Dump corn stalks at sea to slow global warming?
It's tough slogging these days for people interested in capturing greenhouse-gas emissions at the source and burying them in deep rock formations, or, short of that, figuring out how to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere once it gets there.Skip to next paragraph
Lego figures to Jupiter on Juno spacecraft. Why send toys into space?
Paul the Octopus gets own memorial
Paul the Octopus has died. Who will predict the next World Cup outcome?
San Diego whale unearthed at the zoo
Killer shrimp assault British shrimp, threaten ecosystem
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
What to do while research continues on the feasibility (or infeasibility) of these approaches and the world still struggles to reduce emission in the first place? Bundle up crop residue -- straw, corn stalks, and their ilk -- and heave it overboard in the deep ocean.
That's the reply that scientists Stuart Strand and Gregory Benford have offered up in a recent policy paper in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. They calculate that deep-sixing crop residue worldwide could slow the current global annual increase in CO2 emissions by 15 percent.
The benefits, they argue? The approach sequesters far more carbon per unit of carbon emitted by the process than do alternative "green" uses for the residue. The carbon goes to deep-sea sediments. It stays put for millennia. And no new technology is needed. That means it's workable today for developing countries as well as rich countries. Just bundle, ship, and dump.
If you've made it this far, you probably have guessed at some of the reactions already. In many circles, the idea is receiving the kind of welcome that swimmers in an overcrowded pool would offer to a hefty diver who just finished a cannonball.
The biofuels folks have their sights set on crop residue as one source of feedstock to make cellulosic ethanol. Soil scientists argue that residue plays an important role in locking carbon up in soil. And some marine scientists respond with a variation on the old Jimmy Durante line (spoken with a disapproving shake of the head): "Everbody wansta get intta the act." In this case, the act of dumping humanity's waste in the ocean.
But through their paper, the two scientists in effect say: Hear us out.
During a phone chat, Dr. Strand, a professor at the University of Washington who works on ways to use plants and microbes to clean up pollution, notes that the idea has been around for most of this decade. (For the record, Dr. Benford is a physics professor at the University of California at Irvine and a prolific science-fiction author.)
But crop-residue sequestration in the deep ocean has taken a back seat to more high-profile concepts of carbon capture and storage, including fertilizing the oceans with iron to stimulate plankton photosynthesis or turning CO2 back into carbonate rocks (you can read about this approach here).
In large part, he says, that's because early on, no one had worked out the carbon balance sheet for this plan versus other potential uses for crop residue. Nor had the carbon costs been worked out.
"That left doubt in peoples' minds [about] how efficient it would be to get crop residues transported to the place they needed to be," he says.
How they figure that
He and Benford calculate "carbon-sequestration efficiency" by tallying up the amount of carbon emitted to replace the residue-based soil nutrients now headed for the ocean, to bale the residue, and ship it to the dump site. Then they divide that number by the total amount of carbon sequestered. They have a slightly different formula for cellulosic ethanol, which they also describe in the paper.
By their estimate, burial at sea is 92 percent efficient, versus 32 percent for making cellulosic ethanol out of the residue, or 14 percent for using the residue for soil sequestration. And one could still leave enough residue on farmland to meet soil sequestration needs.
The most ideal dump sites, they hold, would be in the deep ocean, off the mouths of major rivers.
This would hold down shipping costs. Even so, the costs aren't trivial, Strand acknowledges. It would vary with distance. One could start with farms close to the river, then as economies of scale begin to kick in, expand the approach outward. Their ballpark estimate for sequestration costs along the Mississippi River Basin is $74 per ton of carbon sunk.