Iron Fertilization News

Marine Science Dictated by Politics

2009-01-17T19:32:00.000-08:00

After successfully attacking Climos and Planktos, the anti-science fanatics, neo-luddites, and environomental fundamentalists of the world have begun their move to supress any scientific investigation of iron fertilization science. They have been harassing the German government, the Indian government, and any other politicians they can find, who are vulnerable to such mob hysteria. Their goal, now acheived: to stop the latest research cruise of the Polarstern, conducted by Prof. Victor Smetacek

Thus politics and political correctness are used to block the free investigation of science.

Congratulations to the marine scientists of the world. You have allowed ideologues to distort this science, so that now, your ability to collect data and freely investigate has been blocked. When the environmental fanatics first attacked Climos and Planktos, you ducked and allowed them to dominate the press and the publicity around this issue. You allowed a completely dishonest, scientifically inaccurate, fearmongering view of iron fertilizaton to be spread throught the world. Now that dishonest view has become the accepted gospel.

Instead of the scientifically accurate view:

"Mother nature fertilizes the oceans with billions of tons of iron every year, and has been doing so for billions of years; iron can be vastly beneficial to help the oceans and the planet, let's understand more."

The world now believes this lie:

"Putting iron in the ocean is dumping. It's pollution."

Please understand that this is just the beginning. The ideologues have now seen that they can stop scientists working in areas that do not fit the politics of the day. What is next? Certainly ocean science experiments, from this point forward, will be subject to rules and regulations, dictated not by reason or honest risk assessment, but political correctness.

This is a sad turn of event for the discovery of her late Dr. John Martin. What would have happened, one must wonder, if Professor Martin had lived a little longer, to defend his discovery against such distortion?

Where We Stand on Iron Fertilization

2008-10-11T20:39:00.000-07:00

A few years back I wrote this comment in Treehugger. Still represents my views so here it is again:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People aren't giving iron fertilization fair chance. It's a promising technique and needs to be pursued.

The important thing to realize is that this technique, while it may be normally discussed in relation to carbon dioxide removal, is primarily an ocean restoration process...a potential "reversal" of damage we've already done (and are doing) to the oceans. We do such restoration every day, routinely, on land. We restore damaged ecosystems in fields, forests,and swamps.

Note that 30 years ago, there was actually similar opposition to such eco-restoration on land. People said the same thing "hey, just leave it alone."

Folks, I'm sorry to tell you this, but "just leave it alone" is equivalent to saying "just let it die". Luckily we got past such short-sightedness in the terrestrial ecorestoration field I hope we do the same in marine restoration.

The human race is far too big and too destructive a speciels to go back to this fake-innocent-sounding "just leave the oceans alone" nonsense. Our species is currently stripping the oceans clean of biologcal material, at an astounding rate. Nobody in the US or Europe has sufficient political power to stop this process. We are already destroying our oceans, and you can chant slogans about it all day long, but that won't stop it. So the second-best choice are techniques like iron fertilization.

Let the oceans die, or intervene with artificial support mechanisms. That may well be our choice.

So we'd better let the people doing these smaller-scale experiments proceed with their work, and see what they demonstrate. Give them a few years to try. If it doesn't work, then shut them down.

That's my view.

Breaking News: Planktos Restarts

2008-07-06T13:11:00.000-07:00

The team from failed iron fertilization organization Planktos, led by founder Russ George, just announced they have re-started as Planktos-Science.

In an extensive and detailed exposition on the new web site, George makes the case that damage to the oceans due to a sudden spike in acidification is happening much faster than anyone is willing to admit, and that iron fertilization is the only solution that can stop it. From an email interview, George says:

“Even if society does not emit one single molecule more fossil CO2 the oceans will acidify to death from the CO2 already in the atmosphere... no amount of reducing our carbon footprint will suffice... Not even ceasing all fossil fuel use today…ONLY ecorestoration and replenished and renewed photosynthesis offers any hope at all.”

(If I may editorialize…George has stated many times his unwavering support for reduction of fossil fuel use as well. In the comment above he’s re-iterating that even if carbon usage is reduced, it’s still not enough.)

For those of us who are tempted to view such comments as extremism, well, just pick up a copy of the July 2008 Discover Magazine and look for an article called "Ocean Reflux" -- which highlights scientists saying exactly the same thing.

Also in the new Planktos site, we see the web site is focused specifically on the potential for restoration of ocean health – not carbon credits. George said that this was the intent all along.

“We always defined ourselves as being in the ecorestoration business… But those who attack this field used an age old tactic of defining Planktos as their Strawman and only about iron fertilization and carbon credit money and they attacked us for the characteristics of their Strawman, not for who we are. The sticking of the description of geo-engineering was also opposed by us … if anything we must engage in REVERSE geo-engineering… the hundreds of billions of tonnes of anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 now in the air is (already a form of) geoengineering…"

Strong stuff. If indeed the oceans are in as dire peril as the news seems to show, then George's advocacy of iron fertilization “therapy” makes sense. The planet earth deserves advocacy on both sides of this question, and it deserves people trying new solutions.

As I’ve said in prior commentary, people strongly opposed to iron fertilization have been dominating the debate for many, many years. Now Planktos and Climos and a few others are beginning to fight back, so that we will finally have a real debate on the topic. And even better, they are actually proposing to do something. Maybe it is just research, maybe it will take years or decades, but it's something.

There seem to be thousands of climate change people who consider do nothing to be an acceptable strategy. It's nice to see one person, or perhaps even two people, who are trying to do something. Hey, even with a thousand-to-one ratio of do nothing people to do something people, at least we have some chance for a valid scientifically accurate debate, right?

It is absolutely crucial that we have strong champions, and a full debate, on both sides. Only in this way will the general public and government leaders, as time goes on, develop a full understanding all sides of the question and have an opportunity to make reasonable decisions.

So thank you Planktos for trying again.

One of the most valuable technologies in world today

2008-06-26T13:00:00.000-07:00

I’ve had a few people ask “why are you working on iron fertilization when so many people are so violently opposed to it?” Good question. The answer is, I'm beginning to have a bit of a sense of history. Perhaps it comes with advancing age. I’d like to think that in my life I’ve made some contribution to the world.

From that perspective, there is no single technology on the planet, that I can think of, that is more important and more deserving of my attention than iron fertilization.

The fact that so many people are so violently and even hysterically opposed to it simply confirms for me that it is big, big, big. Assuming it can be made to work, and I think there is a very good chance it will, iron fertilization is probably one of the most potent techniques the human race has discovered in years.

It has the capability of making planetary scale improvements in the ocean. Just the increase in fish and ocean life, if valued in dollars, runs into the billions.

It has the capability of helping large swaths of the human population, people who depend on that sealife, who are often struggling to survive and are seeing their livelihoods die away, as the fish disappear.

If Climos and Planktos are to be believed, it has the potential to remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a process that by any measure is worth many billions of dollars per year, at least.

Opponents of the technique have focused on the “carbon credit” aspect of the field, assuming that is the only money to be made (in this case, they hope to stop it completely by blocking carbon credits). As I stated in an earlier post, I don’t believe that will succeed; sooner or later, national governments will begin fertilizing regardless of what the environmentalists say. But even beyond the carbon credit value, there will be massive amounts of money, in the form of research funds and much more, flowing into the area of iron fertilization, and into the area of ocean science in general. Firms that have the scientific expertise, connections, and the reputation will be in a position to rake in the government contracts. That itself could be the basis of the next big environmental services company.

Does all this come without any risk whatsoever? Of course not. It's possible that it won't work, that it will fizzle out. But even the research required to arrive at that answer will be the fascinating scientific exploration.

International Groups Grappling With Iron Fertilization Realities

2008-06-25T20:25:00.000-07:00

A correspondent passed along the text shown below. It's government-talk, but what it essentially says is:

"One international study group claims that iron fertilization should only be allowed if it's near shore and small scale"

"Second international group points out this is silly. Iron fertilization doesn't work near shore. It is by definition a deep ocean phenomenon. "

That is a gross simplification, so please read it yourself. But in any case, this is a great example of the process that will eventually result in iron fertilization being authorized and accepted. People will slowly work their way through the various statements and positions, some intelligent, some nonsensical. Slowly the issue will resolve itself and the various regulators will begin to see whose opinions can be trusted. The press will eventually become a little less hysterical and a little more supportive. The public will eventually follow suit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIF Update: A Statement on Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) by the IOC Ad-hoc consultative group on OIF was released in advance of next week's meeting.

Next week the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) meets in Paris for the 41st session of the Executive Council. The IOC is a part of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Approximately 230 Delegates from 53 nations will participate. http://ioc-unesco.org/

In preparation for this meeting, IOC Ad-hoc Consultative Group on OIF released a response to the recent statement by the Convention on Biological Diversity. This is attached.

Excerpted:
III. ADDENDUM (June 14, 2008):
Response to the statement of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on Ocean Fertilization Activities (30 May 2008)

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization is concerned that the statement on ocean fertilization activities issued by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity in Bonn on 30 May 2008 places unnecessary and undue restriction on legitimate scientific activities.

The statement reads, in part, "[The Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biodiversity (COP of the CBD)] ... urges other Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing associated risks, and a global transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities; with the exception of small scale research studies within coastal waters." The IOC ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization notes that:

(1) The COP of the CBD recognizes "the ongoing scientific and legal analysis [of ocean fertilization] occurring under the auspices of the London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol."

(2) The CBD proposes that “ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, …with the exception of small scale scientific research studies within coastal waters.” The restriction of experiments to coastal waters appears to be a new, arbitrary, and counterproductive limitation. The most useful ocean fertilization experiments to date have been performed in open ocean environments, as this is where marine productivity is most commonly limited by micronutrients. There is no scientific basis for limiting such experiments to coastal environments.

(3) There are good scientific reasons to do larger experiments, including diminishing dilution near the center of the experimental area and obtaining better data relating to vertical transport processes. "Small scale" is a relative term. A circle 200 km in diameter would cover less than one ten-thousandth of the ocean.

(4) We are concerned about the phrase in the CBD statement "global transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism … for these activities". We assume that “these activities” refers to ocean fertilization activities for the purpose of introducing additional carbon dioxide into the ocean, as distinct from purposes such as legitimate scientific investigation. It would be helpful if this phrase were clarified to make this important distinction evident

(5) Preservation of biodiversity in marine systems may require good scientific information from manipulative experiments in the open ocean. A careful science-based "assessment of associated risks" depends on knowledge that could be gained by further experimentation.

(6) It is essential for sound and unbiased scientific advice to be available to intergovernmental deliberations on the issue of ocean fertilization both to protect the marine environment and to ensure that marine scientific research is not unnecessarily hindered. The IOC should continue to provide scientific advice to the London Convention Scientific Group, as well as other international or intergovernmental deliberations, as requested.

The Ad-Hoc Group is:

Ken Caldeira (Chair), Carnegie Institute of Washington, Stanford, USA; Philip Boyd, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand; Ulf Reibesell, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Germany; Christopher Sabine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA; Andrew Watson, University of East Anglia, UK.

As a part of the Executive Council meeting, Dr. Maria Hood of the IOC, will present an update to the delegates on the recent IMO London Convention Scientific Group meeting in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The abstract for her session is as follows:

Report on the IMO London Convention Scientific Group Meeting on Ocean Iron Fertilization
IOC Programme Specialist in the Ocean Sciences Section, Dr Maria Hood, will introduce this item. Given the prominence and impact of the IPCC Assessment Report 4, the successful positioning by the UN of the Climate Change issue on top of the international agenda, and in view of the ongoing negotiations for a post 2012 agreement on the Climate Change regime under UNFCCC, ocean iron fertlization has received renewed attention.

DECISION 4.3.5: The Executive Council will be invited to provide any guidance it deems desirable to the Executive Secretary to pursue the development of sound and unbiased scientific advice to support the London Convention Scientific Group’s work on ocean fertilization as requested, as well as any other general guidance with respect to this issue and to report on developments and environmental implications of ocean CO2 sequestration to the Member States.

IOC/INF-1247: Report on the IMO London Convention Scientific Group Meeting on Ocean Fertilization

About the IOC

The IOC was created in 1960 to promote international cooperation and coordinate programmes in research, sustainable development, protection of the marine environment, capacity-building for improved management, and decision-making. It assists developing countries in strengthening their institutions to obtain self-driven sustainability in marine sciences. On a regional level, it is coordinating the development of tsunami early warning and mitigation systems in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean, the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean. It also facilitates interagency coordination through the UN-Oceans mechanism and works with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in establishing a process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment. Through the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS)—the ocean component of the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)—the IOC helps improve operational oceanography, weather and climate forecasts and monitoring and support the sustained observing needs of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

About the 41st Session of the IOC Executive Council

The IOC Executive Council elected in 2007 will meet at the IOC Headquarters in Paris on 24 June – 1 July 2008. The forty Member States that will convene for the 41st session of the Executive Council will have in front of them a rich and challenging agenda. They will consider the results of the first session of the Working Group on the Future of IOC, tasked with identifying options for enhancing the role of IOC in terms of institutional arrangements, financial resources, and relations with other intergovernmental and international organizations. The Executive Council will also discuss and adopt a programme of activities for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of IOC in 2010 that will take stock of the achievements of the Commission as well as current and future needs in terms of ocean science, observations and capacity-building. Among other items on the agenda before the Executive Council include an Operational Plan for the 2008–2009 biennium, the identification of possible activities in the area of marine ecosystems, and the coordination of regional tsunami early warning systems.

Planktos Announces Resignation and Release of CEO and Employees

2008-04-03T14:18:00.000-07:00

In the continued sinking of the S.S. Planktos, the company website now says that all employees, including Founder Russ George, have resigned and been released from all claims. Further it announces that they have abandoned all work. It's actually pretty interesting reading. Here is a copy, just in case the Planktos site is shut down.

March 31 2008

Russ George, Founder and CEO Resigns: Release and Settlement Agreement

Effective March 3, 2008, the Company's board of directors accepted the resignation of Russ George from the board of directors and accepted his resignation as the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and principal accounting officer.

On February 22, 2008 Planktos Corp. (the "Company"), in concurrence with its wholly owned subsidiary Planktos, Inc., entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement with Russ George, Solar Energy Limited ("Solar"), and Nelson Skalbania for the purposes of separating the services and know how of Russ George, from each of the Company, Planktos, Inc., and Solar (the "Agreement").

The Company is a majority owned subsidiary of Solar. Planktos, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company while D2Fusion, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar. Russ George was formerly the sole executive officer and a director of the Company. Nelson Skalbania is the chief executive officer and a director of Solar.

The Agreement provides that Russ George resign his positions as the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and principal accounting officer, resign from the Company's board of directors and return to Solar for cancellation three million five hundred thousand (3,500,000) shares of Solar that were issued to him for his ownership interest in Planktos, Inc. and D2Fusion, Inc. in exchange for a return to him of the proprietary know-how associated with ocean fertilization concept. Parties to the Agreement further agreed to forego any possible claims against each other and to cooperate in resolving outstanding issues associated with the Company's business.

