From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:57:18 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <josef.714665033@uranium> mollers.pad@sni.de (Josef Moellers) writes:
>In <1992Aug23.094218.19668@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
[Jpsef wrote]
>>>If you burn plants then the CO2 will get re-absorbed and keep going around
>>>in a cycle. That's OK.
>
>>Uh, David, how do the plants know? Is the CO2 from biomass somehow tagged
>>in a way that CO2 from fossil is not? Otherwise, X amount of CO2 produced
>>by burning, Y amount of CO2 consumed by plants. It doesn't matter if X comes 
>>from fossil or biomass, the plants can't tell the difference. The important
>>question for CO2 stabilization is whether X<=Y. If X is smaller than Y, no 
>>matter what the source of X, CO2 levels go down. If X is larger than Y, CO2 
>>levels go up. Since we're unlikely to massively increase production of plants,
>>they already grow nearly everywhere they can, and other factors like water and
>>nitrates and phosphates limit their growth, Y isn't going to get significantly
>>bigger.
>
>But it's rapidly decreasing (take at a look at the rainforest).
>
>The other thing is that, if You stick to burning plants (or their
>products), then You can GUARANTEE X <= Y. Furthermore You'd be
>encouraging the planting of new trees etc.

No you can't guarantee that X <= Y. Most of the carbon stored in a forest
is in the soil, not in the trees. When you cut the trees, the soil is
exposed and the carbon is oxidized and released. New trees may grow if
you plant them, but only slowly do they shade the soil and only slowly
do they take up carbon from the air and deposit most of it as ground
litter. In some soils and some climates, the trees may never regenerate.
Using wood for biomass in the form of forest cutting and burning is a
generally bad idea.

Most prompt carbon intake by plants is done by annual grasses and at
sea by microscopic plants. Neither is a particularly good source of
immediate biomass energy.  Particularly at sea, however, the dying
plants sink to the bottom and form a layer that will eventually become
oil. Carbonate uptake by the sea is also a major carbon sink that
settles to the bottom layer. The carbon will be geologically sequestered
for a long time of course, but we can get to carbon that was sequestered
in the past today while we wait for more to process through. All we
have to do is keep the rates of inputs and outputs in balance.

>>	 Thus we have to limit X from whatever source, we don't care which
>>one.
>
>>Oil is just stored biomass, biomass is just stored solar energy, solar
>>energy is just nuclear energy, why not just cut out the middlemen?
>
>Geez, You should offer Your services to the industry!

Indeed, in a former life. If we want more energy than the balance X<=Y
will give us, and we generally do, then we have to go closer to the
ultimate source of energy. We know how, we just must come to the political
realization that we must take the step and quit dithering around the middle
of the cycle.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy