An Open, Hopeful Letter to Jorgen Randers
Dear Mr. Randers,
I just finished your book, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. I found it informative and an innovative approach to the challenges facing the human race in the years to come.
One area, though, I found questionable, but in ways that will hopefully improve our outlook and perhaps your calculations once you factor the new data into the system. In your book, you noted:
It is worth noting that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is capable of reducing the emissions of CO2 dramatically. By capturing the CO2 from the exhaust emissions from coal- and gas-fired utilities and other point sources of CO2, and storing it permanently underground, one can reduce CO2 from power production and manufacturing by more than 80%. . . .
In wood-fired power stations, it works as follows: When wood (or any other type of biomass) grows, it sucks CO2 from the atmosphere and converts it to plant material. When the material is burnt, the CO2 is released into the exhaust gas. When the exhaust gas is sent through a CCS plant, the CO2 is captured. It s then compressed into a liquid and injected into deep underground reservoirs.
(Jorgen Randers, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012, pp. 116-117.)
Further in your book, though, you quote David Butcher:
On the positive side, science will provide some relief through the development of improved plant strains, more efficient irrigation techniques, effective fertilizer use, and efficient pyrolysis of vegetation in order to increase soil carbon.
(David Butcher's essay "The Limits to Protein", quoted in 2052, p. 138, emboldening mine.)
In all likelihood, Mr. Butcher is referring the production of biochar, the name given the ancient practice of producing terra preta as a soil amendment. Albert K. Bates' The Biochar Solution notes that biochar production need not be a drain on resources to produce; if you don't have time to read the book, this entry of his provides a good overview.
To apply biochar production to your informative CCS sidebar, wood-fired power plants would not necessarily need to burn the wood in order to capture the carbon; a pyrolizing plant can easily produce heat or power and simultaneously sequester a portion of the carbon as biochar that need not be recaptured from the exhaust and later liquified, and all with low-technology requirements. The energy lost from this incomplete burn will be a fraction of the energy lost in the capture, liquification and sequestration process you outline in your book, which does not begin to factor in the benefit to crops the waste product provides.
Something to consider.
Sincerely,
Perry Staltor
I just finished your book, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. I found it informative and an innovative approach to the challenges facing the human race in the years to come.
One area, though, I found questionable, but in ways that will hopefully improve our outlook and perhaps your calculations once you factor the new data into the system. In your book, you noted:
It is worth noting that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is capable of reducing the emissions of CO2 dramatically. By capturing the CO2 from the exhaust emissions from coal- and gas-fired utilities and other point sources of CO2, and storing it permanently underground, one can reduce CO2 from power production and manufacturing by more than 80%. . . .
In wood-fired power stations, it works as follows: When wood (or any other type of biomass) grows, it sucks CO2 from the atmosphere and converts it to plant material. When the material is burnt, the CO2 is released into the exhaust gas. When the exhaust gas is sent through a CCS plant, the CO2 is captured. It s then compressed into a liquid and injected into deep underground reservoirs.
(Jorgen Randers, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012, pp. 116-117.)
Further in your book, though, you quote David Butcher:
On the positive side, science will provide some relief through the development of improved plant strains, more efficient irrigation techniques, effective fertilizer use, and efficient pyrolysis of vegetation in order to increase soil carbon.
(David Butcher's essay "The Limits to Protein", quoted in 2052, p. 138, emboldening mine.)
In all likelihood, Mr. Butcher is referring the production of biochar, the name given the ancient practice of producing terra preta as a soil amendment. Albert K. Bates' The Biochar Solution notes that biochar production need not be a drain on resources to produce; if you don't have time to read the book, this entry of his provides a good overview.
To apply biochar production to your informative CCS sidebar, wood-fired power plants would not necessarily need to burn the wood in order to capture the carbon; a pyrolizing plant can easily produce heat or power and simultaneously sequester a portion of the carbon as biochar that need not be recaptured from the exhaust and later liquified, and all with low-technology requirements. The energy lost from this incomplete burn will be a fraction of the energy lost in the capture, liquification and sequestration process you outline in your book, which does not begin to factor in the benefit to crops the waste product provides.
Something to consider.
Sincerely,
Perry Staltor