Effective March 3, 2008, the Company's board of directors appointed Robert Fisher as chief executive officer, chief financial officer and principal accounting officer.

Disposition of Assets

Offer to Purchase (Klimafa) On February 1, 2008 the Company and Planktos, Inc. executed an Offer to Purchase with Dr. David Gazdag to document the sale of Planktos, Inc.'s sixty percent (60%) interest in Klimafa S.A. ("Klimafa"), a company focused on the sequestration of carbon dioxide with the planting of new forests. The disposition closed effective February 21, 2008 with the execution of an Agreement on Transfer of Business Shares.

Dr. Gazdag was formerly a minority interest holder in Klimafa. The Offer to Purchase provides that Planktos, Inc. convey its interest in Klimafa to Dr. Gazdag in exchange for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in the form of a convertible debenture with a repayment term being the earlier of ten years or Klimafa's generation of cash flow, bearing four percent (4%) per
annum, convertible into sequestered tones of carbon dioxide credits and the right to participate in any new financing arrangements for Klimafa.

Sale of the Weatherbird II

On January 21, 2008, the Company entered into a letter of intent with the St Petersburg Environmental Research Center ("SPERC") to sell its research vessel the Weatherbird II according to certain terms and conditions in exchange for a purchase price of $1,000,000 of which $100,000 was paid on acceptance of the letter of intent. Further to mutual agreement, the terms of the letter of intent were subsequently assigned to Sperc Explorer, Inc. The balance of the purchase price was paid to the Company on February 29, 2008 at which time title to the Weatherbird II passed to Sperc Explorer, Inc.

Other Events

The Company's Board of Directors has decided to abandon any future ocean fertilization efforts that were once intended to restore marine plant life and generate ecological offsets for the global carbon credit market. Due to \widespread opposition to plankton restoration in the environmental world, the Company has encountered serious difficulty in raising the capital needed to fund a series of ocean research trials. The result being that the Company has been forced to let all employees go and will close its Foster City, California office at the end of this month.

Climos Making Progress

2008-03-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

Climos has made several positive announcements in recent weeks.

First, it's raised money. This is good because this money is needed to do the kind of solid science that will provide firm answers to questions and concerns, while (hopefully) uncovering a variety of really useful and ecologically beneficial ocean technologies.

Second, it's hired a California-based eco consultant to do some studies.

Scientists Map Continued Ocean Damage

2008-03-21T14:30:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to an NPR story:

B.S. Halpern
A new map reveals ocean areas most damaged by human activities.

All Things Considered,

February 14, 2008

Maps are drawn to tell us about the ways in which mankind has shaped the landscape by building things like roads, canals and cities. Those maps often leave the world's oceans all but blank.

But now a group of scientists has drawn a map that leaves the land blank and highlights what humans have done to the world's oceans. The team was led by Ben Halpern of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, Calif. Halpern says the goal is to focus more attention on a part of the world that seems out of sight and out of mind.

"Fly over the ocean in a plane and all you see is blue water," Halpern said. "All you can think is, 'Oh my goodness, how can we possibly be having an impact on such a vast resource?'"

The map, which was published in the journal Science, overlays the ocean with bands of color to highlight manmade changes like overfishing and coastal pollution. Pristine areas, shown in blue, are found in oceans near the poles. More-stressed ocean waters are yellow and orange. Trouble spots are red. Halpern says the red zones are the ones found near big cities and near overcrowded coastlines.

"These are the most impacted ocean areas on the planet," Halpern says. "It's where the combination of human activities, from shipping to fishing to land-based pollution, are coming together to make things really bad."
According to the map, the most disturbed ocean areas include Europe's North Sea, the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf, and parts of the Atlantic near the East Coast of the United States. Surprisingly, small zones of pristine ocean water can be found in many of these areas. Halpern says these are the kinds of zones that need to be preserved as a first step toward saving more badly damaged ocean waters.

Changing Our View of Oceans

The data used to make this map came from a wide variety of sources, Halpern says. Fisheries statistics came from the United Nations, and the United States provided data collected by satellites.

But Halpern says that left a lot of gaps. For example, he says his team lacked key information on the fish and other sea life killed and then thrown overboard by giant fishing fleets. Some of those blank spots were filled in by computer programs that allow marine biologists to guess at what they'd find in certain parts of the ocean.
Larry Crowder, a fisheries biologist at Duke University in North Carolina, says this map could change the way a lot of people see the oceans. He compares it to the famous photos of Earth taken by Apollo astronauts in 1968.

That photo "put everybody on the same page, as in 'Hey, we're all living on a little blue dot,'" Crowder says. The new map, he says, "shows us that the ocean isn't infinite, that we can put too much in and take too much out, that we can damage the system upon which we all depend."

The team that drew the new map of the oceans is now working on more detailed regional maps that might be used to predict emerging threats to places like the waters off the coast of California.

UK Environmental Minister: Ocean Fertilization Research Crucial

2008-02-28T12:15:00.000-08:00

After my post "Kyoto Nations Should Provide Leadership on Iron Fertilization" there has been some interesting responses. Here are comments from a senior environmental minister in the UK (name kept private as always).

---------------------
General comments
"The data on ocean acidification over the past year has turned heads in the upper levels. There is wide recognition that problems in the ocean are perhaps more severe than we had given credit for...ocean fertilization, because of it's enormous potential simply must (I will emphasize the word must) be explored vigorously, very likely as part of a larger programme of ocean research and damage remediation research. Other governments in Europe and Asia are of the same opinion and are moving forward with their own plans. The question is how to do this without engendering public opposition."
When asked about partnerships with other nations
"We are going to coordinate within the EU and with the Americans of course, but as you have pointed out, not everyone is on the same page. My guess is that different national groups will proceed at their own pace, using their own scientists, while the public-facing policy is debated."
Regarding concerns by scientists about environmental impacts
"Yes, those should be considered. But really, if the ocean is turning acidic because of our carbon dioxide emissions, it is hardly the time to tiptoe around. Either global climate change is an emergency, or not. Let us make up our minds."
-------------
Would this have any effect on the work of Climos or the late Planktos? Who knows.

Planktos Officially Ceases Operations

2008-02-13T16:33:00.000-08:00

Just saw a press release on the planktos web site which indicates that Planktos is dead, as rumoured.

The release says: "Management has radically downsized the firm" and "options include a possible re-launch of planned marine operations"...

Let's translate. According to a former crew member, "all employees were laid off, including science personnel", and "the boat is being sold".

Sounds like dead to me. Oh well, hope the others working in this area have better luck.

Climos Interview

2008-01-21T12:40:00.001-08:00

Here's a great interview with Climos founder Dan Whaley, in the Cleantech Blog. Hot stuff.

Greenpeace Wins! Planktos Global Warming Research Blocked

2007-12-19T18:34:00.000-08:00

Controversial global warming research firm Planktos just announced that their efforts to begin their first research cruise has been effectively stopped.

According to their press release, their boat was prevented from landing in the Canary islands, where they were due to meet a group of scientists who they were going to partner with.

I emailed one of the Planktos team and got the following explanation:

"The original plan was to do the first test near Equador, but as you may know, the Equadorian government expressed concerns. So the decision was made to go over to the Canary Islands to do joint research with the University of Las Palmas. The marine scientists at Las Palmas have been studying plankton growth for many years and had some extraordinarily valuable data and top quality people. We thought it could be a very fruitful and productive relationship that would make a significant contribution to the science of this field. Also the Spanish government is an active participant in the Kyoto process and could therefore help with regulatory oversight and so on. Unfortunately something happened. As we understand it, some folks in the environmental movement, who were opposed to our research, contacted the Spanish government and press and managed to get them to block our ship from entering port. "

When I aked "were you planning to carry out any iron fertilization experiments right away?" the answer was.

"No, we didn't even have all the equipment installed yet, and no iron fertilizer aboard. Keep in mind, this is a research vessel. Our first goal was to get a good working relationship with the other scientists, to do the appropriate planning with them. "
"It's ironic. On the same days that world leaders were meeting in Bali, Indonesia to try to grapple with global warming, our ship, which has been steaming across the Atlantic on a mission to prove that iron fertilization could be a safe, effective solution to global warming, was stopped dead in the water."

Wow! What a story!

Iron Fertilization Takes Another Step Forward...Climos Methodology Announced

2007-12-03T14:18:00.000-08:00

We just received a press announcement that Climos is in development on a methodology for iron fertilization. In Kyoto-speak, a "methodology" is essentially a scientific protocol or analysis tool that carbon sequestration projects use to prove they have actually removed a certain quantity of CO2 from the air. Having such a methology is mandatory for iron fertilization to be certified, so that the carbon credits generated can be sold as CERs (certified emission reductions) instead of VERs. This is crucial to the iron fertilization market for two reasons, first, it improves the salability of the product, and second, it help scientists and policymakers to take iron fertilization more seriously.

This is a great step forward and we applaud Climos.

Text shown below:

---------------------------------------------
FINAL RELEASE AT THE BEGINNING OF COP 13. FOR WIDE DISTRIBUTION.

Climos Receives First Methodology for Ocean Iron Fertilization from EcoSecurities, Signs with DNV for Validation.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (December 3, 2007) -- Climos, a company dedicated to removing carbon from the atmosphere, today announced that EcoSecurities has prepared a draft version of a methodology for Ocean Iron Fertilization, based on precedent established by the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. This methodology has been delivered to DNV (Det Norske Veritas) for review, in preparation for its implementation at a specific project site. Climos and DNV recently signed a contract for project validation services.

Research and drafting of the methodology was led by Kevin Whilden, Climos Director of Market Strategy, together with Dr. Margaret Leinen, Climos Chief Science Officer; Dr. Anthony Michaels, Director of the Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California; and Jessica Wade-Murphy of EcoSecurities’ Global Consulting Services practice.

“We are pleased to announce the completion of a key step in the development of the first methodology for Ocean Iron Fertilization,” said Dan Whaley, Climos CEO. “Climos is committed to working with the best partners in the industry to bring a robust and verifiable approach for this new technology to market."

"Rigorously defined methods and comprehensive verification procedures are absolutely critical to the success of carbon sequestration methodologies and markets." said Dr. Michaels, an oceanographer specializing in biogeochemistry, nitrogen and carbon cycling. He continued "I applaud Climos in both the quality of this method and their willingness to involve independent scientific experts from major research universities in both the creation of the method and in its assessment. We all agree that we must set a very high bar for quality so that we know that carbon has been safely sequestered and we can balance these benefits with any potential costs and risks."

Dr. Mark Trexler, Director of Global Consulting Services for EcoSecurities said, “EcoSecurities is committed to innovating leading edge methodologies for carbon reduction sectors and technologies that can help set the stage for the greater emissions reductions needs of future carbon markets.”

The elements of the methodology together with an overview of science and policy considerations will be presented Tuesday at 10am in a panel session cosponsored by IETA (International Emissions Trading Association) at this year’s Conference of the Parties (COP 13) beginning in Bali this week

About Climos

Climos is a company dedicated to removing carbon from the atmosphere. Founded in California's Silicon Valley by entrepreneurs Dan Whaley and Richard Whilden, Climos’ scientific research is overseen by Dr. Margaret Leinen, former Assistant Director of Geosciences at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Climos is guided by a Scientific Advisory Board that includes some of the world's experts in ocean, earth and climate science.

About EcoSecurities

EcoSecurities is one of the world’s leading companies in the business of originating, developing and trading carbon credits. EcoSecurities structures and guides greenhouse gas emission reduction projects through the Kyoto Protocol, working with both project developers and buyers of carbon credits. EcoSecurities has experience with projects in the areas of renewable energy, agriculture and urban waste management, industrial efficiency, and forestry. With a network of offices and representatives in over 20 countries on five continents, EcoSecurities has amassed one of the industry’s largest and most diversified portfolios of carbon projects. Today, the company is working on more than 400 projects in 36 countries using 18 different technologies, with the potential to generate more than 150 million carbon credits. EcoSecurities Group plc is listed on the London Stock Exchange AIM (ticker ECO.L).

About Ocean Iron Fertilization

Ocean Iron Fertilization involves the application of iron at trace concentrations in iron-limited regions of the ocean to accelerate the growth of phytoplankton. This process is intended to remove large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere as an approach to mitigating the effects of global warming. It has been demonstrated experimentally in 12 publicly funded open ocean experiments since 1993. A natural part of Earth’s carbon cycle, phytoplankton production sequesters over 3 billion tons of CO2 from the surface ocean to deep water every year in a process referred to by oceanographers as the “Biological Pump”. Over the last billion years, this mechanism has been primarily responsible for the concentration of over 80% of Earth’s mobile carbon in the deep ocean. Oceanographers first confirmed in 1988 that iron is a limiting factor on phytoplankton productivity in many of the world’s oceans.

Finally A Balanced Article on Iron. Thank you Science Mag!

2007-11-30T10:58:00.000-08:00

Over the past year I've been bemoaning the poor quality of the scientific debate surrounding iron fertilization. Much of the coverage, even in the scientific journals, is infected by hype, political posturing, and premature speculation by scientists who ought to know better. Yes, we must accept this sort of stuff from the environmental organizations and commercial entities who are pushing their sides of this argument, but academic scientists are not supposed to let politics bias their arguments.

Therefore it was with the most profound relief that I read yesterday's article in Science, written by Eli Kintisch. Finally... a balanced, factual article.

Now if we can just persuade other scientific journals and certain marine scientists to join this trend, perhaps the science behind iron fertilization can start making some progress.

Let the policymakers and politicians fight over the politics. Scientists stick to the facts and avoid speculations. That is my hope for the future.

Name Change...Iron Fertilization News

2007-11-11T10:54:00.000-08:00

Over the past few months, it's become apparent that Ocean Iron Fertilization is the big debate in the carbon sequestration field, and that's the topic that seems to get posted in this blog. So for the time being, I'm changing the name to reflect this.

Welcome. Anyone with comments, inside news, opinions, or input, anonymous or not, please send them to sbkerry@hotmail.com. They will get posted.

Here is a list of our best posts on this topic:

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2007/10/will-some-kyoto-nation-take-on.html

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2006/07/open-letter-to-marine-science.html

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-not-dumping-stupid-its-aquaculture.html

Regulating Iron Fertilization

2007-11-01T08:42:00.000-07:00

There's been some talk in environmental circles about passing international laws to severely restrict, or ban, ocean iron fertilization.

While I think regulation are a good idea, an outright ban would be an international relations mess and would make the problem worse, not better. Here's one example why:

It's almost 100% certain that either India or China is considering large-scale iron fertilization as a way of complying with post-2012 Kyoto protocol commitments. Both nations are considering joining as of 2012, and both nations have enormous carbon dioxide problems, so the pressure to use iron fertilization will be irresistable. India has already announced a 2009 experiment being done in conjunction with the Wegner Institute under Victor Smetacek -- who is known as a proponent of the technique. We can bet it's going to happen, and it's going to be big.

So, that means we should quickly ban iron fertilzation now, right? Wrong. It won't work out that way. Any short-term effort to ban or super-restrict the technique will be seen as premature and sloppy, and will be ignored.

