The Carbon Blog

On April 2nd, Australia launched its first demonstration of their carbon dioxide geosequestration project. Funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, the Otway Project is located on a remote patch of land near Warrnambool in the south-western corner of Victoria. This project is a research project focused on carbon dioxide capture and geological storage.

This $40-million project simulates the capture of CO² from power generating stations by extracting already trapped CO² from sedimentary ground, otherwise known as the Otway Basin. From here, the carbon dioxide is carried several kilometers by pipeline to a depleted gas field about 2,000 meters below the surface. The project managers hope to safely store 100,000 tonnes of CO² within the next year.

Geosequ-what?

Geosequestration is hardly a new technology, but it has the potential to put quite a bit of the carbon we’ve extracted in the form of fossil fuels right back to where we got them … deep inside the Earth. CO² has been injected into the Earth for over 30 years already as a means to increase oil recovery. The technology is attractive because the storage costs are typically offset by the sale of additional oil that is recovered.

There are problems with this, of course, as the old wells and mines could have a tendency to “leak.” Proper geosequestration would require the CO² gas to be injected with high pressures and kept under 20 degrees Celsius (to keep the carbon in a liquefied state). This is typically only practical if the sequestration takes place under an ocean, like we see with the Norway’s Statoil natural-gas platform Sleipner in the North Sea, but can be properly handled on large continents if the geological bank is sealed with several kilometers of solid rock. Another problem would be the potential capacity of these fields, as we can’t expect to put every bit of carbon we’ve extracted from the planet right back where we found them.

That said, some of the better places we could store our atmospheric contaminants would be in unminable coal seams. Coal absorbs CO² quite naturally, ensuring long-term storage. In the process, though, methane is released from the seams. While this gas could be collected and sold to offset the costs of sequestering CO², the release and burning of methane would partially offset the desired result.

The Veritable Catch Twenty-One

Geosequestration is a step in the right direction, as it involves scrubbing the atmosphere or otherwise trapping CO² released from man-made operations and returning it to the Earth. However, the current cost of this technology does not make it a viable solution for anyone but the wealthiest of nations. That said, the cost of recovering one tonne of carbon is just $40, which is a full $60 less than the current going rate for a personal credit of a single tonne. If the technology becomes more affordable, it might just help shave 2 to 3% of the world’s annual carbon emissions.

It’s not much, but it’s a start.

What do you think of geosequestration? Is this a possible solution, or just a pipe dream?

Bookmark To

TheCarbonBlog officially went live on March 1st and, in its first month, managed to earn a total of $3.18 through the Google AdSense program. All other revenue sources added up to $0 which, means that I must do a better job of promoting this site as well as providing quality content.

To that end, I’ve been lucky enough to find another writer to provide some informative articles on carbon and global climate change. Though he has never run his own blog, he is a regular contributor to Helium and has earned a pretty solid readership.

So, as I have little else to report with regards to earnings, I’ll turn the rest of the article to TheCarbonBlog’s newest writer, Johan DeJagr.

—–

Thanks, Jason.

Allow me to introduce myself.  My name is Johan DeJagr, and I’m from a small country somewhere deep in the heart of, what’s now, the European Union.  I’m currently living in Ontario, Canada with my many books and newspapers, as I’m just too disgruntled to be tolerated by most people … especially the ladies.

I’ve worked at several companies since the late 70’s that have been working largely with natural resources, and wood in particular.  The amount of waste that I’ve witnessed would be enough to drive most people to drink, while the amount of progress towards more sustainable policies has been slow and torturous.  After 15 years at an international paper company, I turned in the ID card and headed off to early retirement with the goal of spreading a singular message to the world: we need to stop thinking about now, and start thinking about 50 years from now.

I’d rather say “we should think about 100 years from now”, but most big businesses and average people have enough trouble thinking about what they’ll do next month, let alone a century from now.

I look forward to sharing my knowledge with you, and making the world a better place.

Thank you,

Johan DeJagr

Bookmark To

Biofuels have been touted as “the next big thing” in the Global War on Warming, receiving grand endorsements from people like Al Gore, Steve Jobs, Bono, and George W. Bush. But there’s a heavy price to pay for this organic fuel, and most people don’t realize its danger.

The Carbon Cost

Despite the media’s messages of “Problem Solved”, biofuels would make our pollution problems worse. In addition to the carbon we’ve come to expect, we would be emitting gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFCs). This is, of course, in addition to the various elements we’ve come to expect like sulfur and carbon.

To say that biofuels are the way of the future is no different than promoting 12-cylinder gasoline-fueled SUV’s with just enough seating capacity for a 200 kg (430 lb.) driver. Not only will we see an appreciable difference in smog, but we’ll be raising the cost of food and starving millions of people.

Just how much food are we talking about here? Well, if we were to give someone the same amount of corn or grain that’s used to fill one SUV with biofuel, they could comfortably eat for about a year.

What about switch grass? Just because we don’t eat it doesn’t mean it’s any better.

