Carbon-Negative Biofuels

I don't think "Carbon Negative" is the best term to use here. These roots may tie up the carbon for quite some time, but I guess that really depends on what your timeline for the carbon cycle is. Many people think of the carbon cycle as very short - within their lifetime to maybe a few hundred years. I tend to agree with the line of thinking that the carbon cycle is much longer - hundreds of thousands to millions of years. So, stretching the timeline out that long means that you have only temporarily stored that carbon, not really removed it from the cycle. The only way to remove that carbon from the cycle is to somehow contain it and send it somewhere else, like off-planet. Even putting all of that carbon into fossil-fuels is only storing it for later use, albeit quite a bit later, but it came from the carbon cycle and it will likely be returned considering the way we consume energy.

Now as for global warming, I am pretty sure we humans are speeding up the warming part of the cycle (yes, I agree it is a cycle as well). Since we are likely releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than has ever been done in such a short time, maybe more resources ought to be used studying these plants that can store some of the carbon for us. It could turn out to be a great tool that we can use to reverse some of the damage being done by the warming being done over such a short period.

HI Sleddriver !

goldrushnugget999 here & with all this carbon being stored out there wouldn't it be great if a product could be made from this excess carbon, than it would not be released back into the atmosphere & could keep the skies cleaner !

thanks

goldrushnugget999

I think a "temporary" reservoir in the "Centuries" time scale could be significant if the size of this pipeline is large. It seems worth promoting as a part of the overall project to pull Carbon out of the atmosphere.

In perspective, I wonder just how "permanent" the scheme to pump carbon dioxide into deep underground reservoirs will turn out to be. The locations may seem impermeable and stable today, but for how long? If there is a fissure, say induced by an earthquake, then the earth could give up a deadly flatulence event that could kill any nearby human, animals and birds. As the number of locations of these wells increases, the probability of breaches grows. What will be the state of concern 5000 years from now?

Also, compare the vast amounts of machinery and energy needed to compress and pump carbon dioxide into the ground, with the fairly simple and benign process of planting prairie grass and walking away. This idea has merit, but will be limited by competing land uses.

Is it theoretically possible to crack carbon dioxide, and end up with carbon for fuel, and oxygen to burn it with, or breathe? Plants know how to do it. Why can't we just maximize plant life?

Ron Wagner

The problem in the world are that all people are consumers. we all need food, water, air etc. Energy unfortunately play a big role in this. A further complication is that valuable energy resources are wasted on unproductive activities. (Has anybody considered the total amount of energy consumed to run CR4 - Fortunately mostly productive)

With energy resources becoming less and negative results are on the increase the following is done:

1 efficiency is increased.

2 wasting (should be) minimised.

3 Alternative solutions are explored.

The production of bio-fuels seems to a sustainable solution.

If the total cycle (plant, produce consume) is considered the net result is not to bad.

Development should however be planned properly and the environment should be protected against abuse. (Leave the prairie grasses where they are).

Surplus seasonal crops is best suited for the purpose.

The only alternative is to permanently reduce the number of people (WWIII).

Hendrik,

I totally agree that "The only alternative is to permanently reduce the number of people". However, I think it can be done peacefully, and with little infringement on individual freedoms. A birth rate slightly below sustainability would give us a gradual (hence minimally disruptive socially) decrease in global population. This would act just like a negative interest would to a bank account. (in fact, it would be interesting to show how fast our population would go from 6 billion to 1 billion under various birth rates.) Without calculation, I suspect we could easily do this within 300 years.

Though I admire technological advancement, and love being a part of that effort, I think we need to use it with restraint. Every time we find ways to increase harvests, we react by multiplying until we are again at the edge of sustainability. If this trend continues, we will have transformed Planet Earth from a beautifully diverse living entity into a meticulously crafted complex machine, whose purpose is mainly to house our multitudes, each squirming to find his/her space. Earth would be transformed into a Starship.

I think that a planet-healthy global population count would be around 1 billion, maybe less. That way we humans could enjoy a life surrounded by our neighboring species in relative symbiotic harmony. All the pressures for food, land, energy and curtailment of pollution would drop into more naturally manageable zones. Planet Earth would again become a gracious tribute to all life.