On the other hand, if on iron fertilization is intelligently regulated, and the regulations are developed in an open and even-handed way, and if those regulations are then applied and tested on current small-scale operations being done by various academic institutions and commercial vendors then those regulations will have "history" and it's more likely that India or China, or whoever, can be persuaded to abide by them.

Kyoto Nations Should Provide Leadership on Iron Fertilization

2007-10-01T09:55:00.000-07:00

I was much affected by the following email, received from a European correspondent who attended the Woods Hole conference:

While I found the conference informative scientifically, I question whether it is appropriate for the United States to take the lead in matters of iron fertilization policy. The US is not a Kyoto signatory. US public and policy makers are far behind in their understanding of the very complex challenges of carbon dioxide regulation. The US political system appears in chaos on the topic on global warming, with a good bit of partisan struggle over the topic, so that most likely iron fertilization will be kicked around like a partisan football instead of being dealt with intelligently.

The Kyoto Protocol has required decades of careful negotiation, compromise, and collaboration by thousands of international participants. Kyoto organisations possess the greatest degree of intelligence and maturity on the topic, and have existing structures well equipped to develop policy. The important questions of iron fertilization are primarily questions of policy. Therefore, early guidance and regulation of iron fertilization research should be undertaken by the Kyoto organisation, using existing structures or those created expressly for this purpose, or by a Kyoto signatory nation acting under the umbrella of Kyoto processes.

Interesting. As I highlighted in a prior post (Open Letter to the Marine Science Community) it seems the iron fertilization debate over the past few years has been driven more by ideology rather than science in the American science community. Prior conferences such as the 2001 ASLO conference on iron fertilization had such a strong ideological bent that their conclusions are scientifically untrustworthy. This is not a healthy situation.

However there is a cure, as suggested by the correspondent above. Could a Kyoto-signatory Annex I nation, hopefully one that has participated in iron fertilization studies or has existing scientific resources, "stand up" and offer leadership and guidance on this question? Such a leadership position would bring great international prestige, not to mention great research data, to the volunteering nation. This could then lead to a more formal submission of the question of iron fertilization to the Kyoto organization and the continuing negotiations for any post-2012 treaties.

There are significant research funds available from European sources...could these be used to fund some aggressive science and some policy proposals, accompanied by political sponsorship by appropriate governments?

Woods Hole Conference on Iron Fertilization

2007-09-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

Conference, September 26-27. I'm not attending, but have a few contacts who will be returning reports.

Link to Woods Hole Conference

Carbon dioxide world heating up (financially that is)

2007-08-09T22:43:00.000-07:00

While we've been yakking about the technology of carbon sequestration, the finance guys are busy getting the money lined up. With the controversy in California and Washington DC over the concept of carbon trading, this is interesting to watch.

Check this out: Carbon Finance Conference

Also: Carbon Constraint

Big money starting to move.

"It's Not Dumping Stupid!" -- It's Aquaculture

2007-06-21T09:16:00.000-07:00

Lately there has been a lot of hysterics by some green organizations about Iron Fertilization. They call it "iron dumping".

Sorry folks, that is simply flat wrong. Iron fertilization of the oceans isn't dumping. That term is scientifically incorrect, ethically incorrect, and legally incorrect.

Iron fertilization is actually classified as a form of Aquaculture. More specifically, it is Algaculture -- a process where free-floating forms of algae (plankton and other diatoms) are grown in the open oceans. It's perfectly normal for such algaculture to make use of nutrient broth to help the little beasties grow.

There are people all over the world promoting algaeculture as a way of making "green" products, including biodiesel, something that is highly promoted and embraced by green organizations like the ones who are so frantically opposed to iron ferilization.

Double standard, or just a bit of confusion? Hmmm...

PS. Actually iron fertilization is better than aquaculture, because instead of removing the plankton you grow, consuming it as fuel, you are leaving it in place to feed to the fish and other ocean life. Vastly superior ecologically.

Terrapass Link

2007-05-10T07:24:00.000-07:00

See some pretty good discussion at the bottom (including some comments by yours truly).

Terrapass link.

Climos

2007-05-04T09:29:00.000-07:00

Also in the recent press I've seen mention of Climos, Inc, another firm apparently set up to follow in Plankos' footsteps. Welcome Climos.

The firm claims to have signed up a stellar cast of scientists, but so far, they've shown little or nothing of their plans or their work.

I note that this company was set up by some other Silicon Valley venture capitalists. These folks are notorious for setting up "stealth" companies where only a single web page is shown, and all else is kept in deepest darkest secrecy.

I'd like to point out to the folks at Climos that this kind of secrecy, while it may work in the dot-com industry, is wholly inappropriate for something like iron fertilization. If you do indeed intend to participate in iron fertilization work, or any other related climate-change technology, then please don't try to sneak around in the background trying to avoid public attention. Declare yourself, tell us what you're doing, and take your hits with everybody else!

Exploring the World Of Cleantech Venture Capitalists

2006-12-26T19:04:00.000-08:00

While googling EPRIDA, I found a great blog that covers the "Cleantech" world. For all of you who don't know diddly about venture capital (as I don't) the term Cleantech is a buzzword used by venture capitalists -- you know, those folks who fund new technologies, and who created Google and Apple and damn near every other high-tech company of the past 20 year.

Here is their post from a few months back, talking about carbon credit investing as the next big thing (which translates into carbon sequestration investing as the next big thing).

More on Char-Soil-Sequestration

2006-12-17T21:16:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post we discussed the concept of making "char" out of agricultural waste, then tilling it into the soil. This sequesters carbon permanently.

This is not just about carbon sequestration, but soil quality and fertilization. The name in the soil geology field is Terra Preta, which refers to the dark quality of the earth where this method was practiced.

A company that is pushing this concept directly is EPRIDA. Very interesting stuff.

Here is another article on the subject and another and another great PPT from EPRIDA.

DOE Carbon Sequestration Newsletter -- Dec 2006

2006-12-07T22:37:00.000-08:00

(ed note: for those of you who have never read this newsletter, I highly recommend it. It's much better looking in the .PDF form than you would think, reading this blog. Check it out.)

Link here

Contents:

DOE Techline, “DOE Project Injects
700 Tons of Carbon Dioxide Into
Texas Sandstone Formation;
Researchers to Determine the Ability
of Brine Formations to Sequester
Greenhouse Gas,” and United Press
International, “US Tests CO2 Underground
Storage Options.”

China Daily, “Nation Ready To Join US Future-
Gen Power Project.”

E&E News, “Idaho Considers Carbon Sequestering
Projects.”

Reuters, “Norway To Build World's Biggest CO2
Capture Facility.”

Energy Central, “ALSTOM, EPRI and We Energies To
Build Pilot Plant In the US To Demonstrate Its
Unique CO2 Capture Process,”

Central Valley Business Times (California), “Central
Valley May Be Site for ‘Carbon Repository’ In Global
Warming Battle,” and San Mateo County Times,
“Delta Explored As Place To Stash Carbon Dioxide:
Global Warming Solution Could Be To Put Gases In
Underground Caverns.”

NASA Announces Drop in Ocean Plankton

2006-12-07T10:56:00.000-08:00

One of the key parts of my interest in Iron Fertilization is the fact that, in addition to sequestering CO2, this technique increases the amount of plankton growing in the ocean, which helps restore fish and marine mammal populations. As one a correspondent from Planktos said: "actually we consider the plankton and sea life restoration to be the most important part of the mission...removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere provides the funds via carbon credits. It's a win-win for everybody." (Note, Planktos is a private firm developing iron fertilization techniques...listed in Ocean Conservancy article highlighted in my past few posts.)

So here's a bombshell yesterday from NASA (quoted from the UK Independant)

Climate change is killing the oceans' microscopic 'lungs'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Global warming has begun to change the way microscopic plant life in the oceans absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - a trend that could lead to a dramatic increase in the heating power of the greenhouse effect.
Satellite data gathered over the past 10 years has shown for the first time that the growth of marine phytoplankton - the basis of the entire ocean food chain - is being adversely affected by rising sea temperatures.
Scientists have found that as the oceans become warmer, they are less able to support the phytoplankton that have been an important influence on moderating climate change

More on this topic:

Boston Globe

SF Chronicle

ABC News

Planktos press release on this topic

Ocean Conservancy Response

2006-11-21T22:36:00.000-08:00

After posting "Ocean Conservancy in Muddy Waters" I sent a letter to their President, excerpted here:

Dear Mr. Tepper: I'm concerned that, in the recent "Blue Planet" article on Iron Fertilization, your organization has jumped into a muddy, ethically questionable situation in the marine science community. This is now discussed in an article entitled "Ocean Conservancy in Murky Waters." I wonder if your staff realized the risks before taking such a stance...

And received the following very polite and interesting response:

Steven, Thank you for your note and comments. Our editor, Andy Myers, is always quite careful in his work. In this case, his hope was to not only report on this development but also stimulate dialogue around the issue to support further research and progress. It appears that this goal has been achieved!

We seek for a fair and balanced approach in reporting, and while we pride ourselves on being science-based, our business is science-based advocacy. In moving towards our advocacy, he spoke with a variety of leaders in the scientific community on the issue, including Ken Johnson, John Cullen, and Mark Lawrence.

To give you a taste of these conversations, he also spoke with Dr. Kenneth Coale at Moss Landing, who relayed that the article was a "nice piece." He went on however to remind us that our planet is in trouble and ocean fertilization is a cost effective option we must keep on the table, and continue scientific exploration of the idea instead of permitting hypothetical speculation to end proper review, debate, analysis.

While we stand by our presentation of the issue, we also agree with Dr. Coale, and are of an open mind to other opinions, and so expect to print a response from supporters, most probably Dr. Coale, in our next issue.

With respect to your views and writing, we live in a free country, so please publish anything you feel is appropriate. We would only hope that you would also seek a fair and balanced approach.

Regards, Tom Tepper

So it should be said that perhaps the earlier criticism of Dr. Coale may be wrong. I'd be happy to know that was the case.

Interesting topic!

Ocean Conservancy in Murky Waters

2006-11-14T21:42:00.000-08:00

I have a lot of respect for the Ocean Conservancy. They’re one of the largest or maybe the largest protectors of mother ocean. Therefore I can only wonder…did the staffers at the Ocean Conservancy realize that, in their Fall 2006 issue of Blue Planet magazine, they were jumping into a muddy, questionable situation?

I’m referring, of course, to their article on iron fertilization . As you regular readers may recall, last July I published an analysis showing pretty convincingly that the iron fertilization debate has been driven to an unusual extent by personal bias and politics, not by a rational scientific approach. There has been an unseemly amount of fallacious arguments, spin tactics, and pushing of personal agendas. Thus a technology with great promise, potentially beneficial to the health of millions of human beings, and the planet, has not gotten the quality of examination it deserves.

That’s how it appears in any case, and there has been enough emails from other scientists to confirm that I’m not the only one who sees it that way!

As a net result, the ocean science community has taken an extremely negative view – far more negative, far too prematurely, than seems warranted by the sparse data collected so far. And now a leading environmental group has been recruited to this same negative position.

One claim is that involvement of commercial ventures is an invitation to abuse. Nonsense. Many types of ecological restoration are done by private companies, consultants, or engineering firms in every facet of the environmental field, from reforestation to wetlands restoration to toxic cleanup. Commercial involvement is nothing new, nothing unusual. Yet in this case, it seems that commercial ventures have been used as a “bogeyman”, to induce panic and to short-circuit the normal process of scientific discussion.

If handled properly , iron fertilization has potential to be good for the ecosystem. But that isn’t the story we read in Blue Planet. Instead we read such gems as this:

Others see it more simply. “The ocean has been proposed as a dumping ground of last resort for all sorts of human waste—everything from nuclear wastes to household trash—based on the idea that the ocean can absorb anything. Ocean fertilization is just another form of waste disposal,” noted Mark Powell, an oceanographer and Director of Fish Conservation at The Ocean Conservancy. “Let’s not trade the hell we know for the one we don’t.”

Now folks, this quote is just plain fallacious. There is no better way to describe it. Iron fertilization is a technique in which tiny trace amounts of a natural plant food—an iron supplement—is added to the water to restore normal levels of minerals, so that ocean plants can grow. As a side product, these plants absorb carbon dioxide, in a process that is absolutely natural to the oceans.

It’s the equivalent of adding a small layer of topsoil to help grow trees over a restored strip-mine, or adding some nutrients to help a marsh overcome some toxic spill. Imagine adding a single drop of liquid plant food to a 50 gallon aquarium, to help the plants grow.

Iron fertilization is a technique which, if done properly, might restore the health of the ocean commons and help restore ocean fish populations. Yet here is the Ocean Conservancy calling it “dumping” – painting a emotional picture of ecological villains who dump oil out of tankers or barrels of toxic waste. It’s an abuse of the English language and of the hearts and minds of green citizens.

Do we “know” that iron fertilization could help the oceans? No, we don’t know this for sure, and if the anti-irons have their way, we’ll NEVER know, because nobody will ever even try. That is the tragedy of pushing fear tactics in place of a more rational, reasoned scientific debate.

The worst part is…the world of green citizens probably won’t catch this. How could they know that much of this story is questionable? Reading the article, trusting the source, they will reactive reflexively, negatively, and next time some ocean scientist tries to propose this solution to help the ocean, that scientist will get shouted down. Thus the scientific method is undercut by creeping, insidious negativity.

And then, 50 years from now, when the coral is dead, the whales and major fish populations have starved, and the waters of the deep ocean are devoid of life, when our grandchildren ask us “Did you look for creative solutions to prevent this”? What will we say? “Well sorry kids, but actually we had a possible solution but we didn’t follow it up because there were a few people yelling about it, who managed to inflame people’s fears, and we didn’t want to challenge them.” Can you imagine saying that to your grandchildren, as you gaze across the dying seas?

I can’t, and I hope I don't have to.

PS. Don't be surprised if there is more discussion of this. Iron fertilization is now part of a worldwide debate over global warming and fish depletion. Billions of dollars and millions of lives at stake. You can be sure that if a potential cure has been bypassed, the public and the decision-makers will want to know about it.

Prior links on this subject:

First Annual Ranking of Top 3 Carbon Sequestration Technologies

Open Letter to the Marine Science Community: Has Personal Bias Derailed Science?

10 Years ago, Iron Fertilization Battle Lines Already Drawn

--------------

Note 11/17 -- edited to remove excess commentary

Good Article on Geologic Storage

2006-10-01T08:34:00.000-07:00

There's been a scarcity of good popular media articles on carbon sequestration...let's face it, this is a pretty technical topic. So it was nice to see this article in a California bay area newspaper. It's a good balanced presentation.

Hole Holds Hopes For Fighting Global Warming

Greenhouse gases to be put to rest in deep Delta grave in experiment that may shape future of U.S. energy

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

In a few weeks, scientists want to drill almost a mile under a bit of marshy Delta farmland and this spring begin pumping down liquid carbon dioxide at high pressure...