Bye-bye Amazon

The lush Amazon rain forests were, at one time, the most important ecological resources we needed to save. However, as the 1990’s faded, as has our sense of urgency towards this complex region of biodiversity. It’s been overshadowed lately by global climate change, but the Amazon rain forest happens to be an incomparable storehouse of carbon. The very same carbon that heats up the planet when it’s released into the atmosphere. Brazil now ranks fourth in the world in carbon emissions, and most of these emissions come from deforestation.

No amount of corn, switch grass, wheat or barley can ever capture or absorb the carbon we’re releasing. No crop can create as much breathable oxygen. If that’s not bad enough, any amount of carbon that’s absorbed by these gases will just be re-released into the atmosphere during the conversion to fuel, or as exhaust when we drive.

Good thinking, people. Let’s just commit ourselves to an endless feedback loop of carbon collection and emission.

Bookmark To

Rain forests covered over 14% of the Earth a mere 200 years ago. Today the number is closer to 6%. Some people believe that the remaining acreage will be destroyed by 2050, while other believe it will be much sooner. However, regardless of these pessimistic time-lines to destruction, we should be asking a very serious question: Should rain forests be designated globally protected ecosystems?

Naturally, such an open-ended question raises just as many questions as it does answers. Would natural rain forests be protected while the tropical hardwood plantations are left free for commercial use? Would wild rainforests need to be partially restored to their once majestic sizes? Would nations who carelessly gutted these fragile ecosystems be forced to give up the poor-performing farmland they annexed to restore the land as it once was? Who should foot the bill for this?

Historical Clear Cutting

The United States faced a crisis about a century ago in its forest industry. Logging companies of the day had employed a “Cut-Out and Get-Out” approach, stripping trees and leaving huge swaths of denuded land in its wake. Like many organizations of the day, they truly believed that the North American forests were inexhaustible. However, a man by the name of Gifford Pinchot knew otherwise and wanted to change these destructive habits in favour of something a little more sustainable.

His first goal was to get some solid evidence for proper forest management. The best place in the world to learn this essential skill was Germany, who had possessed a much smaller land area than the United States, and had been using its forest resources for a much longer period of time. With so much of the seemingly endless German black forests still intact and healthy, this seemed the perfect place to study.

Shortly after returning to the U.S., President Roosevelt had created the National Forest Service and, because of his in-depth knowledge of sustainable forestation practices, Pinchot was appointed to head the fledgling organization. Because of his tireless efforts, there is even a national forest named after him in Washington State.

The World Needs A Forest Service

The great tropical rain forests of the world are now facing this very same issue. Brazil’s Amazon has been afforded the most publicity regarding the matter, but the very same thing can be found across the planet. Unfortunately, there is no Roosevelt or unified government body that can step in to save the day and lead nations to more sustainable solutions to fulfill their economic needs. But do we need to keep making the same mistakes?

Many seem to feel that the solution to this issue is a very black and white matter, with absolute preservation and restoration of the rain forests being an absolute must. Considering how much carbon these lush havens of exotic flora and fauna tend to (temporarily) scrub from the atmosphere, it’s hard to be against this idea. Healthy forests are also great watershed preserves and work to protect the groundwater supply. Of course, there is also the argument for biodiversity reserves, where the often rare species of plants, animals and insects are left in their natural state for future study.

That said, it’s clear that the nations with the most rain forests have financially stable economies that do not rely on the destruction or “processing” of the wild forests. Brunei is just one example of a nation that has been able to keep approximately 90% of its rain forest intact by focusing more on extracting the dirtier and more profitable crude oil out of the ocean. Naturally, as these various carbon-based fuels begin to dwindle, the nation will be forced to change their economic staple, but the fact of the matter remains that there are options to reducing huge swaths of land to semi-sustainable farmland or worse … suburbs.

Singapore, on the other hand, has lost most of its great rain forest. Their economy has a strong focus on global commerce, and they have one of the busiest ports in the world. The government has set aside preserves in the interior of the nation that are completely protected from exploitation, but this is only due to Singapore’s no-nonsense government and their existing economic escapades.

Wood: The Timeless Commodity

So what does this mean for the majority of the world’s rain forests? Wood is a valuable commodity in the global market, and will continue to be so long as there is construction, furniture, paper and various tools and collectables. Many tropical hardwoods such as mahogany, ebony and teak are especially prized for their beauty and durability. Specialized woods such as balsa also play a role that cannot otherwise be done with synthetics.

The biggest problem with cutting down the rain forest isn’t just the denuding of real estate, though. It’s the lack of re-planting. Instead of building sustainable forest plantations capable of providing wood for an eternity (by human standards), the naked land is often abandoned, left to erode, given to farmers or otherwise left for cattle to graze on. Although this sounds as though effective ways to make use of the land, these practices are often mismanaged and result in ruin. That said, we cannot put all of the blame on these smaller nations, as the food raised on these deforested patches of land is often sold to the wealthier nations. So long as wealthy nations continue to consume large quantities of imported grains and meats, deforestation will continue.

Sustainable forestry is possible in the rain forest regions, just as it is in North America. Scientists are even working on ways to manage these incredibly diverse ecosystems in new and sustainable ways. As Gifford Pinchot understood nearly a century ago, scientific forestry must replace haphazard and short-sighted practices. However, in order for this to work, the governments of these nations must see that it’s to their advantage to adopt these sustainable policies.

Bookmark To