Bioenergy Plantations to Drive Down CO2 Levels

In summary: The amount of usable wood that results from a tree's cut is about 2% of the tree's total biomass (wood + leaves, twigs, branches, roots, and other tissues).
  • #1
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,471
9,556
Since it seems unlikely (to me) that current approaches will very rapidly stop the increase in CO2 levels driving climate change, alternative approaches involving removing CO2 from the atmosphere are being explored.
Here is a link to a Science mag news article about using plantations to do carbon sequestration.
It discusses several different approaches but focuses on growing plants to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning them for power, and then stashing the CO2 underground.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
The problem with these plans is the scale required. The article estimates that to do what they are suggesting requires a 50% increase in cultivated land to grow the plants that will pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere. This article estimates that the current world agriculture industry is a $2.4T/year industry and employs a billion people. So you need to marshal an effort that will cost $1.2T/year and require 500 million people, not to mention finding a land area the size of Australia that is not already spoken for to grow the crops and building the power plants to burn the plants and sequester the CO2, a technology that doesn't really exist today. It just seems beyond the realm of the possible to do these things.
 
  • #3
phyzguy said:
...and sequester the CO2, a technology that doesn't really exist today.

Quoting from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/underground-injections-turn-carbon-dioxide-stone

After about a year and a half, the pump inside a monitoring well kept breaking down. Frustrated, engineers hauled up the pump and found that it was coated with white and green scale. Tests identified it as calcite, bearing the heavy carbon tracer that marked it as a product of carbonation. Measurements of dissolved carbon in the groundwater suggested that more than 95% of the injected carbon had already been converted into calcite and other minerals. “It was a huge surprise that the carbonation happened so fast,” (emphasis added)
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #4
Tree Carbon Sequestering

First, consider a square acre of fully mature forest a thousand years old. We could remove and measure the carbon in all substances, trees and other plants with their roots, all dead and decaying substances on and under the ground. Then we could make the same measurement of an identical acre 100 years older, at 1,100 years old. As both acres were fully mature, the carbon content of the two would be the same. The acre has no way to store carbon except in its living and dead-decaying organic matter. The acre is fully mature and static in carbon content. Carbon taken from the air by the mature vegetation and other growing life is equal to carbon released by dead decomposing trees and other forest materials on the ground. The acre stores no carbon.

Most of the carbon contained in the acre is in the large, heavy tree stems. A way to stop most of the reverse damaging carbon-into-air decomposition, and to secure and sequester most of the carbon contained in the acre is to cut these stems into conveniently-storable shapes, and to store them in dry conditions, under roofs and out of contact with the ground.

An efficient way to accomplish this, without wasting valuable dry storage space, to sequester permanently most of the carbon contained in the acre, is to store the wood in a useful way by using it in the construction of the dry spaces, homes and buildings.

An additional benefit is that, when the trees have been removed, the acre can be replanted so that the new growing forest is again strongly removing carbon from the air in the growth of its trees and other forest substances, with almost none of the damaging reverse carbon-into-air decomposition occurring. The acre is no longer static and carbon-neutral, but dynamically removing carbon.
 
  • #5
dabunting said:
The acre is fully mature and static in carbon content. Carbon taken from the air by the mature vegetation and other growing life is equal to carbon released by dead decomposing trees and other forest materials on the ground. The acre stores no carbon.
That's not quite right. The amount of carbon coming in is (by hypothesis) equal to the amount of carbon going out so the system is in equilibrium and the amount of carbon it contains doesn't change; but that amount may be very large, and it certainly counts as stored carbon. If anything happens to disturb the equilibrium that stored carbon could be released. For example...
A way to stop most of the reverse damaging carbon-into-air decomposition... is to cut these stems into conveniently-storable shapes, ... to store the wood in a useful way by using it in the construction of the dry spaces, homes and buildings.
When a tree is cut down, a surprisingly small amount of it turns into lumber. There's bark, milling waste, the stump and root system, and a huge amount of slash ("slash" is the term for the leaves, twigs, and branches too small to use - essentially the entire canopy ends up as slash), all of which contains carbon that goes back into the atmosphere. Thus, cutting the trees turns the acre into a net carbon emitter for many years to come.

That's not to say that the idea of sequestering carbon in milled lumber suitable for building construction is necessarily hopeless, but there's a fair amount of quantitative thinking needed to see if we're even in the right order of magnitude. One possible starting point: In round numbers you can get about one thousand board feet per year out of an acre of softwood.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, bhobba, jim mcnamara and 1 other person
  • #6
Nugatory said:
a huge amount of slash ("slash" is the term for the leaves, twigs, and branches too small to use - essentially the entire canopy ends up as slash), all of which contains carbon that goes back into the atmosphere.
Sadly, at least in Oregon (formerly the home of many huge old growth trees), almost all of the slash is burned in the field after the lumber containing parts are removed. Straight to atmospheric CO2.

They do replant (with seedlings) though. However, seedlings won't fix too much carbon for several years though.
The article talks about poplars, which grow fast but don't have particularly dense wood (not so much carbon?).
 