Convert Crop Waste to Char, Put in Soil

2006-09-30T07:37:00.000-07:00

One of the simpler methods of sequestering carbon is to manage farmlands intelligently, so that more carbon dioxide is retained in the soil. We've talked about this technique before.

However, there is a way of increasing the sequestration level significantly. According to this article in Nature, the simple technique of converting leftover biomass into charcoal and then plowing the charcoal into the ground, can do wonders. And it increases soil fertility as well.

Read more about it in World Changing.Org

DOE-NETL Releases New Roadmap for Carbon Sequestration

2006-09-23T16:39:00.000-07:00

Link Here

This 40 page document (free) contains all kinds of interesting government propoganda about carbon sequestration -- some of it might even be true! Check it out.

Big Fuss in Press Over CO2

2006-09-09T09:08:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks there have been a huge number of articles about Global Warming and CO2 in general. Here is a sampling:

Technology Review

Carbon Ready -- Sequestration science is far ahead of needed policy.

Pumping liquid carbon dioxide underground on a massive scale so it won't contribute to global warming has been talked about for years. Howard Herzog, an MIT chemical engineer and the program manager of the Carbon Sequestration Initiative, an industrial consortium, says the most recent international conference on the subject--in Trondheim, Norway, earlier this year--made clear two things: First, the geological questions are being resolved favorably. Second, without policies that put a price on CO2, it's unlikely that any sequestration facilities will actually get built.

The Economist

The Heat is On

The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction. America should lead the way.

FOR most of the Earth's history, the planet has been either very cold, by our standards, or very hot. Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming. Eighteen thousand years ago there was ice two miles thick in Scotland and, because of the size of the ice sheets, the sea level was 130m lower. Ice-core studies show that in some places dramatic changes happened remarkably swiftly: temperatures rose by as much as 20°C in a decade. Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress.

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter August 2006

2006-08-30T11:52:00.000-07:00

Link Here

Highlights:

DOE Press Release, “Secretary Bodman Visits Alberta, Canada.”

DOE Fossil Energy Techline, “FutureGen
Alliance Announces Final Candidate Host
Sites.”

The Seattle Times, “Supreme Court To Rule on Regulating Carbon Dioxide,” and Energy and Environment Daily
.
BP Press Release, “BP and GE to Develop Hydrogen
Power Plants and Technologies.”

Defra Press Release, “Landmark Carbon Capture and
Storage Workshop in Beijing: July 4-5 2006.”

Energy and Environment Daily, “ ‘Hockey Stick’ Analysis
Still Ruffling Feathers in Congress.”

The Washington Post, “Pollution in Overdrive, New Report
Cites US Motorists For Production of Greenhouse
Gases.”

Greenwire, “G8 Gives Nod to Post-Kyoto Talks, Voluntary
Programs.”

Latest Issue of Nature

2006-08-15T21:44:00.000-07:00

"Nature" magazine has several excellent articles on carbon sequestration in their August 10 issue. Highly recommended.

Unfortunately not much of it is accessible through the Net, but check out Link here

New Method of Ocean-Floor Sequestration

2006-08-14T21:49:00.000-07:00

There have been several articles lately about a proposal to bury CO2 under sediment "caps" in the ocean. Link here.

Treehugger Ranks Carbon Sequestration Techniques

2006-08-04T19:16:00.000-07:00

It's wonderful to see someone else covering this.

Treehugger Link

Personally I'm going back into Treehugger archives to see what else they've posted. The only beef I have is their use of the term "planetary engineering" and talking about the Giant-Sulfur-Cloud-In-The-Sky projects. Same thing with "Giant Mirrors" and other similar schemes. I think it's wrong to link Iron Fertilization and Geological Injection in the same category.

Why? Because Iron Fertilization and Geological CO2 injection are permanently removing the root cause of the warming from the environment. These sequestration techniques are therefore "persistent" and preventative. Energy conservation and renewable energy are even better yet, because they don't produce CO2 to begin with.

But the giant mirror/sulfur thing last only for a year or two and then has to be done all over again. It's a very poor form of life support for the planet. Better to focus on actual cures.

In any case...the Treehugger article is great.

Good Discussion of Reforestation (With Some Critique)

2006-07-26T22:20:00.000-07:00

Climate Change Action Blog

With a small debate with Treeflights.com, a commercial carbon-credit funded reforestation group.

The Dirty Secret -- Critique of FutureGen Coal Plant etc.

2006-07-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

Just read a very detailed and excellent article about FutureGen and other fossil-fuel carbon reduction technologies. Give it a look. In fact, go buy this issue of the magazine, it's full of global warming articles.

Technology Review: The Dirty Secret, July/August 2006

Excerpts:

Today there is a patch of land in Great Bend, OH, where an advanced coal plant may one day be built. The plant could eventually include equipment for siphoning off carbon dioxide. But it's not FutureGen, which today remains a collection of research projects. No FutureGen plant has been constructed, and no site for one has been chosen. The proposed plant at Great Bend could more appropriately be called "PresentGen." The technology involved doesn't demand a White House neologism suggesting that clean coal is something for which we must wait.

----------------------------
If IGCC is more than ready, its benefits are apparent, and sequestration seems plausible, why aren't plants that at least make carbon dioxide capture simpler getting built? "I don't necessarily think the technology is the limiting step. What's not there is the economic incentive, of course," says Howard Herzog, a chemical engineer at MIT, who manages an industrial consortium called the Carbon Sequestration Initiative. AEP estimates that IGCC plants with carbon sequestration could carry a 50 percent overall cost premium compared with traditional plants.

------------------------------------
To date, pumping carbon dioxide underground has mainly been a way to push more oil to the surface; the primary objective wasn't really to store carbon dioxide permanently. So a critical question remains unanswered: will carbon dioxide stay where you want it?
In an old steel-walled lab at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, geochemist George Guthrie holds out a smooth chunk of cement the size of a sea scallop. The chunk was recently drilled out of cement poured more than 50 years ago to plug the pipe in an old Texas oil well that had been crammed with carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery. Guthrie holds up the chunk: a quarter-inch swath of it is the color of an orange Creamsicle. This staining, Guthrie says, is acid corrosion induced by carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when it mixes with groundwater.

The chunk is a kind of Rorschach test. On the one hand, it could be read to imply that the carbon dioxide damaged the cement plug. On the other hand, it might imply that the damage was minimal -- and may not progress further. There's a lot riding on the answer. If the plug on a reservoir blew, the carbon dioxide could be released -- and the climate benefits of sequestration would, as it were, vanish into thin air. "There are significant consequences for doing this wrong," Guthrie observes. "On the other hand, it may be that much of the technology for doing this right already exists. There has been such enthusiasm behind [sequestration] that it is easy to forget about the implications of doing this on such a large scale."

There is reason for guarded optimism. The Statoil project and the Dakota gasification plant have already stored 20 million tons of carbon dioxide each; a gas field in Algeria has stored 17 million tons; a project in the Netherlands, eight million. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates -- based on experience and on models -- that properly engineered systems could retain 99 percent of their carbon dioxide over 100 years and would "likely" do so over 1,000 years.

First Annual Ranking of Top 3 Carbon Sequestration Technologies

2006-07-22T21:04:00.000-07:00

Editors note: At some point you have to sit down and try to pick your favorites from a range of new options. Here we go....

First Choice: Iron Fertilization

Feasibility: Good
Scalability: Excellent
Cost: Low
Risk: Low (see explanation below)

Iron fertilization is an interesting story. It has the best potential feasibility, low cost, and “scalability” -- in theory it could be scaled up to very large amounts. Actually it would be better if considered on a smaller scale…more about that below.

Yet as we’ve discussed in earlier posts ( link1, link2, link3), it has attracted major resistance and triggered hysterical prognostications of doom and environmental devastation by certain critics. Investigation of the science has been painfully slow, even stalled. The situation is so sad that we’ve published an Open Letter to the Marine Science Community .

Risks have probably been overblown or misinterpreted. Although there is a chance that the technique won’t work or will cause damage, it’s more likely that it can be tuned to be safe, controllable, and positive for the ocean ecosystem.

How to resolve the impasse between critics and proponents? Why do we think this process deserves a “low” risk rating? Here’s a proposal:

The sticking point has always been size. Scientists debating the process have assumed, as a starting point for discussion, that iron fertilization must be done on a massive scale to soak up all of mankind’s excess carbon (so-called “geo-engineering”). But this is a logical fallacy – it is not necessary to evaluate the process only on a gigantic scale. And in any case, the consensus of the world climate change community is that no single technology is expected, or even desired, to do the entire job single-handedly.

So what if we focus on small and medium-scale applications? Even staunch critic Sallie Chisholm stated that iron fertilization if done in local patches would be likely safe, could be monitored, and would not affect the ecosystem permanently.

Is this a workable strategy? Absolutely. Consider that any commercial or government agencies starting these projects, at least in the first few decades, could only do projects which by definition qualify as “small” on an oceanic scale, even if they sequester a comparatively large amount of carbon. Projects would naturally start small, grow slowly. Even if faster growth was possible, the available investment money wouldn’t support it. All activity, in order to qualify for carbon credits, would have to be completely transparent for oversight by concerned parties.

The key step, as anyone experienced with environmental restoration, is to get out in the field and give it a try. A reasonable approach would be a partnership between commercial ventures, willing to risk seed capital, along with major ocean science labs, willing to study feasibility and underlying processes, both working under the aegis of the Kyoto development mechanisms, and closely monitored by science and environmental groups.

As these first projects begin, this will funnel significant new funding into the monitoring and testing of deep ocean conditions by growing ranks of marine scientists. This growth in funding and public attention would itself provide additional data on long-term effects.

Above all, the Marine Science field needs significant funding increases to accelerate their understanding and resolve further questions. Given the enormous sums being poured into much less likely and more risky technologies, this one is getting shortchanged

For all these reasons, we believe that Ocean Iron Fertilization is still the best opportunity in sight, if it is approached less emotionally, and more practically.

Second Choice: Reforestation and Agricultural Sequestration

Feasibility: Excellent
Scalability: Poor
Cost: Moderate
Risk: None

Who doesn’t like growing more trees? If we can grow more trees intelligently, we can restore forestlands, improve quality of life, and create a short-term fix to remove a bit of carbon dioxide from the air at the same time.

Reforestation projects are underway in a hundred different locations in the developed and developing world. There are still obstacles, but the risk is non-existent and the science well understood.

Note that reforestation and improved agricultural practices fit the long-term trends of the world. As people move to less agrarian lives, they are removing the burden of over-cutting that has reduced forests, and appreciating the pleasures of restored forestlands. Reforestation therefore has social and national benefits, in addition to its environmental benefits.

In the tropics, this process has yet to take hold. Deforestation, slash-and-burn framing, is still an enormous problem. Reforestation for carbon credits could be one more tool to prevent this.

It’s good for the land, good for the animal species, good for the ecosystem, and good for the human soul. It’s a win-win.

Unfortunately, Reforestation is a slow-growth business that has some significant limits on size and scale. Planting trees is slow, and growing trees is slow. It’s expensive to do. Therefore it drops to second place in our ranking.

Third Choice: Geologic Sequestration

Feasibility: Poor
Scalability: Excellent
Cost: High
Risk: Moderate

Finally, there is geological sequestration. Despite great unknowns, this is the biggest “technologically driven” method of sequestering fossil fuel emissions, most significantly from coal burning power plants.

Coal is the economic driving force for many nations, including the US and China. While it’s nice to dream that we could shut them down, the fact is, global warming or not, we’re not going to. That kind of political will doesn’t exist and it never will exist, despite the hopes of the Green community. The best option we have, which almost all politicians acknowledge, is to try to store away the carbon while we continue converting energy infrastructure to non-carbon emitting.

The key to geologic sequestration is that it can be done with exhaust gases straight from the emitter. For this reason it has a certain attraction.

The strategies studied include:

1. Coal seam injection – CO2 is pumped deep into un-reachable coal deposits, where is soaks into the coal.

2. Oil well injection – CO2 is pumped into oil fields, where it helps push the oil up and out. Eventually, after the oil is gone, the wells are capped and the CO2 is kept inside.

3. Underground brine or rock formations -- CO2 is pumped deep into underground brine salt or rock formations which seem capable of containing the gas permanently.

In theory these methods could store monumental amounts of gas. There is a lot of territory underground. Coal seam and oil well are especially attractive for simple reason that they seem to put “back” the carbon where it was taken “out”. Of course this isn’t exactly correct, and any engineer would shake his or her head. Oil well injection has an even better story: it helps pump out more oil. This may mediate the cost somewhat.

Unfortunately, geological sequestration has significant risks and uncertainty as well.

- It’s very cost intensive. The cost of separating and compressing the gas, then pumping it underground, is significant. Best estimates show that geological sequestration would increase the cost of coal generated power, for example, by 25 to 50%

- Nobody is sure it will work. This is a very big engineering challenge. Power plants emit huge clouds of gas every day. If pumped underground it could easily leak from many cracks and fissures.

- It could be risky. If a “cap” were to pop and a huge body of gas rushed out, it could smother humans and animals near the ground.

- Easy (and a lot of incentive) to cheat. Here’s the problem that few people mention. Unlike other types of sequestration, this one is a direct daily expense for a coal plant. Every hour they run the compressors to pump the gas underground, they are losing thousands or perhaps millions of dollars. If they could just turn those pumps off, suddenly they would be making a LOT more money. For a typical power plant manager, who is probably paid his annual bonus based on how efficiently he runs his plant, the temptation to cheat, to “let the compressor break”, to “accidentally turn it off” would be unbearable. It’s an invitation to cheat the system.

Geological sequestration is therefore our 3rd choice for carbon sequestration. It has a long way to go to prove it can work, but the potential it huge.

Open Letter to the Marine Science Community: Has Personal Bias Derailed Science?

2006-07-22T20:50:00.000-07:00

Has Personal Bias Been Allowed to Derail the Normal Progression of Ocean Fertilization Science?

An Open Letter to the Marine Science Community

Given the extreme hazard of global warming, the recent revelations of ocean acidity, and reports of bio-system collapse of various sorts, one would think that the concept of Ocean Iron Fertilization would get be treated most seriously. Although controversial and not yet completely proven, this technology still might be very important to the world. As Ken Johnson of Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute said: “We’re headed towards climate conditions that Earth hasn’t experienced in millions of years…We can’t afford to ditch any potential solutions just now.”

For a technology of such potential, one would think that marine scientists would have been diligently researching it, discovering in detail the underlying mechanisms, proposing methods to optimize or control such a process, and preparing to advise, in a rational and unbiased fashion, the decision makers and public of the world.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to have happened. Reviewing the literature of the past decade, there seems to be an inexplicable lack of progress understanding the science. Worse, there seems to be a general hesitation and even hostility by the marine sciences to the progress of this field, and in many cases arguments of political feasibility are being substituted for factual arguments.

We cannot help but suspect that this is because certain key individuals are personally opposed to the concept. These people have political and personal convictions that the process is immoral, or that the world community cannot be trusted to have it. Based on these personal convictions, these scientists have steadily opposed the field the field, in some cases quite openly, slowing down research and discouraging advancement. It’s a process of “negativization” of science which is so pernicious and difficult to fight.

