Cycle A: Inorganic Waste
We're all familiar with the idea that we're running out of scarce resources. We just cannot continue to keep drilling and mining for more fossil fuel, metals and other resources. One way to deal with scarcity is to recycle resources, i.e. separating waste to extract metals, glass, plastic, concrete, bricks, etc. This type of recycling is possible for much of our inorganic waste. In the light of global warming and health concerns, however, a shift to organic resources and renewable energy seems a better approach, such as described in the Next Industrial Revolution.
Cycles B and E: Biomass and organic Waste Recycling organic waste constitutes another cycle in a sustainable economy. Many people now compost kitchen and garden waste, thus returning many nutrients to the soil. Composting, however, releases greenhouse gases. A cleaner alternative is to pyrolyze organic household waste, farm waste and forest waste. Pyrolysis is an oxygen-starved method of heating waste at relatively low temperatures that will result in the release of little or no greenhouse gases. With pyrolysis, organic waste can be turned into hydrogen and agrichar, or biochar. Estimates are that some 363 tonnes of CO2 per hectare can be locked up in the soil in the form of biochar. The U.S. has some 475 million hectares of agricultural land. Australia has almost 762 million hectares of land, mostly desert. Eucalypt trees grow rapidly and eucalypt forest can store over 2800 tonnes of carbon per hectare. In the 1990s, U.S. farmers needed to implement a soil conservation plan on erodible cropland to be eligible for commodity price supports, and the no-till farmland increased from 7 million hectares in 1990 to 25 million hectares in 2004. Similar policies could be implemented to add biochar, such as making local rates dependent on carbon content. NASA-scientist Jim Hansen calculates that reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could draw down atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50 ppm. Cycle C: Clean & safe energy In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we should shift away from burning fuel to generation of clean and safe energy. Obvious ways to do this are to install more solar and wind facilities. Pyrolysis can also help produce fertilizers and fuel to power transport. Hansen calculates that this and using carbon-negative biofuels could bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm well before the end of the century. Surplus energy can close this cycle, leading to a range of new and clean industries, such as water desalination which could in turn result in the production of lithium for car batteries and magnesium for clean concrete. Electrolyzers can now be made without a need for platinum and there's also interesting research into using electricity to turn seawater into hydrogen. When vehicles run on hydrogen, their output is clean water, rather than emissions. |
|
Cycle D: Air Capture
Surplus energy can also power devices that capture CO2 from ambient air, which can in turn be used to power aviation, to feed to greenhouses, to produce urea and to supply carbon to industry, e.g. for manufacture of building material, plastic, carbon fiber and other products.
Towards a more sustainable economy
Instead of burning fuel and throwing things away, there are more sustainable ways to do things. Not only are they environmentally more sustainable, they also provide good job opportunities and investment potential. While some of these technologies are controversial, in that they aren't natural and their consequences aren't fully known, the need to act on global warming makes that they should be further explored.
Such technologies include:
- clean and safe electricity generation with solar, wind, tide, wave and geothermal power
- using electricity and hydrogen to power transport
- carbon dioxide captured from ambient air
- spraying seawater into the sky, to change albedo above oceans
- pyrolysis to produce biochar, hydrogen and synthetic fuel
- fertilizing soil to produce extra biomass for pyrolysis and to stimulate young growth, which has a lighter color, thus reflecting more sunlight back into space
- producing rain by means of cloud seeding, using dry ice and urea, produced by means of pyrolysis and from carbon dioxide captured from ambient air
- water desalination for irrigation and industrial purposes
Because many such technologies complement each other, their combination can make them more commercially viable than when looked at in isolation. Furthermore, a framework of feebates can most effectively facilitate the shift to technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. Feebates only need to insist that the alternatives are safe and clean; market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where. The following five feebates (the yellow arrows in above diagram) are particularly recommended:
1. fees on fertilizers and on livestock products, funding local rebates on biochar
2. fees on fuel, funding local rebates on clean and safe electricity
3. fees on engines, funding local rebates on electric motors
4. fees on aviation, funding CO2 capture from ambient air
5. fees on combustion ovens, funding rebates on building insulation, solar cookers and electric appliances for cooking and heating
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8 ( 4 removed by Sam Carana )
What do you suggest we do about the money? I have my own suggestion at
www.nopom.info
Who will commit what in that global commitment? How can any government resist the temptations of cheap energy? How can they resist the pressures of their most wealthy citizens and powerful business interests? All of this will require sacrifice on their part and people are simply unwilling to sacrifice. I don't see any way to get them to do so unless we change the nature of our money.
Now on to "Ditch the Dollar."
All nations should commit to reductions in greenhouse gases. We've seen a growing commitment to do so, which will hopefully culminate into an agreement in Copenhagen later this year.
> Larry: "How can any government resist the temptations of cheap energy?"
The above commitment will make government implement measures such as fees on fossil fuel and support for clean energy alternatives. Furthermore, the above agreement will be backed up with the threat of sanctions against countries that don't reach their targets.
> Larry: "How can they resist the pressures of their most wealthy citizens and powerful business interests?"
By implementing policies that discourage investment in polluting methods and that shift investment opportunities to better alternatives.
> Larry: "All of this will require sacrifice on their part and people are simply unwilling to sacrifice."
Shifting to better alternatives is not a sacrifice, instead it's an improvement that we all benefit from. Some people will be reluctant to change, due to their vested interests in inferior methods, but the proposed policies will help them come aboard.
> Larry: "I don't see any way to get them to do so unless we change the nature of our money."
The proposed policies will effectively use market mechanisms to work for the benefit of the desired shifts. Where there's a lack of confidence in a specific currency, I repeat my suggestion to instead shift to the use if stock as an alternative.
I cannot figure out what you're proposing, Larry, even after repeatedly reading many of your pages. I suggest that, if you do seek to promote your vision, you focus on explaining what you advocate, and that you do so in a separate post.
An example of this is biochar, which can - apart from storing carbon - make soils more fertile. As said, estimates are that some 363 tonnes of CO2 per hectare can be locked up in the soil in the form of biochar. The U.S. has some 475 million hectares of agricultural land. Australia has almost 762 million hectares of land, mostly desert. Eucalypt trees grow rapidly and eucalypt forest can store over 2800 tonnes of carbon per hectare. The FAO-OECD Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018 says (on page 11) that over 0.8 billion ha of additional land is available for rain-fed crop production in Africa and Latin America. The need to feed a growing world population makes it imperative to look at ways to increase soil fertility.
Biochar will result in better retention of nutrients and water. Once applied, biochar can remain useful for hundreds of years. Increased vegetation in many ways feeds itself. It results in additional input for pyrolysis and thus additional biochar. There are also studies indicating that an increase of vegetation goes hand in hand with an increase in rain. Healthy soil will contain numerous bacteria that increase rain, both when they are in the soil where they break down the surface tension of water better than any other substance in nature, and when they become airborne.
Furthermore, there are indications that forests generate winds that help pump water around the planet, resulting in increased rainfall for forests. This would explain how the deep interiors of forested continents can get as much rain as the coast.