|
|
Post by holden on Jun 19, 2014 21:19:57 GMT
carbon capture and storage is an already established technology, and it is important to power plants now because of obama's new EPA regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Conner on Jun 21, 2014 21:47:32 GMT
Yeah it is, but think about the long term usefulness of CCS. Once CO2 emissions become negligible, we will still need a way to mitigate and reverse climate change. CCS will only be useful in making CO2 emitting power plants carbon neutral. We need a truly carbon negative way of carbon sequestration. This is why I prefer using solar energy to convert biomass into elemental carbon. Elemental carbon is very inert, and, as long as it isn't oxidized, it can stay in the for it is stored indefinitely. But CCS is still useful in the short-term. I'm working on designs for devices that produce elemental carbon from biomass. I'll eventually post details on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by holden on Jun 22, 2014 16:23:14 GMT
How will you produce carbon without making more carbon emissions? Pyrolysis produces both methane and carbon dioxide
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Shirtman83 on Jun 27, 2014 19:55:35 GMT
There is a process called Hydrothermal Carbonization that basically mimics the natural coalification process, but in the time fraame of a few hours. It involves heating biomass under high pressure in an acidic wet environment until a coal-like product is formed, which theoretically contains 100% of the original carbon input, not off gassing organic compounds like methane and carbon dioxide. Not many people are familiar with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Conner on Jun 27, 2014 20:31:04 GMT
Hydrothermal Carbonization seems to be the ideal process, Holden. But there is I think a similar process in which you do very fast, high temperature pyrolysis, so that only carbon dioxide and water are the off gases. This limits the methane generation, but I think that HC is the only emissionless process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kunal on Aug 26, 2014 23:08:38 GMT
I think the calcium oxide process is interesting, it solves ocean acidification and climate change at the same time. But it is hard to produce calcium oxide without burning fossil fuels. Could a concentrated solar calcination of limestone be possible to make CaO?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Conner on Aug 26, 2014 23:18:25 GMT
Concentrated Solar could certainly provide the thermal energy, but ideal weather conditions would be required wherever the CaO would be produced. Here's an interesting thought: what if a solar calciner could be installed on a tropical beach or island, a location that receives large amounts of sunlight? Also, the Calcium Carbonate source could be seashells and other shells of marine invertebrates that wash ashore. This would ensure a sustainable supply of CaCO3 and sunlight. What's more, is that the pH of the waters surrounding the island/beach could be permanently maintained at normal and optimal levels through constant dumping of CaO into the water. But there is a problem. Upon calcination, CO2 is produced, and that would have to be captured and stored, or sequestered in some other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zoltan on Sept 28, 2015 0:44:37 GMT
I've been growing ambient algae on deposit that has tunnels from before our recorded history. This is productive and seizes co2 as a secondary effect . If this is transported to areas of hot sun and water( 1/10 th water used in regular farming, is said of aero, agua, and hydroponics)this allows poor in marginal areas to be self supportive and productive , and help repair damage done by currant civilization builders .
|
|