Some may believe that scientists have an ethical and moral right to discourage research that they believe is dangerous. That may be true in the case of weapons or obvious dangers. But this is not that kind of technology. It is not obviously harmful or destructive. In fact, if finally proven out and used smartly and carefully, this technology could be extremely beneficial to world, not only as a carbon sink but as a one tool for restoring damaged sections of the ocean. Contrary to the somewhat frantic rhetoric of the opponents, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the technology will be “easy to abuse” or will spin out of control; quite the contrary, the very size of the ocean and the scale of effort precludes such abuse. There is every reason to assume it will be possible to control and monitor to the satisfaction of all, especially on a small-to-medium scale. Yes this will require a lot of hard science and engineering, to identify the proper procedures and protocols, but this is nothing unusual – other fields such as terrestrial ecological restoration have successfully overcome similar uncertainties, and there is no reason ocean fertilization couldn’t do the same.

Critics are opposed not because it’s inherently bad, or because they possess a complete understanding of it, but because they “believe” that it’s impossible for the human race to use it smartly or carefully, they “worry” that it “might” be misused at some unspecified time in the future. They believe that commercial firms or corporations, driven by the profit motive, are inherently abusive and will “pollute the commons” for greed. These people don’t appear to have come to these conclusions based on facts or analysis, but because they disliked the concept from the very first moment they heard it, and have subsequently filtered all new data to fit their pre-conceived views.

These views aren’t science, not based on facts are logic. They are just opinions (and rather emotional, extreme opinions at that) of a few individuals. And so may we ask: why are personal beliefs detouring the progress of a major science? Is this appropriate?

Case in Point: Dr. Sallie Chisholm

Dr. Chisholm is an accomplished and respected head of an MIT laboratory and a member of the first iron experiment cruise. Yet Dr. Chisholm’s entire contribution to the field has been to oppose it, apparently from the very beginning.

From Science News, September 30 1995, p 220:

(Before the first cruise, which Chisholm was on) Oceanographer Sallie W. Chisholm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology often argued with him (Martin) about the ethics of geo-engineering, or even of conducting research toward that goal…

“I think it’s folly. It would just cause another environmental problem,” says Chisholm. “It’s so naive to think that we can do one thing and it’s going to have a predictable effect. The arrogance of human beings is just astounding.”

The picture here is quite clear. Dr. Chisholm has thought the concept was “folly” and was actively lobbying to prevent even the research towards it, even before the first cruise. She
believes that the human race – the other 6 billion human beings and their elected representatives – are too arrogant to even have the chance to choose. Her mind appears set was set before any data was even collected, and has not changed since.

In keeping with her views, Chisholm has written papers, convened symposiums (see below), and lobbied government agencies, all for the single purpose: to ensure that her view of right and wrong is upheld.

None of these actions are by themselves inappropriate. Dr. Chisholm has ever right to lobby for her views. However, it is important to understand that by these actions, Dr. Chisholm is has assumed the role of an activist, or political partisan, not a scientist. She has made it her mission to stop any development of the field, and has used her scientific position to do this, fighting by every means possible to slow down or block this technology, for reasons of personal ideology.

Most likely her views will continue to be debated in the political sphere, at some point in the future when and if a large scale process is proposed. But right now, it’s important to ask the question: Is the ocean science community making a clear distinction between Chisholm the activist and Chisholm the respected scientist? Are they making the necessary allowance for her personal bias? And finally, are her personal views, as strongly worded as they are, acting to obstruct or prevent the normal process of scientific investigation for this nascent field, thus preventing the world community from getting a complete presentation of the facts necessary to make informed decisions?

Case In Point: Dr. Kenneth Coale

From Science News, September 30 1995, p 220:

“We had predicted the response, but none of us was really prepared for what it would look or feel like,” says (Kenneth) Coale, a researcher at the Moss Landing (Calif.) Marine Laboratories. “There were some of us who were quite pleased and others of us who would walk out on the fantail and burst into tears. It was a profoundly disturbing experience for me"
Coale and many others who witnessed iron’s tremendous greening effect loathe the idea of tinkering with the globe in such a heavy-handed way.

From Discover, October 2003 “Watery Grave”

Coale thinks it's unfair, if not impossible, to expect the oceans to absorb more than 6 billion tons of excess carbon each year. "There are many of us who consider the oceans to be sacred," he says. But "we've let the cat out of the bag. We have to keep looking at it now, whether we like it or not."

“Iron fertilization for geo-engineering or fish product has been driven by a kind of quick-buck philosophy…”

Note the phrases “burst into tears” “profoundly disturbing” “loath” “sacred”. Clearly Dr. Coale has strong emotional feelings about the entire business. Again, Coale is entitled to his opinions, but we must point out: he is the director of the Moss Landing Laboratory, and is therefore in charge of what is arguably the central lab studying the effect.

If Coale has such virulent feelings on the topic, which he expresses in almost every article written on the subject, how can he support unbiased research into the topic? How could any young researcher or student working under him dare to work optimistically on the subject when the leader of their group is so firmly opposed to it?

It seems more likely that Coale’s conflict of conscience spills over into the field that he leads, and that this negativity creates a wet blanket smothering progress.

Again, this should not be taken as personal criticism of Coale. We have no doubt that he is a dedicated leader of his group who honesty tries to do justice to the problem. But it seems unlikely he is able to do so.

Case in Point: American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) 2001 Ocean Fertilization Symposium.

The ASLO conference was billed as a symposium with presentations by a wide variety of interested parties. From this description, an average scientifically-literate citizen or government regulator would suppose that it represented an unbiased, or at least broad, view of the issues. This symposium created a “Policy Statement” which warns against ocean iron fertilization. Such a warning might very strongly affect the views of the public.

The problem is, this conference appears to have been biased from the start, organized for the sole purpose of creating such a warning. The lead-off speakers for the conference were the two mentioned above, Chisholm and Coale. Chisholm gave the overview presentation, in which she made it very clear the purpose of the conference was to warn against the technology. So the question must be asked: how can such an event, organized in this way, possibly have arrived at an unbiased consensus of views? Of course it couldn’t and wasn’t intended for that purpose. Thus it is not a “scientific” event but an “activism” event, the equivalent of a political rally, which has been clothed as science to gain it increased respect.

If this meeting was nothing more than a meeting of activists for one particular side of the debate, then it needs to be clearly labeled as such, so that future decision-makers won’t give it more consideration than is due such activism.

Withholding Science From Society?

Scientists are entitled to their political opinions. But when those opinions become the driving force for an entire scientific field, we question if this veers into ethical conflict.

Individuals, no matter how strongly they may feel, do not have the right to obstruct the normal progress of scientific discovery and commercialization, in order to satisfy their personal beliefs. In fact, to some extent scientists have a larger obligation to research diligently and present unbiased facts so that the world community and elected representatives can make their own decisions. There are billions of citizens of the world who, through taxes, grant money, and goodwill, are funding scientific research, and who expect in return to get conclusions untainted by the personal beliefs.

Therefore:

· We respectfully suggest that the ocean science community needs do some “soul searching” if systemic bias has affected the progress of this research.

· We believe that the literature of the field deserves a complete review to identify places where “negative spin” has been added prematurely, or where political or social commentary has been used to argue feasibility.

· We suggest that the 2001 ASLO Symposium findings (Summary Statement April 25, 2001) be formally stricken and a new symposium be convened, in which a legitimate and valid cross-section of opinions, both pro and con, are represented.

· Finally, we suggest that researchers refrain from such negative remarks about commercial firms. Academic-commercial partnerships are a well-proven structure for making progress and solving problems. There is no need for scorn.

If we are off-base or over-stating the problem, then we apologize. This letter is certainly not meant as an accusation, but instead, a serious question: has the Marine Science community gotten “off track” in regards to Ocean Fertilization, and if so, can it get back on track?

Steve Kerry
CarbonSequestration Blog

Note: Responses welcome, and will be published in entirety in the Carbon Sequestration Blog. Please address sbkerry@hotmail.com or visit http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/

For more information on Ocean Iron Fertilization visit Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Prior posts on this subject:

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2006/05/10-years-ago-iron-fertilization-battle.html

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2006/05/wiki-entry-on-iron-fertilization-more.html

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2005/12/investigating-iron-fertilization-is.html

7/26/2006 Addendum

Once criticism that might be levelled at this open letter--it didn't address any of the specific pros and cons of iron fertilization. Some might complain that we've only discuss the tone of the debate but not the actual issues. This omission was intentional. There simply wasn't room to address the issues in detail.

We did make a few points in the "Top 3" post. In summary:

1. It seems the biggest problem is that iron fertilization is debated primarily as a "geoengineering" technology. This is fallacious. The world climate change community is not looking for "big" technologies that are going to "fix the entire problem." That is no longer viewed as a realistic or even preferred approach. Instead the current consensus is for a large mix (or portfolio) of many efforts, some that reduce carbon emissions and some that sequester or remove carbon, which are applied across the globe in a multitude of ways, and which add up to the solution.

Iron fertilization therefore should be viewed just as one of many of these different techniques -- yes, a very promising one, but not a single point solution. By looking at it on this more moderate scale, we can avoid the exaggerated claims and extremist arguments seen from both sides.

2. It has not been clear which arguments are scientific and which are philosophical. For example, when someone says, "we shouldn't use iron fertilization, we should reduce energy consumption" that argument has nothing to do with science or even risk--it's about ideology.

7/27/2006 Addendum

This article has received a few emails both pro and con. One thing I want to make very clear: this is not intended specifically as an endorsement of commercial iron fertilization. This is purely an attempt to start open debate on a wider scale. If this post in any way facilitate wider debate, then it's a success.

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter July 2006

2006-07-15T16:58:00.000-07:00

Link Here

Contents:

Department of Energy Press Release, “US and
South Korea Sign Agreement on FutureGen Project.”

Associated Press, “States Vie For Next-Generation Power Plant

Powerspan Corp. Press Release, “Powerspan CO2
Pilot Combined with FirstEnergy Carbon Sequestration
Project Offers Unique Testing Opportunity

NETL Press Release, “Sequestration Test to Demonstrate
Carbon Dioxide Storage While Increasing Oil
Production.”

Times-Colonist (Canada), “Prairie Project Captures
Carbon.”

“Brennan Takes Helm of US Climate Change Science
Program.”

“Carbon Value Analysis Tool (CVAT) Released By
World Resources Institute.”

LCG Consulting Online, “Construction Begins on Carbon-
Free Coal Plant.”

The Japan Times, “Underground CO2 Storage Planned.”

The Engineer Online, “Carbon Capture Ready Clean Coal
Power.”

Reuters, “Gore To Train 1,000 to Spread Word About
Climate.”

Greenwire, “National Academy of Science Finds
‘Hockey Stick’ Graph’s Conclusion ‘Plausible’ ” and
The National Academies Press Release, “ ‘High Confidence’
That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less
Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to
1600.”

Recent Critiques of Carbon Sequestration

2006-07-06T14:38:00.000-07:00

Congress May Insure Against Coal-Induced Flatulence

According to a recent "Inside EPA Weekly" report “Members of Congress, theEnergy Department (DOE) and industry are debating ways of shielding participants in DOE's FutureGen power plant project from potential liabilities for storing the resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions underground, as part of an effort to build a landmark near-zero emissions power facility”…”the discussion highlights one of the significant unresolved issues facing FutureGen and subsequent facilities that inject large quantities of CO2 into the ground as a way to minimize global warming”. We can imagine a scenario around this. Half-way through the operating life of a “FutureGen” plant, Terra wafts a robust leak, letting go years worth of “sequestered” CO2 in a short period. Stand back stratosphere, here it comes!

Carbon Sequestration: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone?

Ooops. Turns out that burying CO2 from power plants may not be such a good idea after all. Apparently the stuff turns into a nasty chemical mix that erodes the ability of sandstone to keep the stuff underground!

Carbon Sequestration, Speed Bump or Wall?

Richard A. Kerr writes in Science: "Scientists testing the deep geologic disposal of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are finding that it's staying where they put it, but it's chewing up minerals. The reactions have produced a nasty mix of metals and organic substances in a layer of sandstone 1550 meters down, researchers report this week in Geology. At the same time, the CO2 is dissolving a surprising amount of the mineral that helps keep the gas where it's put." It's not leaking so far, but it will require a second look before carbon sequestration can be used on a large scale.

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Acidification, Carbon Dioxide

More on FutureGen

2006-07-02T08:27:00.000-07:00

FutureGen Update

Link to Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"FutureGen is a project of the US government to build a zero-emissions coal-fired power plant that produces hydrogen and electricity while using Carbon Capture and Storage.

FutureGen will be a 275-megawatt power plant expected to take 10 years to build and whose cost will be shared - $620 million by the Department of Energy and $250 million by a large consortium of coal mining and power industry companies. It will be operated as a research facility.

FutureGen will seek to sequester carbon dioxide emissions at an operating rate of one million metric tons per year in order to adequately stress test a representative portion of a geologic formation (with a capability up to two million tons per year). [1]

States have bid to host the demonstration project, and foreign participation has been solicited (since by 2020 more than 60% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are expected to come from developing countries) - as of June, 2006, South Korea and India had joined the U.S. in a partnership. [2]

In May 2006 seven states submitted proposals to host the FutureGen project. These sites are in or near:
Effingham, Illinois
Marshall, Illinois
Mattoon, Illinois
Tuscola, Illinois
Henderson County, Kentucky
Bowman County, North Dakota
Meigs County, Ohio
Tuscarawas County, Ohio
Odessa, Texas
Jewett, Texas
Point Pleasant, West Virginia
Gillette, Wyoming

Future plants based on FutureGen should qualify for several provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005."

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Carbon Dioxide

Grist Article Endorses (Partially) Coal Carbon Sequestration

2006-06-10T09:03:00.000-07:00

A Dec 2005 article in Grist discussed the FutureGen coal plant and expressed a bit of guarded support for carbon sequestration of coal emissions.

Link Here

FutureGen aims to build a soup-to-nuts demonstration facility that would generate virtually zero-emission (yes, zero emission!) electricity from coal -- billed by industry as "clean coal" -- within the next decade. It would use "integrated gasification combined-cycle" (IGCC) power-plant technology that first pressurizes coal to produce a vapor, then filters carbon dioxide and smog-causing pollutants from the gas before burning it. The captured greenhouse gases would then be stored underground where they couldn't contribute to atmospheric warming -- a technique known as "sequestration."

It's a far cry from a commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Still, on the face of it, FutureGen sounds pretty good.

In recent years, the IGCC concept has garnered support from an increasing number of environmental advocates, who prefer to call it "advanced" or "cleaner coal." These folks say coal can't realistically be phased out within the next couple of decades, so we should be using it more efficiently and cleanly while we transition to renewable energy sources. And they say carbon sequestration could play a key role in making coal more palatable.

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Carbon Dioxide

Note to Readers: Technorati

2006-06-04T12:35:00.000-07:00

Hi Readers,

To help promote this blog to a greater readership, I'm going to go back and re-build a few posts with Technorati tags. If you see them, that's why.