  • #7
BillTre said:
It discusses several different approaches...
I'm happy to see that ocean fertilization is mentioned. What's missing is that it is more or less the only option, which has enough space available and also: it is a process which is not expected to stop merely at the point of 'let the CO2 sink'.

Regarding forest - instead of such plans I would be more happy to see old forest properly protected first.
 
  • #8
BillTre said:
Here is a link to a Science mag news article about using plantations to do carbon sequestration.
It discusses several different approaches but focuses on growing plants to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning them for power, and then stashing the CO2 underground.
There's often a critical and ridiculously difficult - and often totally independent - step tossed in as if it were trivial and secondary. If we could do carbon sequestration, we would already.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #9
Rive said:
Regarding forest - instead of such plans I would be more happy to see old forest properly protected first.

So would I. Trouble is a lot happens in ways that can't be controlled eg the Brazilian Amazon forest deforestation. Its done illegally either due to lack of resources from the Brazilian authorities or they are complicit with it (eg bribed). That's the huge problem with global warming - how, in practical terms, can we actually do something about it. I am personally very pessimistic and side with Brian Cox who thinks the politics of doing anything actually meaningful is basically impossible. Of course that does not mean we don't do the things we can do - that will delay catastrophe hopefully until technological advances allow us to actually tackle it. I am also so pessimistic I agree with Hawking that the human race will survive only 100 years unless we colonize off world.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
If we could do carbon sequestration, we would already.

What about post #3?
Tom.G said:
Quoting from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/underground-injections-turn-carbon-dioxide-stone

After about a year and a half, the pump inside a monitoring well kept breaking down. Frustrated, engineers hauled up the pump and found that it was coated with white and green scale. Tests identified it as calcite, bearing the heavy carbon tracer that marked it as a product of carbonation. Measurements of dissolved carbon in the groundwater suggested that more than 95% of the injected carbon had already been converted into calcite and other minerals. “It was a huge surprise that the carbonation happened so fast,” (emphasis added)
 
  • #11
BillTre said:
What about post #3?
The first word of @Tom G 's link is "Researchers". They are researching the technology, trying to develop it. Hence I concur with @phyzguy ; that means the technology to actually implement it does not exist yet ("researchers" are also building "working" fusion reactors, but don't expect to see one of those supplying you power anytime soon either).

Either way though, you're looking at this from the wrong angle: we emit billions of tons of CO2 from coal plants. You don't have to build a new grass plantation power plant to make as big impact with sequestration if it can be done; you could just attach it to an existing power plant. That it isn't being done - despite harsh/putative regulations - tells us that it is a difficult thing to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes OCR, jim mcnamara and bhobba
  • #12
russ_watters said:
You don't have to build a new grass plantation power plant to make as big impact with sequestration if it can be done; you could just attach it to an existing power plant.
Yes, I've been wondering about that very same scenario since I started reading this thread, if pumping CO2 into the ground worked as claimed... why not ?
russ said:
...just attach it to an existing power plant.

BillTre said:
It discusses several different approaches but focuses on growing plants to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning them for power, and then stashing the CO2 underground.
phyzguy said:
It just seems beyond the realm of the possible to do these things.
IMO, it would be a total and absolutely, counter productive, logistical nightmare... !

BTW... .
despite harsh/putative regulations
I think I would have used the word... punitive ! . :wink:
 
  • #13
OCR said:
BTW... .
I think I would have used the word... punitive !
For those that have a passing familiarity with large construction projects, putative is at least as accurate!
 
  • #14
I also disagree with this statement, to the extreme... !
Nugatory said:
When a tree is cut down, a surprisingly small amount of it turns into lumber.
Carry on...
 
  • #15
OCR said:
I think I would have used the word... punitive ! . :wink:
Yep: engineer, not a writer.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba

1. What are bioenergy plantations?

Bioenergy plantations are areas of land that are specifically dedicated to growing plants for the purpose of producing bioenergy. These plants can be used to produce a variety of forms of energy, including electricity, heat, and transportation fuels.

2. How do bioenergy plantations help to drive down CO2 levels?

Bioenergy plantations absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. This carbon is then stored in the plants and the soil, effectively removing it from the atmosphere and reducing overall CO2 levels.

3. What types of plants are typically grown in bioenergy plantations?

The types of plants grown in bioenergy plantations vary depending on the location and purpose of the plantation. Some common examples include fast-growing trees, such as willow and poplar, and energy crops like switchgrass and miscanthus.

4. Are there any potential drawbacks to bioenergy plantations?

While bioenergy plantations can have positive impacts on reducing CO2 levels, there are also potential drawbacks to consider. These include potential competition for land and resources with food crops, impacts on biodiversity if not managed sustainably, and varying levels of efficiency in converting biomass to energy.

5. How can bioenergy plantations be implemented on a large scale?

Large-scale implementation of bioenergy plantations requires careful planning, including consideration of land availability, infrastructure, and market demand for bioenergy products. Additionally, policies and regulations may need to be put in place to support the development of bioenergy plantations and ensure sustainable practices are followed.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
867
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
18
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top