Why is Carbon Negativity Important?
Carbon negative solutions are the only way we can honestly address the integrated and hard challenges posed by the synergy of: 1] Climate disruption; 2] Ocean warming; & 3] Ocean acidification. All of these problems are driven by too high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Simply reducing the rate at which we add to this existing problem is no solution at all. After all, if I am a sinner, but now I sin less, I am still a sinner.
The only long term solution requires us to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This strongly suggests that the Clean Stoves project of the Global Alliance take a broader look at the benefits derived from stoves based on pyrolysis, rather than combustion, that yield biochar for long term carbon sequestration with substantial other benefits.
If you are not familiar with Ocean Acidification, google will give you many results to follow up on. Scientific American has been following the ocean acidification problem since at least 2006. This guide for policy makers is informative and useful.
4 comments Jock Gill | Agriculture, Climate Change, Community, Economy, Energy, Ethics, Technology
Keeping track of our Carbon is relatively new. I would like to caution against tallying up Carbon Negative gains while ignoring the huge Carbon Positive impact of our daily lives. Our wonderful modern world may have come at a price. We may be deluding ourselves to think that we can address this Carbon issue with anything less than monumental changes. I liked Bernie Sanders recent speech about too much greed. I think that one major externalized cost (i.e. source of profit?) is an atmosphere being overloaded by tons and tons of fossil fuels being burned constantly everywhere. Maybe it is time to suggest a massive divestiture from the fossil fuel industries.
Carbon accounting might start with a ton of Carbon. Some of us emit only about .1 ton per year due to our breathing. Others, you know who, emit tons per month, per week, per day even? The US comes in at about 5 tons per year per person (1 ton per globally), as rough ball-park averages. About half this CO2 is absorbed into the oceans and a lot cycles through vegetation. In any case, there is only so much air per person, and lots of tons of Carbon being oxidized everywhere all the time.
A ton of coal is a refrigerator sized block. A ton of Carbon is in about 200 gallons of gasoline. The coal is almost pure Carbon, the gasoline has a considerable amount of hydrogen, which is better as a fuel from a greenhouse gas perspective. Methane (CH4) has even more Hydrogen per Carbon. We each have about one million tons of air to dump our CO2 into based on the size of the earth’s atmosphere and our population. For a ton of Carbon (12 grams per mole) we create a volume of CO2 equal to 2.4 tons of air (29 grams per mole). Measuring CO2 in ppm is by volume which is the same as molecular count. These gas molecules, CO2, N2, O2, and the others all occupy the same volume for the same number of molecules. The CO2 molecule is heavier (44 grams per mole), so there can be confusion when talking tons of emissions i.e. one ton of Carbon oxidizes to 3.4 tons of CO2. That oxidation releases heat (aka energy) which we seem to like, but it may be certain profit mongers who like it the most. Bill McKibben needs to address why we like burning fossil fuels so much.
Burning a ton of Carbon has added a number of CO2 molecules equal to 2.4 tons of air to a person’s share of air, which is about one million tons. Ignoring the oceans absorption, the CO2 concentration has gone up by 2.4 ppm. Based on a global average of one ton burned per person per year we can expect the whole atmosphere to go up by 1.2 ppm per year, if the oceans absorb half. Efforts to sequester CO2 with Biochar are fantastic, even in light of these figures. But using Biochar to displace fossil fuels and supplement other alternatives, that would be divine. Let’s publicize a grassroots Carbon accounting that can help us understand why we need to use Biochar as part of monumental changes as we stop burning fossil fuels.
AllPowerLabs has done some excellent work. A small business could easily utilize their technology to power a Carbon Negative enterprise. Widely distributed small scale adoption is also key. AllPowerLabs offers the slogan: “Urine Charge”. We can all make a little Biochar while cooking and heating with wood. Fill a small metal container with bits of dry wood, to make a “mechanical” log. A few holes poked in the metal will let the wood gas out, to add to the flames, and if the “mechanical” log is removed in time, it will be filled with char, which can be used to absorb Nitrogen from our urine. (Consider the CO2 emitted in shipping Chilean Nitrate).
I agree with others who say that agriculture is a step down from being a hunter-gatherer. Having to urinate on Biochar made with a “mechanical” log (or an I-can stove) so I can grow some vegetables sustainably may prove that point. (Avoiding tilling as well?) But step down we did, and we can learn some new steps as well. Understanding the Carbon accounting may help explain why.
One more point, if I may. The Mother Earth News recently included figures on how much fossil fuel typically goes into a cord of firewood. I think it was about 10 gallons. This number depends on how the firewood is harvested and delivered. We can exploit the potential Carbon Negativeness of firewood by using electric chainsaws powered by alternative energies. The regular two-stroke chainsaw is so popular, this would qualify as a monumental change, but justified, I think, by Carbon accounting. Modifications to the burners to produce Biochar, not ash, are required as well. Again, only an understanding of the Carbon accounting can justify so much work.
In case anyone is reading my posts, I found a typo. Oxidizing a ton of Carbon produces 3.7 tons of CO2, not 3.4 tons. This is the Molecular Weight of CO2 (44 gram/mole) divided by Carbons (12 gram/mole). That is 44/12 equals 3 and 8/12 or 3.6667 or 3.7.
One mole is defined as a large specific number of molecules, such that a mole of Carbon weighs 12 grams while a mole of CO2 weighs 44 grams based on their Molecular Weights. We can convert from grams (mass) to pounds or tons (weight) because gravity is assumed constant. Tons come in Metric (1000 kg) and other (2000 lbs) flavors, but since a kg = 2.2 lb, these tons are close enough for blog work. Chemistry and math can be fun? Maybe only if you get to call someone a greedy profit monger or try to tell Bill McK what to do.
Corrections to my prior post:
A ton of Carbon oxidizes to about 3.7 tons of CO2, not 3.4 tons. (CO2 MW 44/ C 12 = 3.6667)
A ball-park estimate for a ton of Carbon in gasoline would be 400 gallons (at 5 lbs Carbon per gallon) not 200 gallons. (Water weighs about 8.3 lb per gallon)