Technorati tags: Technorati

10 Years ago, Iron Fertilization Battle Lines Already Drawn

2006-05-07T15:31:00.000-07:00

I just re-read this incredible article, from 1995, which explained to me so clearly why the Iron Fertilization field is so emotional and combative. The conclusion of this article is clear -- even on the very first voyage, before one fact or piece of scientific data was collected, some researchers were deeply entrenched in their opposition to his technology.

At the end of the day, this story is about personal ideaologies, not science.

Excerpts:

“We had predicted the response, but none of us was really prepared for what it would look or feel like,” says (Kenneth) Coale, a researcher at the Moss Landing (Calif.) Marine Laboratories. “There were some of us who were quite pleased and others of us who would walk out on the fantailand burst into tears. It was a profoundly disturbing experience for me"

Coale and many others who witnessed iron’s tremendous greening effect loathe the idea of tinkering with the globe in such a heavy-handed way.

Martin lobbied extensively for conducting a field experiment of iron fertilization—a plan that some oceanographers considered anathema.

Oceanographer Sallie W. Chisholm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology often argued with him about the ethics of geoengineering, or even of conducting research toward that goal.

"I think it’s folly. It would just cause another environmental problem,” says Chisholm. “It’s so naive to think that we can do one thing and it’s going to have a predictable effect. The arrogance of human beings is just astounding.”

There you have it folks...the smoking gun. From the very start, before they even knew anything about the process, two of the key researchers were deeply entrenched in opposition to it.

What does that mean? In my view it means that we can't really be sure of any of the conclusions reached by anyone in any way connected to the two researchers above. There is just too much chance that a negative spin was put into the data.

Here is also a more recent quote from Coale in Discover:

Coale thinks it's unfair, if not impossible, to expect the oceans to absorb more than 6 billion tons of excess carbon each year. "There are many of us who consider the oceans to be sacred," he says. But "we've let the cat out of the bag. We have to keep looking at it now, whether we like it or not."

He couldn't make any more clear his fundamental resistance to the process.

I promise a lot more on this topic.

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Wikipedia, Carbon Dioxide, Acidification, Plankton

Wiki Entry on Iron Fertilization -- More Debate

2006-05-06T08:29:00.000-07:00

Here is a new entry on Iron Fertilization (Ocean Fertilization) which directly addresses some of the "controversy" over the subject. Interesting stuff.

As I said in an earlier post, this is the one carbon sequestration technology which seems slightly strange to me because it seems most promising yet hasn't moved much in a decade of research.

Also I've received a few letters, which I'll keep confidential for now, which indicate some strange goings-on in the field. I plan to dig into this more.

(From Wikipedia)

Debate:

While many advocates of ocean iron fertilization see it as modern society's last best hope to slow global warming long enough to change our consumption patterns and energy systems, a number of critics have also arisen including some academics, deep greens and proponents of competing technologies who cite a variety of concerns.

Precautionary Principle

Critics: Large scale bloom stimulation has never been done before. We don’t know exactly how they will act. There could be unintended side-effects. We should not risk it.

Advocates: Mother Nature has been annually stimulating far larger blooms for millions of years with no observed ill effects. The precautionary principle provides a legitimate brake on this technique once plankton populations are restored to their known levels in 1980. Up to that point, however, plankton revival is simply eco-healing and little different from remedially treating superfund sites, oil spills or contaminated mothers milk.

Not even trying to remedy these industrial impacts is far more irresponsible considering the known pace of increasing harm.

Inadequacies

Critics: According to certain ocean iron fertilization trial reports, this approach may actually sequester very little carbon per bloom and thus require too many seeding voyages to be practical.

Advocates: The low sequestration estimates that emerged from some ocean trials are largely due to three factors.

Timing: none of the ocean trials had enough boat time to monitor their blooms for more than 27 days, and all their measurements are confined to those early weeks. Blooms generally last 60~90 days with the heaviest precipitation occurring during the last two months.

Scale: most trials used less than 1000 kg of iron and thus created small blooms that were quickly devoured by opportunistic zooplankton, krill and fish that swarmed into the seeded region. Academic conservatism: having an obviously limited data set and unique sequestration criteria (see Sequestration Definitions below), many peer-reviewed ocean researchers are understandably reluctant to project or speculate upon the results their experiments might have actually achieved during the full course of a bloom.

Nevertheless, some ocean trials did indeed report remarkable results. According to IronEx II reports, their thousand kilogram iron contribution to the equatorial Pacific generated a carbonaceous biomass equivalent to one hundred full-grown redwoods within the first two weeks. Researchers on Wegener Institute's 2004 Eifex experiment recorded carbon dioxide to iron fixation ratios of nearly 300,000 to 1.

Current estimates of the amount of iron required to restore all the lost plankton and sequester 3 gigatons of CO2 range widely, from approximately two hundred thousand tons/year to over 4 million tons/year. Even in the latter worst case scenario, this only represents about 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of less the €20 billion. Considering EU penalties for Kyoto non-compliance will reach €100/ton CO2e in 2010 and the annual value of the global carbon credit market is projected to exceed €1 trillion by 2012, even the most conservative estimate still portrays a very feasible and inexpensive strategy to offset half of all industrial emissions.

Critics: The climatic contributions of this technique would only be partial, stop gap measures. Growing plankton in the ocean can't solve the basic problem, which is on land in the economies, policies and mental habits of industrial societies.

Advocates: Agreed, simply replenishing plankton populations will not solve the entire problem, but it could improve our chances by 50%. Returning plankton to 1980 levels could sequester nearly 3 billion tons of CO2 and neutralize half of the world's industrial emissions right now.

Yes, the ultimate problem is on the supply side and requires a radical change in consumption and energy policies. While climate campaigners wage the long political battles for those reforms, many habitats and ecosystems are being destroyed right now and many scientists fear a fatal tipping point is at hand. Plankton replenishment is not the final answer, but it would buy many, many creatures breathing room until the fight for needed political and economic reforms is finally won.

Sequestration Definitions

Critics: In ocean science, carbon is not considered removed from the system unless it settles to the ocean floor where it is truly sequestered for eons. Most of the organic and inorganic carbon that sinks beneath plankton blooms is dissolved and remineralized at great depths and will eventually be re-released to the atmosphere, negating the original effect.

Advocates: Ocean science does traditionally define "sequestration" in terms of sea floor sediment that is isolated from the atmosphere for millions of years. Modern climate scientists and Kyoto Protocol policy makers, however, define sequestration in much shorter time frames and recognize trees and even grasslands as important carbon sinks. Forest biomass only sequesters carbon for decades, but carbon that sinks below the marine thermocline (100~200 meters) is effectively removed from the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years, whether it is remineralized or not. Since deep ocean currents take so long to resurface, their carbon content is effectively "sequestered" by any terrestrial criterion in use today.

Good vs. Perfect

Critics: Plankton restoration is only a technical fix. The only sane, acceptable solution is more conservation, abandoning fossil fuels, and switching to clean, renewable energy.

Advocates: True, but by this logic you could say condoms, diaphragms, and birth control drugs are only technical fixes for the population problem; the only sane, acceptable solution is celibacy. While perfect solution proponents compete for the moral high ground, too many creatures are already dying to postpone doing what we can. We absolutely do need long-term changes in economics, governance, and consciousness to treat the chronic problem, but we are facing an acute crisis right now and can administer important first aid years before the battles for needed reforms are likely to be won.

Ecological Issues

Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB)

Critics: Some plankton species cause red tides and other toxic phenomena. How do we know what kind of plankton will bloom in these events? What will prevent toxic species from poisoning lagoons, tide pools and other sensitive ecosystems along our coasts?

Advocates: Most species of phytoplankton are entirely harmless, and indeed beneficial. Red tides and other harmful algal blooms are largely coastal phenomena and primarily affect creatures that eat contaminated coastal shellfish. Iron stimulated plankton blooms only work in the deep oceans where iron deficiency is the problem. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no effect. Since all phytoplankton blooms last only 90~120 days at most, in the open ocean fertilized patches of any species will dissipate long before reaching any land.

DMS (Dimethyl sulfide)

Some species of plankton produce DMS, a portion of which enters the atmosphere where it is oxidized by hydroxy (HO), atomic chlorine (Cl)and(BrO) to form sulfate particles and ultimately clouds. During the Southern Ocean Iron Enrichment Experiments (SOFeX), DMS concentrations increased by a factor of four inside the fertilized patch. Widescale iron fertilization of the Southern Ocean would lead to substainal cooling well beyond increased CO2 uptake.

Deep water oxygen depletion

Critics: When organic bloom detritus sinks into the abyss, a significant fraction will be devoured by bacteria, other microorganisms and deep sea animals which also consume oxygen. A large bloom could, therefore, render certain regions of the sea deep beneath it anoxic and threaten other benthic species.

Advocates: The largest plankton replenishment projects now being proposed are less than 10% the size of most natural wind-fed blooms. In the wake of major dust storms, many extremely vast natural blooms have been studied since the beginning of the 20th century and no such deep water dieoffs have ever been reported.

Ecosystem Alterations

Critics: Depending upon the composition and timing of delivery, these iron infusions could preferentially favor certain species and alter surface ecosystems to unknown effect.

Advocates: CO2-induced surface water heating and rising carbonic acidity are already shifting population distributions for phytoplankton, zooplankton and many other creatures on a massive scale. If certain infusions or space/time coordinates do show asymmetrical selective impacts in certain regions, the effect is inherently constrained by the limited size and 90-day lifespan of each bloom. Only larger scale research will show if this is really a problem, what factors tilt the playing field, and/or whether this issue can be effectively addressed

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Wikipedia, Carbon Dioxide, Acidification, Plankton

FutureGen Project -- Big Research for Big Coal

2006-03-17T23:07:00.000-08:00

DOE FutureGen Page

FutureGen is an initiative to build the world's first integrated sequestration and hydrogen production research power plant. The $1 billion dollar project is intended to create the world's first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant. When operational, the prototype will be the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world.

The initiative is a response to President Bush's directive to draw upon the best scientific research to address the issue of global climate change. The production of hydrogen will support the
President's call to create a hydrogen economy and fuel pollution free vehicles; and the use of coal will help ensure America's energy security by developing technologies that utilize a plentiful domestic resource.

Additionally, other countries will be joining the U.S. to participate in the project.

The prototype plant will establish the technical and economic feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal (the lowest cost and most abundant domestic energy resource), while capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide generated in the process. The initiative will be a
government/industry partnership to pursue an innovative 'showcase' project focused on the design, construction and operation of a technically cutting-edge power plant that is intended to eliminate environmental concerns associated with coal utilization. This will be a 'living prototype' with future technology innovations incorporated into the design as needed.

The project will employ coal gasification technology integrated with combined cycle electricity generation and the sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions. The project will be supported by the ongoing coal research program, which will also be the principal source of technology for the prototype. The project will require 10 years to complete and will be led by the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc., a non-profit industrial consortium representing the coal and power industries, with the project results being shared among all participants, and industry as a whole.
FutureGen International Cooperation
FutureGen Alliance (Industrial Participants)
Alliance Members:
American Electric Power (Columbus, Ohio)
Anglo American llc (London, UK)
BHP Billiton (Melbourne, Australia)
China Huaneng Group (Beijing, China)
CONSOL Energy (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Foundation Coal (Linthicum Heights, Maryland)
Kennecott Energy (Gillette, Wyoming), a member of the Rio Tinto Group
Peabody Energy (St. Louis, Missouri)
PPL Corporation (Allentown, Pennsylvania)
Southern Company (Atlanta, Georgia)

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Carbon Dioxide

US DOE Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

2006-03-04T23:03:00.000-08:00

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

The international Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) is a voluntary climate initiative of developed and developing nations that account for about 75 percent of all manmade carbon dioxide emissions.

Members engage in cooperative technology development aimed at enabling the early reduction and steady elimination of the carbon dioxide which constitutes more than 60 percent of such emissions – the product of electric generation and other heavy industrial activity.

CLS Forum Web Site

DOE "FactSheet" -- Notice Emphasis on Fossil Fuels

2006-03-03T23:02:00.000-08:00

Here are more US Department of Energy materials and sites. Notice in this "FactSheet" that big emphasis is on coal. Again, the US economy (and a lot of other economies, including China) are becoming more dependant on coal as electricity usage soars, and oil importing from middle eastern countries becomes problematic. They really, really want to sequester CO2 from coal!

Fact Sheet

Fossil fuels will remain the mainstay of world energy production well into the 21st century. Coal, for example, is abundant, comparatively inexpensive, and geographicallydiverse. The international Energy Agency estimates that overall world coal use will increase by about 50 percent between now and 2030, and by nearly 67 percent for power generation, mostly in developing countries.

The United States has an estimated 250-year supply of coal. In terms of energy value (Btus), coal constitutes approximately 95 percent of U.S. fossil energy reserves. Because of its abundance and low cost, coal now accounts for more than half of the electricity generated in the United States.

Availability of fossil fuels to provide clean, affordable energy is essential for the prosperity and security of the United States. However, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to increased carbon emissions are expected. To stabilize and ultimately reduce concentrations of
this greenhouse gas, it will be necessary to employ new technologies, such as carbon sequestration, to capture carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions before they are released into the atmosphere.

Another Great Carbon Sequestration Web Site

2006-02-26T22:49:00.000-08:00

Say hello to CarbonSequestration.US

Overview of the Carbon Sequestration Research Project Data Base

Carbon sequestration is the removal of greenhouse gases either directly
from the exhaust streams of industrial or utility plants or indirectly from the
atmosphere, and storing them long-term so that they cannot interact with the
climate system. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) believes there may be
new, innovative concepts for sequestration. DOE is developing a roadmap for
setting R&D directions related to carbon sequestration, and is conducting
research in the following areas:

· system studies and assessments
· enhanced natural sinks
· capture and separations technology
· geologic storage
· ocean sequestration; and
· chemical and biological fixation and reuse.

Website Contents

This Web site organizes and presents information on carbon sequestration research projects. It consists of extracts from three federal government data bases, plus other carbon
sequestration Websites, miscellaneous documents, and papers and presentations.

1. F.R.E.D. Database. "FRED" is an acronym for "Fossil Research and
Engineering Database." It was developed at DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy in the
early 1990s. This database tracks project information within the Office of
Fossil Energy. The data on these projects tends to be relatively complete and
current through mid-2005.

2. OSTI Database. DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information
(OSTI), within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (OASCR) in
DOE's Office of Science (SC) is responsible for leading the Department's
Technical Information Management Program (TIMP) and for providing direction and
coordination for the dissemination of scientific and technical information (STI)
resulting from DOE research and development (R&D) and environmental
programs. The R&D Tracking System currently provides access to about 22,000
R&D projects ongoing within the Department. The carbon sequestration
projects extracted and presented here represent DOE-wide information into
FY2002, with most projects most recently updated in August 2005.

