“If natural gas stays down below the earth with high pressure for several hundred million years, why shouldn't CO2 stay down there?„

Comments:

I think Carbon sequestration is a great idea, however, the dependancy on technology to either can it, or pump it underground is still not certain. There is an element of us crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.

However, there is an alternative. It is bio-evolved, better than nano technology and uses the simplest of ingredients, sunlight, water and Carbon Dioxide. It's photosynthesis.

Nature has evolved a method of carbon capture that is fool proof. Every plant on the planet can do it, even tiny little phytoplankton can do it. It is the reason you can read this. Without photosynthesis pretty much nothing would happen on the planet, unless you were a worm at the bottom of the ocean, living near thermal vents, living off hydrogen and sulphur.

Plants and Phytoplankton absorb CO2 molecules from their environment, they strip off the two oxygen atoms and return them to the atmosphere, which is nice, and keep the carbon atoms. Phytoplankton make use of the carbon atom to make calcium carbonate and plants make complex sugars such as cellulose.

So the biosphere is one of the largest of our carbon sinks. But how do we engage with this natural cycle without disturbing it? Simple, we work within it and build buildings out of photosynthetic materials. Wood, straw, hemp, bamboo, coconut shells etc etc

For example a cubic meter of timber has banked the equivalent of 800 kg of atmospheric CO2. (Remember, there is no CO2 in timber its the Carbon that is banked ie if you burnt 1m3 of timber the Carbon in it would recombine with two oxygen atoms from the atmosphere to make CO2, at the same time releasing the solar energy absorbed by the tree in the form of heat. More of which later).

Now if we manage our forests sustainably by planting 3 trees for every one we cut down we can harvest this banked carbon and build with it. If we combine it with other cellulose based materials we can insulate the our buildings buildings as well For example, in UK we produce 3m tonnes of straw per year as a by product growing wheat. That's 3 m tonnes we struggle to find a use for.

So at ModCell we have developed a system of building using wood, straw hemp and lime to create buildings made of sunlight, water and carbon all combined by nature via photosynthesis. A photosynthetic architecture!

But wait a minute, where does lime come from? Well, lime is made from limestone. And what is Limestone? Well, limestone is made from calcium carbonate, remember that? Calcium carbonate is what the phytoplankton make out of CO2. Limestone is the remains of the structures of billions of phytoplankton and sea shells that collected on ocean floors millions of years ago. Over time with heat and pressure they formed limestone. Lime is sequestered carbon!

So what do photosynthetic buildings look like? Pretty cool actually, check out some examples at:

http://www.modcell.co.uk/

The best thing about taking this approach is that not only is the footprint of building carbon negative because of the carbon banking of the materials, but the buildings are themselves fantastically energy efficient. For example a BaleHaus, that's what we call a home made this way, does not require conventional heating ie Its CO2 emissions are reduced to a minimum. If we use BioMass (wood) to heat them it is carbon neutral.

So do you trust our ability to squirt CO2 down a hole in the ground and keep it there, or work perhaps we should work with nature and bank it into the buildings we live in?

Interested in finding out more? Check out the pitch at:

http://www.goodentrepreneur.com/The-Competition/Entries-Pool/Photosynthetic-Architecture-or-Grow-your-Own

Regards

Craig White
Good Entrepreneur Hopeful

by Craig White

View on LinkedIn

Carbon Sequestration: How to Clean Coal

Renewable energies won’t be able to fully substitute fossil fuels for years to come. Filtering CO2 from coal power plants, known as carbon capture and storage, will be crucial. The first pilot project is online in Germany. Can “clean coal” be a reliable solution to climate change?

The smokestacks of the Schwarze Pumpe coal power plant in eastern Germany are an impressive sight. This giant plant towers over the surrounding fields and villages, supplying 1,600 Megawatts of energy for the region.

If you're concerned about global warming, however, you might be less impressed. The towers belch out around 36,000 tons of carbon dioxide every day–one of thousands of coal-fired plants worldwide that together produce around 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions and over 40 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

But hope is near, just hundreds of meters away, engineers are experimenting with what could be the future of the coal industry–carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology traps carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere when burning coal. Instead of lingering in the atmosphere for centuries, the captured CO2 can be liquefied and stored in places like depleted oil and gas fields.

Here at Schwarze Pumpe (literally, “black pump”), Swedish utility Vatenfall has established the world's first operational CCS pilot plant. The 30-Megawatt facility went online in September, and will test the technology and economic feasibility of oxyfuel combustion–one of a few ways by which carbon dioxide can be captured. Oxfuel burns coal in pure oxygen, which produces a nearly pure stream of CO2

Small scale, high hopes

Although the pilot project is very small in scale (50 times smaller than the neighboring coal power plant), hopes are high about the technology’s potential to curb carbon dioxide emissions globally, particularly because global dependence on coal continues to grow rapidly. Worldwide coal consumption is expected to increase by 65 percent by 2030, with most of growing demand coming from India and China.

Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, calls CCS the "best hope" for adapting the coal industry for a climate-conscious world.

"Coal is cheap and plentiful, and the United States is going to use it for the foreseeable future," Claussen told U.S. Congress in 2007. "Even if we did not, China and India would, so rapid development and deployment of climate-friendly technologies is essential."

UK economist Nicholas Stern also believes CCS is worth developing, as does U.S. President Barack Obama. He supports "clean coal" - a blanket term used to refer to CCS and other processes designed to reduce the environmental damage caused by burning coal. Some U.S. lawmakers have even proposed putting a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants that do not have CCS facilities, despite the fact that the technology is probably at least a decade away from maturity.

Solving or postponing the CO2 problem?

Aside from further technical development, the other major obstacle to widespread use of CCS is its high cost. Utility Vatenfall wants to have a commercial CCS plant running by 2020, and aims to cut costs to 20 euros per ton of captured and stored CO2. But McKinsey & Company estimates current cost at between 60 and 90 euros - well above the current price of a ton of CO2 on the global carbon market. CCS technology also consumes energy and thus raises the cost of energy production.

Several environmental advocacy organizations have also voiced concerns about the environmental impacts of injecting liquefied CO2 underground and deep into the oceans. There is also little knowledge about how long the CO2 will stay underground. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) says that before investing billions of dollars, governments should be certain that stored CO2 will not leak for at least 100,000 years. After all, the aim is to solve - not merely delay - the CO2 problem.

But the industry seems confident about the leakage question. Oil companies have long been pumping CO2 into depleted oil and gas fields to maximize recovery, while Norwegian gas company StatoilHydro has been stripping CO2 of natural gas and pumping it deep below the North Sea for over a decade now.

"If natural gas stays down below the earth with high pressure for several hundred million years, why shouldn't CO2 stay down there?," says Daniel Kosel, an engineer who works at the Schwarze Pumpe facility.

The prospect of safe, cheap, and industrial-scale CCS offers an interesting perspective, particularly for countries that are most reliant on coal. Coal-rich countries like Canada, Australia, and the United States have already planned or launched pilot CCS projects. The U.S. alone has between 250 and 500 years of coal reserves and enough underground capacity to store its entire CO2 emissions for another three centuries.

Long the nemesis of climate advocates, the coal industry may still find its key to survival in the low-carbon economy of the future. It’s now up to governments to decide whether to support this technology, or if in fact “no coal” is better than “clean coal.”

Editor: Valdis Wish
Originally published: March 5, 2009
Source: Allianz Knowledge