Unfortunately, sequestration as solid carbon asks people to bury a potentially valuable fuel. Conversion of carbon to CO2 is exothermic, unfortunately.

On the other hand, conversion of CO2 to carbonate is also exothermic, although very slow at the present time.

Unfortunately, only something like 12 percent of calcium carbonate is carbon, so you either have to shift massive amounts of rock, or form carbonates in place.

Carbon capture can be done essentially free by oxyfuel combustion, which can be run a higher Carnot efficiencies than combustion in air. Carbon storage can be done by deep injection, until we figure out how to store carbon as a carbonate economically.

The ability to generate carbon-free electricity is crucial, IMO. But the ability to generate carbon negative electricity is even more crucial, I think.

Nobody likes the idea of carbon storage by deep injection.

But fighting runaway global warming is all about billions of tons of carbon. Billions of tons of carbon from coal are entering our atmosphere each year. The traditional carbon sinks like the forests and oceans are becoming saturated, and runaway warming looks likely to turn them from net carbon sinks into net carbon sources.

In order to fight runaway warming without any help from our previous carbon sinks we have to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it somehow, at this point.

Carbon negative energy produced by combining biomass with carbon capture and storage can do this.

The remaining weak link, I’ll admit it, is carbon storage by deep injection. Carbon sequestration by mineral carbonation would be preferable.

We’re out of time, I think. We need to do something massive, now, to avoid a methane catastrophe.

We ought to just seize the coal fired power plants, here in the U.S., and forcibly convert them to oxyfuel/biocarbon/CCS (carbon capture and storage). We ought to get the biocarbon from fire protecting the forests, quick growing biomass crops that can remove carbon from the atmosphere on short timescales and every iota of carbonaceous waste, manure, sewage sludge, trash, and even old landfills leaking methane that we can scrape up and pyrolyze.

Looking at the Carma database, some of these coal fired monster plants produce twenty to thirty million tons of CO2 per year. It’s starting to look like coal fired power plants of this size are more dangerous than nuclear weapons – which at least cannot credibly destroy the biosphere. Leaving them in private hands, churning out billions of tons of carbon per year, is insane, I think.

http://www.carma.org

The President ought to declare a state of national emergency and seize these plants. Congress should pass a law declaring these plants a public hazard, and seize them. Our Justice Department should prosecute the owners of these plants in a massive civil suit, as was done against the tobacco companies a few years ago, and use the civil damages against these corporations and their rich stockholders to seize the coal plants.

Then, we need to take the worst problem – coal fired power plants – and convert them into the best solution – carbon negative power plants.

Coupled with stabilization wedges, massive replanting and reforestation efforts, and returning the ash to the soil, carbon negative power schemes could turn the corner on this runaway warming problem, IMO.

Act now, because this offer will not be repeated. Positive feedback effects are turning carbon sinks into carbon sources. Supplies are limited. The window of opportunity is closing.

1) Compost the biomass returning 95% of the carbon to greenhouse gasses in 10 years or less but sequestering 5% and reducing nitrate emissions from croplands.

2) Pyrolize the biomass, use 70% of the carbon as producer gas to fire an IGCC coal plant and sequester the other 30% of the carbon as biochar crop amendment that reduces agricultural nitrate emissions on millenial timescales.

3) Burn the biomass returning 100% of the carbon as greenhouse gases to the atmosphere

I know, lets use the option that returns 100% of the carbon to the atmosphere and robs the soil of phosphates and other essential nutrients because we don’t return the ash to cropland. There’s gigatons of excess carbon in the atmosphere and sequestering this little bit won’t matter. (note sarcasm)

It’s really not a wonder that we’re destroying the biosphere. It’s a wonder that anyone can still muster the energy to fight the general morass of stupidity.

[JR: Uhh, option 1 doesn't generate any carbon-free electricity, which in case you haven't noticed we are sorely in need of. Uhh, how many IGCC coal plants do we have in this country? Answer -- not bloody many. Do you have any idea how phenomenally expensive they are? Given how much energy efficiency and renewable energy we're going to do, we aren't going to build many IGCC plants anytime soon. Anybody can win an argument against strawmen.]

With regard to transportability, conversion of biomass to biocarbon close to the source removes a lot of the traditional constraints associated with biomass. Biocarbon makes biomass as transportable as coal. Further constraints with regard to transportability could be removed by transporting biocarbon by coal slurry or coal log pipeline techniques, with much less environmental impact than coal because biocarbon is much cleaner.

With regard to energy density, this is a problem, but it also is a manageable one, in my opinion. For one thing, forests are going to have to be more intensively managed to prevent firestorms, hopefully for only a few decades, until we get CO2 down again to roughly current levels or below (assuming that we are able to turn the corner on this problem at all). Since biomass is being gathered from existing forests by cutting firebreaks and clearing undergrowth, and perhaps some selective logging, less dedicated biomass plantation land will be necessary. Also, since the impact of carbon negative combustion/sequestration on global warming is much greater than the impact of simple combustion with no carbon capture, less biomass is necessary to turn the corner on this problem. These are some of the synergies of carbon negative power production combined with intensive forest management and simultaneous production of electricity.

(1) Separate algae and water: new technique lowers the cost to feasibility.
(2) Oil extraction, via a suitable catalyst, is claiming commercial viability.

Of course the resulting oils are best suited for biodiesel and bio-jet-fuel. Other fuels can be made, but it costs $$.

Follow
http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/
to keep up with the fast paced developments.

ecostew — What is LCA?