3. RaDiUS Database. RaDiUS stands for "Research and Development in
the United States," and is the first comprehensive database that tracks the
research and development activities and resources of the government. RaDiUS has
been developed by RAND, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation
(NSF), to support the work of RAND's Science & Technology Policy Institute
(S&TPI), the federally funded research and development center (FFRDC)
serving the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The RaDiUS database contains
over 500,000 records. The carbon sequestration projects extracted and presented
here were most recently updated in August 2005, but typically represent Federal
government-wide information from previous fiscal years.

4. Other Carbon Sequestration Websites. These are a set of other Web
pages related to the topic of carbon sequestration. The sites tend to be broad
in coverage, as project-specific activities are generally categorized with
“Miscellaneous Documents” (below). These sites are not intended to be an
exhaustive tabulation, but instead to supplement the project descriptions found
in the other data bases.

5. Miscellaneous News and Documents.
These documents represent miscellaneous news items, press releases, and Web
pages related to carbon sequestration activities. They are not intended to be an
exhaustive tabulation, but instead to supplement the project descriptions found
in the other data bases.

6. Papers, Reports, and Presentations.
This collection of documents covers various reports and conference presentations
related to carbon sequestration activities. These too are not intended to be an
exhaustive tabulation, but a partial selection of publicly available
information. Most of the entries in this section will take you to the original
source, and away from carbonsequestration.us website.

Developing the Databases

Each of the databases represents information sources
substantially broader than the single topic of carbon sequestration. Further,
due to the large number of overall projects contained, it was necessary to
develop a process for filtering and screening projects in order to identify the
most relevant projects for inclusion in this database.

The first step for each database was filtering. In FRED and OSTI,
project titles and descriptions were scanned for the following five keywords:
carbon, CO2, sequestration, greenhouse, and climate. In RaDiUS, because of the
vastly larger number of total projects, only three keywords were used in the
filtering: carbon, CO2, and sequestration. Project ID #s were then compared, and
duplicate entries (those containing more than one of the keywords) were
eliminated.

The next step was screening, and involved individually examining each
of the project descriptions for the several thousand candidate projects that
passed the filtering tests. For each candidate project, a judgment was made as
to whether to include or exclude it for further consideration. For most
projects, this was straightforward. However, there are some gray areas where the
relevance for carbon sequestration is less clear. Several of these are
land-based studies that are determining growth and carbon accumulation of plants
in response to higher CO2 levels. Some were ocean studies looking at carbon
budgets and ocean circulation. While we did not include all of these projects,
we did tend to include most of those that had some potential connection to
understanding how carbon is captured, its likely fate over time, and how our
activities could change that. However, we tended to exclude projects that did
not have a potential connection to our ability to effect sequestration, but
instead were directed more toward observation of carbon measurements and
impacts.

For each project that passed the screening process, a separate HTML
page was prepared to display the data. Additionally, summary tables were
prepared for each of the five datasets, where each project is a clickable link
to the detailed data.

This data base is a work in progress. We hope you find it useful, and
would appreciate your comments and thoughts for future directions.

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter Feb 2006

2006-02-16T12:45:00.000-08:00

Link Here

Contents:

CNN.com, “US to Attend Asia-Pacific Climate Talks,”

Environmental News Service, “Bush to Request $52 Million
for Asia-Pacific Energy Partnership,”

US State Department Press Release, “Climate Change Partnership Looks to Private Sector for Help”

Wall Street Journal, “Coal Gasification Begins to
Emerge,”

Bloomberg, “Australia's First Carbon Dioxide Storage
Project Set to Start,”

Nickle’s Daily Oil Bulletin, “Support Growing for CO2
Distribution Network,”

Nickle’s Daily Oil Bulletin, “CO2 Pilot Projects in Alberta,
Others Planned,”

AP, “Underground Basalt Promising As a Repository For
Excess CO2,”

The Enquirer (Cincinnati), “State Stays Mum on Future-Gen Site,”

Business Wire, “The US Department of Energy Provides
$310,000 Grant to ThermoEnergy to Begin Development
of Zero-Air-Emission Industrial Power
Plants,”

Greenwire, “Experts Urge Caution in Application of
New Methane Studies,”

SciDev.Net, “Global Warming: Plants Are Not To Blame,”

“Methane Emissions from Terrestrial Plants under AerobicConditions.”)

Big Coal: Carbon Sequestration In Coal Mines

2006-02-07T22:43:00.000-08:00

After spending a bit of time in this area, you start to get a feel for where the money is being invested. It should be no surprise that the big money is currently going into coal mine and oil well carbon sequestration...thus enabling the continued use of fossil fuels. That's where the money is in the world.

CO2 in Deep Coal Seams

The Coal-Seq II Consortium: Advancing the Science of CO2 Sequestration in
Deep, Unmineable Coalseams

Funded by:
U.S. Department of
Energy,

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Gas Technologies

Illinois Clean Coal Institute

Japan Coal Energy
Center

Shell International Exploration and Production

BP America Inc

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter Jan 2006

2006-01-21T08:27:00.000-08:00

Link Here

Contents:

Department of Energy Press Release, “FutureGen Project
Launched.”

St Louis Business Journal, “Illinois, Indiana join to attract
FutureGen project,”

The Engineer Online, “North Sea Rim Accord,”

The Fifth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration “Taking Steps Toward Deployment,”

CALL FOR PAPERS for the Fifth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration.

Science Daily and University of Michigan press release,
“Crystal Sponges Excel At Sopping Up Carbon Dioxide,”

RGGI Press Release, “States Announce RGGI MOU Today,”

Associated Press, “Connecticut Governor Says She’ll
Sign Regional Emissions Deal,”

Boston Globe, “No Agreement Reached on Regional
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Pact,”

Reuters, “US States Forge on With Slimmer Plan to Cut
CO2,”

The Boston Globe, “BP to Boost Renewable
Energy Funds,”

Greenwire, “Tall buildings could pose threat to carbon
sequestration,”

Business Wire, “GreenShift Acquires
Rights to Patented Carbon Dioxide Reduction
Technology; New Strain of
Thermophilic Cyanobacteria Converts
Exhaust Carbon Dioxide Into Pure Oxygen
and Clean Water,”

Terrestrial Sequestration in Forest and Cropland

2006-01-12T23:07:00.000-08:00

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the most accepted and embraced method. After all, who doesn’t like growing more trees, especially if one might get paid to do so?

Afforestation – growing trees on non forest land
Reforestation – re-growing trees on former forest lands
Soil Management – using the soil better so carbon dioxide stays put

For purposes of this article, we’ll also consider animal waste and human waste management (reduction of methane) as terrestrial carbon sequestration although it’s not carbon and it’s not sequestration. J

Reforestation and Reforestation:

Potential for Carbon Sequestration Through Reforestation of Abandoned Tropical Agricultural and Forest Lands

Reforestation by Wikipedia

Canadian Reforestation Coop

Article

Powertree (Commercial Venture)

Treevitalize (Commercial Venture)

Big Sky Partnership (Commercial Venture)

Cropland:

Potential for carbon sequestration in European soils

US EPA Summary

Good Summary of Sequestration Rates

Soil Carbon Site

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter Dec 2005

2005-12-21T08:14:00.000-08:00

Link Here

Contents:

Star Tribune, “Cleaning up coal: Promising new, cleaner
technologies.”

Greenwire, “In Florida, Residents Stop Proposed Power
Plant.”
:
Associated Press, “Carbon Dioxide Storage a Success.”

Oil & Gas Journal, “Weyburn project demonstrates CO2
sequestration, EOR.”

Special Announcement: Career Opportunity.

RigZone, “Statoil Says IOR Challenges Offer Potential for UKNorwegian
Cooperation.”

Presentations from the 2005 Gasification Technologies
Conference.

“Unabated fossil-fuel use will replace polar ice with forests,
DOE lab warns.”

“Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor?”

Fox News, “FOX News Poll: Global Warming.”

Science Daily, “Western states to host first test of carbon
sequestration in lava rock.”

South China Morning Post, “Despite its problems, coal is here
to stay.”

Investigating Iron Fertilization is Like Entering a Battle!

2005-12-19T23:16:00.000-08:00

I've spend the past week reading up on one of the more likely ocean sequestration methods...Iron Fertilization. What I have found is amazing...unlike the other types of sequestration (where any scientific discussions are very dry and scientific), this one seems to be filled with ideology, politics, and almost a type of religious fervor. Emotions apparently run hot in the Oceanography field. Who would have guessed?

Reading this material, it is not clear who to believe. Most of the scientists involved seemed to have very strong personal convictions which make me hesitant to trust their conclusions (I'm a long-time scientist and have learned to "read between the lines".

History:

Science News 1995

CNN.COM

Sofex Cruise

Science Daily 2003

Barber 2004

Pro:

2001 NETL Presentation By Markel and Barber

Hal Plotkin on SFGate

Greensea Ventures

Con:

http://web.mit.edu/chisholm/www/publications/fefert.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5541/309

http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/html_docs/reprints/Chisolm_etal_Dis-Crediting_Science_294_2001.pdf

Conventions and Politics:

http://aslo.org/meetings/carbon2001/index.html

Criticism of Commercial Ventures

Since 1990s there have been a few commercial firms that have attempted to develop viable iron fertilization processes. They've been subjected to some pretty virulent attacks in the press. For someone from the ecosystem restoration field like myself (where commercial and corporate partners are welcome and considered extremely beneficial) this seems like a very strange situation.

Ocean Fertilization is Folly (Chisholm)

Living On Earth

Technorati: Carbon Sequestration, Global Warming, Coal, Wikipedia, Carbon Dioxide, Acidification, Plankton

Analysis of Terrestrial Carbon Sinks

2005-12-10T21:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-8/p30.html

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter Nov 2005

2005-11-16T08:04:00.000-08:00

Link Here

Contents:

Environmental Finance, “New industry group aims to promote
carbon capture and storage.”

Bozeman Daily Chronicle, “Coal-to-fuel proposal raises
environmental concerns.”

ElectricNet, “The China Huaneng Group Joins FutureGen
Industrial Alliance.”

Forbes, “Statoil CEO Lund sees UK-Norway collaboration on
carbon dioxide capture.”

Reuters, “Coal challenging gas as power-plant fuel.”

Reuters, “Clean coal Isn't Climate-Friendly Yet.”

Toledo Blade, “The battle is on to capture, store carbon
dioxide.”

Seattle Post Intelligencer, “Washington State Proposes New
Power Plant.”

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Workshop on GHG Emissions
Trading now online.

“World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005.”

“The Truth About Global Warming.”

“Sun's changes play role in global warming.”

“Antarctic ice melts as sea warms but cause unknown.”

BBC News, “MP's clean coal energy solution.”

MSNBC, “Cleaner coal? Activists now say it’s possible.”

Oil & Gas Journal, “Australia seeks CO2 sequestration
program.”

RFA ANNOUNCEMENT: California Climate Action Registry.

CALL FOR TENDERS: Assessing carbon sequestration in
European forests.

MIT White Paper

2005-11-06T21:07:00.000-08:00

Here is a great white paper, from MIT professor Howard J. Herzog, which summarizes the state of carbon capture and storage,

What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?

New technologies could reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere while still allowing the use of fossil fuels.

HOWARD J. HERZOG

Amid the dire warnings of severe weather perturbations and globally rising temperatures, scientists, engineers, policy makers, and others are searching for ways to reduce the growing threat of climate change. There is no single solution, but the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, which has accelerated greatly in the last decade, may play an important role in addressing this issue.

This was not always the case. Ten years ago, the field of carbon capture and sequestration consisted of a handful of research groups working in isolation. Finding funding was difficult, as the field was not yet included in the research portfolios of traditional funding sources.

But then things began to change. In March 1992, more than 250 scientists and engineers from 23 countries gathered in Amsterdam for the First International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removal (ICCDR-1). Researchers were surprised to learn how many of their colleagues were already seriously investigating the subject. Attendees came to that meeting as individuals, but left it as a research community whose research progress has proven extraordinary in the decade since ICCDR-1. Today, there is an interconnected international community; funding agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), have established programs in carbon sequestration, and equally important, industry is analyzing and developing needed technologies. Significant challenges still lie ahead though, most pressing of which is reducing costs and developing storage options. Although the magnitude and timing of any impacts from climate change
remain uncertain, there is increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now. A major target is CO2 from fossil energy use.

One way to sequester carbon involves the removal of greenhouse gases directly from industrial or utility plant exhausts and subsequently storing them in secure reservoirs. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by enhancing its uptake in soils and vegetation (e.g., afforestation) or in the ocean (e.g., iron fertilization) is yet another form of sequestration. Sometimes called enhancing natural sinks, the technical and political issues associated with this type of carbon sequestration have become major points of contention in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. On the other hand, carbon capture and sequestration from large stationary sources—the focus of this paper—can be viewed as emissions avoidance and therefore probably will not require special treatment in any international climate agreement.

Emissions avoidance can also be achieved by improving energy efficiency or shifting to nonfossil energy sources (renewables and nuclear). Carbon capture and sequestration complement these traditional areas of research, particularly because the United States relies on fossil fuels for more than 85% of its energy needs, and trillions of dollars are invested in the current energy infrastructure. Transitioning away from fossil fuels use will be difficult. By reducing CO2 emissions, however, carbon capture and sequestration allow the use of fossil energy to continue, while buying time to make the transition to other energy sources in an orderly fashion.

Read More Here

More On Cost of Artificial Methods (More MIT)

2005-10-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Another very detailed (115 pages) analysis from MIT, this time covering costs...

Link Here

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following storage options were evaluated in this study:

• Enhanced oil recovery
• Enhanced coalbed methane recovery
• Depleted oil reservoir storage
• Depleted gas reservoir storage
• Deep saline aquifer storage
• Ocean storage via pipeline
• Ocean storage via tanker

For each option, the CO2 source is a nominal 500 MWe gross Integrated Gasification Cycle (IGCC) plant, operating at an 80 percent capacity factor. This plant deliversof CO2 per day. Given this source of CO2, a baseline conceptual design was generated option. From the baseline conceptual design, capital and O&M costs, and an economic with several figures of merits were developed. These were then used to develop
life cycle analyses. In the case of the ocean storage options, it is assumed that three IGCC power plants to a shoreline collection point. Based on this, the ocean storage systems need to handle three times the quantity of CO2, i.e. 22,167 tonnes of CO2 per day.

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter Oct 2005

2005-10-23T08:01:00.000-07:00

Link Here

Contents:

Business Wire, “GE Energy, Bechtel Get Approval from AEP to
Proceed with Plans for IGCC Project; A Milestone for Cleaner
Coal Technology in the United States.”

New York Times, “Steps to Limit Global-Warming Gas.”

The Australian, Gorgon Project Reaches Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Stage.

.” “Radical method may
bury gas plant,”

PWR Newswire, “FutureGen Industrial Alliance Announced.”

Onpoint, “DOE Official Talks About FutureGen, explains
blueprint for DOE's zero-emissions coal plant.”

Delay of Effective Date for the 1605b Program
Revised Guidelines.

Change Policy
Partnership.”

Details on Coal-Seq IV Forum.
“Heat Wave makes plants warm planet.”

