Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum”Black carbon” flowing from soil to oceans (so much for “Bio-Char?”)
http://www.aka.fi/en-GB/A/Academy-of-Finland/Media-services/Releases/Black-carbon-flowing-from-soil-to-oceans-/[font size=3]A smaller proportion of black carbon created during combustion will remain in soil than have been estimated before. Contrary to previous understanding, burying black carbon in the ground in order to restrain climate change will not create a permanent carbon reserve. Instead, a part of black carbon will dissolve from soil to rivers. The flux of dissolved black carbon from the rivers to the ocean was estimated in a research article published in Science on 19 April. The research was funded among others by the Academy of Finland.
The burning of organic matter creates 40250 million tons of black carbon every year. Black carbon is formed through the incomplete combustion of organic matter, e.g. in forest fires, slash-and-burn and controlled burning of fields. The general assumption has been that black carbon would remain in soil even for millions of years.
However, recently published research indicates that a remarkable proportion of black carbon in soil will dissolve to the water system. In the light of new research results, much discussed bio-carbon may not be that beneficial in terms of mitigating climate change. Carbon is given the prefix bio when it is used both for energy production and soil enrichment. In any case, the stability of carbon in soil has been a central factor of bio-carbon applications.
On average, the amount of black carbon was ten per cent of the amount of dissolved organic carbon. The results prove that the proportion of water soluble black carbon may be as much as 40 per cent of black carbon created annually.
[/font][/font]
http://www.mpg.de/7112434/charcoal_oceans
[font size=4]Wild fire residue is washed out of the soil and transported to the sea by rivers[/font]
April 19, 2013
[font size=3]Wild fires turn millions of hectares of vegetation into charcoal each year. An international team of researchers led by Thorsten Dittgar from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen and Rudolf Jaffé from Florida International University's Southeast Environmental Research Center in Miami has now shown that this charcoal does not remain in the soil, as previously thought. Instead, it is transported to the sea by rivers and thus enters the carbon cycle. The researchers analyzed water samples from all over the world. They demonstrated that soluble charcoal accounts for ten percent of the total amount of dissolved organic carbon.
Most scientists thought charcoal was resistant. They thought, once it is incorporated into the soils, it would stay there, says Rudolf Jaffé from Florida International University's Southeast Environmental Research Center in Miami. But if that were the case, the soils would be black. Most of the charcoal in nature is from wild fires and combustion of biomass in general. When charcoal forms it is typically deposited in the soil. From a chemical perspective, no one really thought it dissolves, but it does, Jaffé says. It doesnt accumulate like we had for a long time believed. Rather, it is transported into wetlands and rivers, eventually making its way to the oceans.
According to the authors, the results imply that greater consideration must be given to carbon sequestration techniques (the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide). Biochar addition to soils is one such technique. Biochar technology is based on vegetation-derived charcoal that is added to agricultural soils as a means to store carbon. Although promising in storing carbon, Jaffé points out that as more people implement biochar technology, they must take into consideration the potential dissolution of the charcoal to ensure these techniques are actually environmentally friendly.
Jaffé and Dittmar agree that there are still many unknowns when it comes to the environmental fate of charcoal, and both plan to move on to the next phase of the research. They have proven where the charcoal goes. Next, they want to answer how this happens and what the environmental consequences are. The better scientists can understand the processes and the environmental factors controlling it, the better the chance of developing strategies for carbon sequestration and help mitigate climate change.[/font][/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1231476
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)397 ppm and rising. What strategies are left left for carbon removal?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)[font size=4]A discovery by USF and KAUST chemists could be a breakthrough in developing new tools for cleaner air and energy production.[/font]
In this animation, the carbon atoms stick to the metal-organic framework material. USF and KAUST researchers believe the material could become a more efficient and more effective means of capturing carbon emissions. Animation: Brian Space, USF chemist
[font size=3]By Vickie Chachere
USF News
TAMPA, Fla. (March 4, 2013) Chemists at the University of South Florida and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology have discovered a more efficient, less expensive and reusable material for carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) capture and separation.
The breakthrough could have implications for a new generation of clean-air technologies and offers new tools for confronting the worlds challenges in controlling carbon.
Publishing this month in the prestigious journal Nature, the international group of scientists has identified a previously underused material known as SIFSIX-1-Cu - that offers a highly efficient mechanism for capturing CO₂.
The discovery represents more than an improvement over existing materials in terms of carbon capture, said USF Chemistry Professor Mike Zaworotko, noting that the material also is highly-effective at carbon capture even in the presence of water vapor, a standard that other materials have not been able to meet. This makes it a promising candidate for real-world applications. Water normally interferes with CO₂ capture, but the material developed in the USF-KAUST project resists it.
[/font][/font]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)SDjack
(1,448 posts)years, then it is a "wash".
pscot
(21,024 posts)will not actually solve our problem. Maybe if we all turned our hats backwards...
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)since Washington seems to be run by cement heads.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)JohnInCackalackey
(1 post)Ignore the noise: Biochar is definitely still an option.
This new analysis does nothing to detract from biochar's potential for mitigating climate change (and helping us adapt, too).
Why? Because fortunately the C trapped as black carbon remains sequestered out of the atmosphere no matter where it is washed. In soils, in creeks, in swamps, in oceans, recalcitrant carbon is recalcitrant carbon. Because black carbon resists microbial decay, it will remain outside the atmosphere for a very long time. Especially if it's at the bottom of the ocean (although that's not where it's needed.)
Also, the Jaffe and Dittmar analysis does not undermine the argument for biochar production and use today, because the black carbon they are discussing could've been deposited centuries or millennia ago. Or it might've blown directly from wildfire smoke into the oceans.
Just because black carbon moves around more than we understood before, so what? It's still black carbon. And we still need more of it in soils, and less C in atmosphere.
There are hundreds of millions of acres of desert soils needing restoration, and similar expanses of soils that have been depleted of carbon and nutrients by centuries of bad agricultural practices. Biochar can help rebuild these soils, while also increasing the total amount of additional biomass being grown. We can store carbon, while getting some energy out of biomass, while also increasing food production by expanding arable acres. Read more about biochar here.
In summary, "whoops" is an entirely misleading start to a headline discussing this research. The only "whoops" is that whomever wrote the headline neglected to consult any soil scientists with expertise in biochar.
NOTE: Anyone wishing to dig further might want to read the discussions on the Biochar-Policy listserv: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy/message/3901