In reading the latest articles about global warming and climate change you might get the idea of carbon dioxide being an evil, death-wielding monster of horror.

http://picphotos.net/very

Yes, CO2 is getting a bad rap and all anybody wants to do is get rid of it somehow or some way. However, while CO2 emissions are a problem contributing to global warming, it's important to understand that carbon (and its oxidized form of CO2) are as necessary for life on this planet as the oxygen that we breathe.

You might also think that carbon dioxide is being created by man and his evil machines--like Frankenstein getting loose from the laboratory and reeking havoc on everyone. Well, this is partially true. But I can assure you that the carbon was already here long before the heinous cars, planes and power plants showed up.

Of course the problem with carbon is not the carbon itself. The levels have just been jarred out of balance for what our climate can tolerate. Too much carbon (in the form of oil, coal, gas) has been burned creating a surplus of CO2 in our atmosphere, causing the problem of climate change and warming. CO2 is a known and proven greenhouse gas, so more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a warmer planet.

In response we are now grasping for ways to sequester CO2. But what exactly does that mean? In this blog post I want to explore the concept of and options involved in sequestration. Some of the world's greatest scientific minds are working on a practical way to do it.

The dictionary definition of the word sequester is to set apart; to put aside; to remove; to separate from other things. In the fight against climate change we are trying to take molecules of carbon dioxide out of an incredibly vast area--CO2 permeates all the air and oceans of our earth. If carbon dioxide was not so dispersed it would not be such a big deal--but it is.

Here is a graph from CO2 Levels.org that illustrates the historical changes going on.

We are now up to over 445 parts per million of CO2 and climbing rapidly. The levels are about 25% higher than during the Second World War era in the 40's. Efforts toward sequestration of CO2 have begun, but even these come with their own challenges.

There are a growing number of large-scale artificial, or man-made, carbon capture and storage operations around the world. For example, some power plants or petroleum refineries capture CO2 before released as a byproduct of production. According to the Global CCS Institute there are twenty-one carbon capture and storage projects in operation or currently under construction (illustrated below.) They are able to sequester about forty million tons of CO2 annually. Several more sites are in the planning phase.

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects#overview

In these carbon capture and storage facilities the CO2 is pressurized into its liquid form and transported by pipeline to the storage location. These locations are located at depths underground in old oil and gas reservoirs, saline formations or deep un-minable coal beds. There are some risks in that seismic movement could cause the CO2 to re-enter the atmosphere. Additional pressure caused by the injection could also contribute to these earthquakes. Also, the energy required by the plant to transport the CO2 is relatively high and reduces efficiency and capacity. Clearly the solution to reducing carbon emissions is not a simple one, and comes with its own price.

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/index

There are also some experimental ways for CO2 to be stored at great ocean depths and held under pressure from the intense pressure above. However, this calls for disruption of the ocean environment. Storage in basalt formations under the sea is also being looked into as being a a safer way to retain the CO2.

Another sequestration theory suggests using our oceans by encouraging the growth of seaweed to pull in more CO2. Iron or urea can be added to areas of the ocean to increase plant growth. A company in Australia, Ocean Nourishment Corporation, is planning to fertilize phytoplankton with urea as a way to fight climate change.

Outside of those ways, it seems we have to depend mostly on mother nature to do the job. But maybe we can help out nature a little bit.

Tree planting is a way to encourage a natural process of plants soaking up CO2. Many projects around the world have focused on this and it is helpful. However, the downside is that trees will not last forever and when they die, burn or rot, all the carbon taken in will be released. It's really considered to be more of a temporary storage rather than a long term sequestration.

If we were to take trees and other biomass and bury them it would surely slow down the process of the carbon being released. In effect, you would be starting the process to create oil and gas reserves as had been done naturally many thousands of years ago on this planet. Burying biomass, however, would take great amounts of land and energy making it impractical. So how can we do more--and do more better--to beat out of control CO2 levels?

Let's compare the above sequestration methods to making biochar. I'm sure you could have guessed it's my favorite way to sequester carbon dioxide. Making biochar is something done by humans in an artificial way, but it mimics the natural process in which biochar becomes created by nature. Forest fires are an example of this, having left deposits of char all over the globe for thousands of years. A great thing about biochar from a sequestration perspective is how it becomes resistant to decay. The charcoal buried into the soil is resistant to oxidation and will be rot resistant for thousands of years. Biochar is not a perfect solution or quick fix for CO2 levels, but it is more sustainable. It can be made efficiently both on a large or small scale.

http://www.avellobioenergy.com

Biochar thus promotes soil health while locking up carbon into the ground. There is really no risk or potential harm of the carbon escaping into the atmosphere as there is with the other artificial methods, at least not for thousands of years. Blending biochar into the soil likely won't cause any earthquakes, either. There are too many advantages to making and using biochar to ignore.

Please check out my prior post for more on this, Biochar the Prescription to Maintain Healthy Soil. Making biochar is definitely a way to assist nature in balancing atmospheric levels of CO2. There is much to learn from Terra Preta soils in Brazil. Our soils around the world can be enriched with biochar in the same way while putting the excess carbon back into the ground.

While there is much we need to do in our daily lives to curb CO2 excesses, I'd like to point out something we rarely discuss when dwelling on the problem. Nature is actually helping to mitigate the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on its own.

Luckily, we live on a very forgiving planet! What I mean is that nature has been helping us through this "crisis" of climate change since it has begun and is still, in a way, fighting for us. Yes, that's right: without Mother Nature's help we would be in much worse shape.

https://wdfyfe.net/2012/03/21/its-spring-thanks-mother-nature

More carbon dioxide in the air does allow plants to build carbon structures at a faster pace, therefore removing CO2 from the air. You may have heard the oil companies call CO2 a "plant fertilizer" in their defense when accused of furthering climate change. The statement is true to a degree, but plants have not come close to being able to take in all the excess CO2 being expelled.

The same is true for the recently rising temperatures. In simple terms, warmer temperatures cause plants to grow faster. When growing faster they take in carbon at a greater rate to build their structures. We have already seen longer growing seasons in areas created by this change in the climate.

I'm not saying just forget about the problem of climate change because nature will take its course and save us all. I'm just giving some credit to the incredible biosphere that we live in. There are so many natural phenomena that we take for granted.

There is no question that the Earth will survive this crisis just fine. But what are we willing to give up in the process regarding the ways we live and have been living for years? We are already seeing sensitive areas of the globe being adversely affected. For example, I'm not sure I would want to invest in real estate in downtown New Orleans or Miami with the prediction of rising sea levels in coming years.

https://www.coop-cavac.fr/agriculture-durable/des-activites-passees-au-filtre-du-bilan-carbone/

At least the problem has been recognized as being serious, by most that is. Ignoring the problem, refusing to think ahead, and discrediting science, however, will only cost us. I am truly optimistic that we can beat climate change and be good stewards to our Earth. However, we will have to continue to make new developments in sequestration a priority. We will have to get creative in our approaches to helping our planet in a time of need. Biochar is one of these creative approaches that can play a significant role.

Best,

Jim

Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.