Carbon Sequestration in Soils

2005-10-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

From The USGS Web Site:

Carbon enters the soil as roots, litter, harvest residues, and animal manure. It is stored primarily as soil organic matter (SOM). The density (weight/volume) of carbon is highest near the soil surface. But much of the most recently deposited SOM decomposes rapidly, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.

Some carbon becomes stabilized, especially in the lower part of the soil profile. Balanced rates of input and decomposition determine steady state carbon fluxes. However, in many parts of the world, agriculture and other land-use activities have upset the natural balance in the soil carbon cycle, contributing to an alarming increase in carbon release from soils to the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

Carbon sequestration in soils is a climate-change-mitigating strategy based on the assumption that movement, or flux, of carbon from the air to the soil can be increased while the release of carbon from the soil back to the atmosphere is decreased. In other words, certain activities can transform soil from a carbon source (emits carbon) into a carbon sink (absorbs carbon). This transformation has the potential to reduce atmospheric CO2, thereby slowing global warming and mitigating climate change.

At the same time, carbon sequestration can confer substantial benefits on the people in a region, such as farmers and small landholders, who directly manage the soil carbon pool. Improved land and soil management practices that help sequester carbon in soils can lead to higher soil fertility, increased yields, and other outcomes that aid local populations economically, environmentally, and socially. Carbon sequestration in soils also has great potential in regard to the international trading of carbon credits, where one nation may offset its carbon emissions by supporting carbon sequestration in some other part of the world.

Currently, researchers at the USGS/EROS Data Center are involved in collaborative carbon sequestration projects in West Africa and Central Asia.

How Will CO2 Capture and Storage Work?

2005-10-04T21:49:00.000-07:00

How Will Carbon Capture and Storage Work?

From The Guardian June 2005

"Crudely, the carbon dioxide spewed from power stations will be, well, captured and stored. But there the problems begin. The government may have pledged £25m to help the climate change busting technology along earlier this week, but significant obstacles remain with two parts of the plan: capture and storage.

Capture first. "It's always going to cost money to capture something. It isn't a free exercise," points out Harry Audus, a chemical engineer who now heads the International Energy Agency's greenhouse gas programme in Cheltenham. Carbon dioxide, unfortunately, is just one ingredient in the cocktail of waste gases that emerges from the business end of a power station. For the technology, also known as carbon sequestration, to work, it must be separated.

This can be done: amine scrubbers that chemically isolate the carbon dioxide are fitted to several power stations in the US. But in that case local industries are willing to pay for the pure gas.

"The older power stations aren't that efficient and if you stick another process on the back end you make them even less efficient, which isn't the thing to do really," Audus says. Pumps for the scrubber chemicals and compressors for the carbon dioxide all drain power from a station's already relatively meagre output.

Other ideas aim to clean up fossil fuel before it is burned. George Bush favours turning coal into hydrogen gas (called gasification) and the Swedish power company Vattenfall is building an "oxyfuel" plant near Berlin that will tear air apart so it can use just oxygen to ignite coal. Both processes are in their infancy but both produce carbon dioxide in a more readily captured form.

Storage is less technically demanding; the Norwegian company Statoil has been pumping CO2 into a sandstone layer under the North Sea for years. The issues here are long-term safety and short-term legality.
Various treaties probably prohibit CO2 being dumped under the North Sea unless it is used to squeeze oil out in the other direction. A fluctuating oil price has helped make energy companies who own the necessary infrastructure reluctant to get involved.

Nothing seems to have leaked from the 6m tonnes of CO2 pumped underground by Statoil so far, but geologists continue to monitor the situation."

Cost of Artificial Methods

2005-09-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage

Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy, significantly raising the costs of operation, apart from the added investment costs. It would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10-40%. This and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%, depending on the specific circumstances...

...the costs of CCS are dominated by costs of capture. The storage is relatively cheap, geological storage in saline formations or depleted oil or gas fields typically cost 0,5 - 8 US$ per tonne of CO2 injected, plus an additional 0,1 - 0,3 US$ for monitoring costs. However, when storage is combined with Enhanced oil recovery to extract extra oil from an oil field, the storage could yield net benefits of 10 - 16 US$ per tonne of CO2 injected (based on 2003 oil prices). However...the benefits do not outweigh the extra costs of capture.

Artificial Methods of Carbon Sequestration

2005-09-16T21:35:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

For carbon to be sequestered artificially (i.e. not using the natural processes of the carbon cycle) it must first be captured. Thereafter it can be stored in a variety of ways.
Natural gas purification plants often already have to remove carbon dioxide, either to avoid dry ice clogging gas tankers or to prevent carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding the 3% maximum permitted on the natural gas distribution grid.

Beyond this, one of the most likely early applications of carbon capture is the capture of carbon dioxide from flue gases at power stations (in the case of coal, this is known as "clean coal"). A typical new 1000-MW coal-fired power station produces around 6m tons of carbon dioxide annually. Adding carbon capture to existing plants can add significantly to the costs of energy production; scrubbing costs aside, a 1000-MW coal plant will require the storage of about 50 million barrels of carbon dioxide a year. However, scrubbing is relatively affordable when added to new plants based on coal gasification technology, where it is estimated to raise energy costs for households in the United States using only coal-fired electricity sources from 10 cents per kWh to 12 [1].
[edit]

Currently, carbon capture and storage is performed on a large scale by absorption of carbon dioxide onto various amine based solvents. Other techniques are currently being investigated such as pressure and temperature swing absorption, gas separation membranes and cryogenics.

In coal-fired power stations, the main alternatives to retro-fitting amine-based absorbers to existing power stations are two new technologies - coal gasification combined-cycle and oxyfuel combustion. Gasification first produces a "syngas" primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which is burned, with carbon dioxide filtered from the flue gas. Oxyfuel combustion burns the coal in oxygen instead of air, producing only carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are relatively easily separated. Oxyfuel combustion, however, produces very high temperatures, and the materials to withstand its temperatures are still being developed.
Another long term option is carbon capture directly from the air using hydroxides. The air would literally be scrubbed of its CO2 content. This idea offers an alternative to non-carbon based fuels for the transportation sector.
[edit]

Oceans
Another proposed form of carbon sequestration in the ocean is direct injection. In this method, carbon dioxide is pumped directly into the water at depth, and expected to form "lakes" of liquid CO2 at the bottom. Experiments carried out in moderate to deep waters (350 - 3600 meters) indicate that the liquid CO2 reacts to form solid CO2 clathrate hydrates which gradually dissolve in the surrounding waters.

This method, too, has potentially dangerous environmental consequences. The carbon dioxide does react with the water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3; however, most (as much as 99%) remains as dissolved molecular CO2. The equilibrium would no doubt be quite different under the high pressure conditions in the deep ocean. The resulting environmental effects on benthic life forms of the bathypelagic, abyssopelagic and hadopelagic zones are unknown. Even though life appears to be rather sparse in the deep ocean basins, energy and chemical effects in these deep basins could have far reaching implications. Much more work is needed here to define the extent of the potential problems.

It is not clear whether carbon storage in or under oceans is compatible with the London Convention (Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter) [4].
An additional method of long term ocean based sequestration is to gather crop residue such as corn stalks or excess hay into large weighted bales of biomass and deposit it in the alluvial fan areas of the deep ocean basin. Dropping these residues in alluvial fans would cause the residues to be quickly buried in silt on the sea floor, sequestering the biomass for very long time spans. Alluvial fans exist in all of the world's oceans and seas where river deltas fall off the edge of the continental shelf such as the Mississippi alluvial fan in the gulf of Mexico and the Nile alluvial fan in the Mediterranean Sea.
[edit]

Geological sequestration
Also known as geo-sequestration or geological storage, this method involves injecting carbon dioxide directly into underground geological formations. Declining oil fields, saline aquifers, and unminable coal seams have been suggested as storage sites. Caverns and old mines, that are commonly used to store natural gas are not considered, because of a lack of storage safety.

CO2 has been injected into declining oil fields for more than 30 years, to increase oil recovery. This option is attractive because the storage cost are offset by the sale of additional oil that is recovered. Further benefits are the existing infrastructure, and the geophysical and geological information about the oil field that is available from the oil exploration. All oil fields have a geological barrier preventing upward migration of buoyant fluids (oil in the past, CO2 in the future).

Mineral sequestration
Mineral sequestration aims to trap carbon by placing it in its thermodynamics groundstate where it will be nonreactive. This occurs naturally and is responsible for much of the surface limestone. Acids are used to convert mineral silicates to mineral carbonates. Ongoing research aims to speed up the kinetics of the reactions.

One proposed reaction is that of the rock dunite, or serpentinite with carbon dioxide to form the carbonate mineral magnesite, plus some silica and magnetite. This is proposed by ZECA Corporation, a consortium aiming to produce a low-emission coal-fired power source.

Serpentinite sequestration is favored because of the non-toxic and predictable nature of magnesium carbonate. However, the ideal reaction (reaction 1) takes place only with extremely magnesium rich olivine or serpentine minerals. The presence of iron in the olivine or serpentine will reduce the efficiency of the circuit and reactions 2 and 3 must take place, producing a slag of silica and iron oxide (magnetite).
[edit]

Serpentinite reactions
Reaction 1Mg-Olivine + Water + Carbon dioxide → Serpentine + Magnesite + Silica

Reaction 2Fe-Olivine + Water + Carbonic acid → Serpentine + Magnetite + Magnesite + Silica

Reaction 3Serpentine + carbon dioxide → Magnesite + silica + water

NETL Carbon Sequestration Newsletter Sept 2005

2005-09-13T17:36:00.000-07:00

Link Here

Contents:

Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Coal becoming the hot fuel in
our energy future.

Business Wire, “Syntroleum and Linc Energy Plan to
Integrate Air-Based Fischer-Tropsch Technology with
Underground Coal Gasification.”

MyWestTexas.com, “Upcoming carbon management
workshop to focus on activity.”

The Oxford Press (Ohio), “Search is on way to trap
planet-heating carbon dioxide.”

Fuel Processing Technology, Special Issue on CO2
capture and sequestration.

Wall Street Journal, “To Cut Pollution, Dutch Pay a
Dump In Brazil to Clean Up; Kyoto Treaty Creates
Market In Gas-Emission Credits.”

SRiMedia, “Can the oil barons and big power companies
use emission credits from carbon sequestration to
finance clean projects?”

“Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data.”

“Faster CO2 emissions will overwhelm earth's capacity
to absorb carbon.”

Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes suspension ofroyalty payments for CO2 EOR

The Navhind Times (India), “Climate Change Project.”

The Australian, “Safe, cheap storage of CO2 'some way
off'.”

The Forum (North Dakota), “Non-CO2 technologies
would be the best option

“Designing a Greenhouse Gas Offset System for
Canada.”

Edinburgh Center of Excellence.

Natural Sequestration in Forests and Oceans

2005-09-12T21:29:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

Forests

Enormous amounts of carbon are naturally stored in the forest by trees and other plants[citation needed], as well as in the forest soil. As part of photosynthesis, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, store the carbon as sugar, starch and cellulose, while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. A young forest, composed of rapidly growing trees, absorbs carbon dioxide and acts as a sink. Mature forests, made up of a mix of various aged trees as well as dead and decaying matter may be carbon neutral above ground. In the soil however, the gradual buildup of slowly decaying organic material will continue to accumulate carbon thereby acting as a sink.

Oceans
Oceans are natural carbon dioxide sinks, and as the level of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the level in the oceans also increases, creating potentially disastrous acidic oceans. Ocean water can hold a variable amount of dissolved CO2 depending on temperature and pressure. Phytoplankton in the oceans, like trees, use photosynthesis to extract carbon from CO2. They are the starting point of the marine food chain. Plankton and other marine organisms extract CO2 from the ocean water to build their skeletons and shells of the mineral calcite, CaCO3. This removes CO2 from the water and more dissolves in from the atmosphere. These calcite skeletons and shells along with the organic carbon of the organism eventually fall to the bottom of the ocean when the organisms die. The carbon or plankton cells have to sink to the deep water in 2000 to 4000 meter to be sequestered for ca. 1000 years. The sinking can be accelerated orders of magnitude when zooplankton prey on the cells and produce fast sinking fecal pellets or fecal strings, like the Antarctic krill. This process is called the biological pump. It has been theorized that the organic carbon within the accumulating ocean bottom sediments is how fossil fuels are created.

Methods of Enhancing natural sequestration

Forests
Forests are carbon dioxide stores, but the sink effect exists only when they grow in size: it is thus naturally limited. The rate at which forests can sequester carbon, given the available land, is far exceeded by the rate at which it is released by the combustion of fossilised forests (coal, oil and natural gas). It seems clear that the use of forests to curb climate change can only be a temporary measure. Even optimistic estimates come to the conclusion that the planting of new forests is not enough to counter-balance the current level of greenhouse gas emissions [2]. To reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 7%, as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol, would require the planting of "an area the size of Texas every 30 years", according to William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the environment and earth sciences at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. [3].

Oceans
One of the most promising ways to increase the carbon sequestration efficiency of oceans is to add micrometre-sized iron particles called hematite or iron sulfate to the water. This has the effect of stimulating growth of plankton. Iron is an important nutrient for phytoplankton, usually made available via upwelling along the continental shelves, inflows from rivers and streams, as well as deposition of dust suspended in the atmosphere. Natural sources of ocean iron have been declining in recent decades, contributing to an overall decline in ocean productivity (NASA, 2003). Yet in the presence of iron nutrients plankton populations quickly grow, or 'bloom', expanding the base of biomass productivity throughout the region and removing significant quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. A test in 2002 in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica suggests that between 10,000 and 100,000 carbon atoms are sunk for each iron atom added to the water

Soils
The carbon sequestration potential of soils (by increasing soil organic matter) is substantial; below ground organic carbon storage is more than twice above-ground storage. Soils' organic carbon levels in many agricultural areas have been severely depleted. Improving the humus levels of these soils would both improve soil quality and increase the amount of carbon sequestered in these soils.

What is Carbon Sequestration?

2005-09-02T17:29:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

"Carbon sequestration from a fossil-fuel power station
A carbon dioxide sink or CO2 sink is a carbon reservoir that is increasing in size, and is the opposite of a carbon "source". The main natural sinks are the oceans and growing vegetation. The concept has become more widely known because of its role in the Kyoto Protocol."

"Carbon sequestration is the term describing processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. This is intended to help mitigate global warming."

Types of Carbon Sequestration:

1 Natural sinks
1.1 Forests
1.2 Oceans

2 Enhancing natural sequestration
2.1 Forests
2.2 Oceans
2.3 Soils

3 Artificial sequestration
3.1 Carbon capture
3.2 Oceans
3.3 Geological sequestration
3.4 Mineral sequestration
3.4.1 Serpentinite reactions

Welcome to Carbon Sequestration Blog

2005-09-01T21:03:00.000-07:00

In the past few years, there has been significant discussion of Carbon Sequestration as a technology for removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, to reduce global warming. In this blog I'm going to cover that in more detail.

My strategy is simply to start learning everthing there is to know about this new and fascinating technology, and then maybe in a few months start posting conclusions. Hope you find this interesting!