Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Carbon Sequestration

“We have already scaled this system up to 2.5 liters dimensions, which can deal with around 0.1 liter of carbon dioxide per minute.”

“And we’ve tested that running continuously for a whole month and the efficiency of the system did not degrade.”

The process dissolves captured carbon dioxide gas into a solvent around nanoparticles of gallium. The reactor also contains nano-sized solid silver rods that are the key to generating the triboelectrochemical reactions that take place once mechanical energy (e.g. stirring/mixing) is introduced.

A triboelectrochemical reaction occurs in solid–liquid interfaces due to friction between the two surfaces, with an electric field also created that sparks a chemical reaction.

The reactions break the carbon dioxide into oxygen gas, as well as carbonaceous sheets which ‘float’ to the surface of the container due to differences in density and can therefore be easily extracted.

The scientists obtained 92% efficiency at the remarkably low input energy of 230 kWh for the capture and conversion of a ton of carbon dioxide.

They estimate this equates to a cost of around $100 per ton of carbon dioxide.

It would be more efficient to just stop burning fossil fuels. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, and nuclear don't have that problem.

On the morning of Friday, June 4, an underground gas pipeline running through the ancient state of Tatarstan sprang a leak. And not a small one.
In a different era, the massive leak might have gone unnoticed.

It is depressingly ironic that natural gas leaks are such a major climate problem, and one so easy to solve by simple, but expensive, plumbing. We have a huge problem with gas leakage as a result of trying to cut emissions and wean ourselves from coal. Only now with satellite methane monitoring do we have a way to find big sudden leaks internationally.
Russia will never willingly deal with it. So why should we even try to work or CO2?


NO NOT ANCIENT TATARSTAN
Very nice interactive graphics on this WAPO major report!
TAT

Russian gas leaks

There's no way in Hell Russia can even afford to fix all the leaks and even if they could, repairs would be well nigh impossible in certain parts of the country, or if performed, would not hold through one change of seasons.
Ask any pipeline worker how long a repair lasts in climates where 50 below zero is normal.

This almost makes the point that just maybe drilling and pipelines in the Arctic are not a great idea!
These wells and pipeline need to be shut down if they cannot be maintained without creating destructive climate change emissions.
TAT

In his post, he documents a number of studies that look at the effects on soil of glyphosate, insecticides, fungicides, tillage and synthetic fertilizers.

For example, he references a 2016 meta-analysis of 36 glyphosate studies (Nguyen et al.) that found “‘field application rates [of glyphosate products] had no significant effect on SMR [soil microbial respiration] or SMB [soil microbial biomass].’ They did find effects when applied at higher rates, but that is why we have the EPA and pesticide labels.”

He cites several other studies that make similar statements and says “While not conclusive, this evidence does not raise any red flags about the use of herbicides and their effect on the soil.”

A study by Bunemann et al. that reviewed all agricultural inputs suggests that some insecticides and fungicides “proved to be quite toxic,” yet a review by Imfeld and Vuilleumier (2012) said “the literature on the effects of pesticides on soil micro-organisms suggests that they only have minor or transient effects when they are applied at the recommended doses.”

McGuire also referenced a meta-analysis of 107 data sets from 64 long-term trials that looked at the effects of synthetic fertilizers and concluded that fertilizer applications actually led to increased microbial biomass compared to unfertilized control treatments.

Tillage, on the other hand, as no-tillers know, degrades soil structure, causes erosion and compaction, kills earthworms and destroys the soil ecosystem. As the NRCS says, “Tilling the soil is the equivalent of an earthquake, hurricane, tornado, and forest fire occurring simultaneously to the world of soil organisms. Simply stated, tillage is bad for the soil.”

Granted, these studies are limited to looking at the effects of these products on soil microbes and don’t get into effects on human health, persistence in the environment and the like. Nor do they look at the potential benefits of a no-till organic system.

But in terms of how pesticides and fertilizers compare to tillage and the long-term outlook for soil degradation, McGuire clearly makes the case that “if protecting the soil is the first requirement for sustaining agricultural production, then clearly tillage is not our first choice if other, less damaging tools, like herbicides, are available. The tradeoffs between herbicide use and tillage favor herbicides.”

With the help of cover crops and new weed management tools, many no-tillers are making headway toward reducing these inputs as well, which is fantastic. But as the population continues to grow, it’s comforting to know that no-tillers are on the right path where soil health is concerned and that the judicious use of fertilizers and pesticides can be part of a sustainable agricultural system.