header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

 (Read 516698 times)

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #574 on: August 21, 2018, 02:27:38 PM »
Yeah, I think another common misconception about trees is that they get that mass from the dirt/soil. Fascinating how they don't. 

To me, an even more fascinating thing about trees is that, no matter the thin diameter of their xylem and what you'd think of the power of capillary action, those tubes are too tall to maintain a continuous water column in trees of even moderate height. The water in those tubes actually experiences negative pressure. How? Transpiration is part of it, but the real magic has to do with the micro-sized pores on the leaves through which water vapor can escape. Those are small enough that water surface tension can hold a constant barrier. If they were so large that surface tension couldn't maintain the barrier, the negatively pressurized water column would boil right out of those trees.
Sometimes that actually happens. Maybe you've gone on a hike during an extreme drought and noticed that an empty forest is making strange, loud, cracking, echoing noises. That can be due to cavitation in these tubes. And, if you were able to find the corresponding trees, mark them, and return in a matter of time, you'd notice that either the entire tree died, or at least a segment of its trunk (and relevant branches) did.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #575 on: August 21, 2018, 02:31:05 PM »
And we have these things called "plants" which already "fix" CO2 as biomass.  All we need to do is plant these plants and then bury the biomass where it will not degrade.

I bet no artificial system is nearly as efficient in use of energy and space.
Our eyes would probably bug if we saw a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the size of the hole it would take to bury enough of them in.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71156
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #576 on: August 21, 2018, 03:27:32 PM »
That could be, but whatever is used to extract CO2 from the air has to be stored somewhere.  Trees contain quite a bit of carbon, basically C6H12O6 of course, or one carbon atom for each water molecule (hence "carbohydrate"), or 12 grams of carbon plus 18 grams of water.  Yes, there is lignin, but it is higher in carbon.

So, a dead tree is a rather efficient repository of carbon on a mass basis.  What else out there is 6/15ths carbon?  Coal obviously, and diamond, but diamond or graphite are not realistic options.

I'll got with buried trees.  Now the calculation on how much fuel would be needed to transport that many gigatons of dead trees to salt mines or the like is probably imposing.

In a sanitary landfill can can find hot dog buns intact that are 20+ years old.  We could landfill the lot.

Or make plastic out of trees which won't biodegrade.


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37388
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #577 on: August 21, 2018, 03:33:03 PM »
always heard about the hot dogs themselves being preserved, but not the buns
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71156
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #578 on: August 21, 2018, 03:47:17 PM »
There is, or was, a "garbologist" at Arizona (or State) who would study cores of sanitary landfills.  He told us they dated the material by reading newspapers at that depth.  Nearly everything would be preserved in a sanitary landfill, hence the name.  In some areas, some water would seep in sufficient to start some anaerobic decomposition (or aerobic in some cases).  The landfills have to collect the methane now and flare it off (usually).  

He had quite the fascinating presentation, been 25 years since I saw one I guess.  I used to work developing bioidegradable polymers.  Trying to anyway, not a whole lot of luck.  The ones that biodegraded did so too quickly to be useful.  We had one that was pretty decent for a day but a few hours in the light and it crumbled to dust, interesting stuff.  So we loaded it up with light stabilizers and it wouldn't degrade, no happy middle ground we ever found.

Fun project, amounted to squat but some useless patents.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #579 on: August 21, 2018, 04:10:48 PM »
Or make plastic out of trees which won't biodegrade.
Most people would roll their eyes at the idea that plastic could be our answer, but I think that's compelling:
Making plastic not out of oil refinery or natural gas products (something that had been outside of the active carbon cycle) but out of something (trees) that is still within the carbon cycle.
EDIT: though it does rely on that premise "won't biodegrade." And technically our current plastic products do degrade. I think the ones you compellingly proposed would have to be far more stable than styrofoam, for example, to qualify the carbon as having been removed from the carbon cycle. And...I'm not optimistic about that. I know you aren't optimistic about re-mineralizing carbon. But I'm thinking either we mineralize it (impossible?) and keep it at the surface or bury aliphatic/aromatic (less stable) versions deep into the crust.

EDIT2: Perhaps the aspect of "freighting" and "burying" "trees" that seems so impractical could be fixed by switching organisms. Place an industrial scale bioremediation complex near each defunct salt or coal mine and pump in a steady stream of cyanobacteria then sealant then cyanobacteria then sealant.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2018, 04:24:26 PM by Anonymous Coward »

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71156
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #580 on: August 21, 2018, 04:30:07 PM »
Bacteria and algae etc. usually need air to stay alive, which means turbulence in the growth medium of some sort.

Then you have to filter the gunk, which isn't easy to do at scale (or even in the lab).  You can spin it down of course but that requires energy too.

Converting cellulose to "plastic" is not easy either, though we make rayon that way.  There was a lot of interest in polylactic acid back in the day but that seems to have waned.  

I would look at a fast growing tree like eucalyptus for fixing carbon and then finding a means to store it somewhere.

Charmin toilet paper is mostly eucalyptus, but it degrades.  That is why it is so linty.  Paper towels end up usually in landfill, so we could make more paper towels and writing paper.  But that alas takes energy too.

Writing paper often is about 20% inorganic "filler" like calcium carbonate, which also fixes CO2.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #581 on: August 21, 2018, 04:32:06 PM »
That could be, but whatever is used to extract CO2 from the air has to be stored somewhere.  Trees contain quite a bit of carbon, basically C6H12O6 of course, or one carbon atom for each water molecule (hence "carbohydrate"), or 12 grams of carbon plus 18 grams of water.  Yes, there is lignin, but it is higher in carbon.

So, a dead tree is a rather efficient repository of carbon on a mass basis.  What else out there is 6/15ths carbon?
I think the lignin (20-35% by mass depending on the tree) does shift the carbon balance significantly above that 6/15 fraction.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71156
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #582 on: August 21, 2018, 04:37:21 PM »
Yes, we could call if half, aside from the unbound water that would be in a tree, and be close enough.

That is better than calcium carbonate.


Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #583 on: August 21, 2018, 04:38:19 PM »
There is, or was, a "garbologist" at Arizona (or State) who would study cores of sanitary landfills.  He told us they dated the material by reading newspapers at that depth.  Nearly everything would be preserved in a sanitary landfill, hence the name.  In some areas, some water would seep in sufficient to start some anaerobic decomposition (or aerobic in some cases).  The landfills have to collect the methane now and flare it off (usually).  

He had quite the fascinating presentation, been 25 years since I saw one I guess.  I used to work developing bioidegradable polymers.  Trying to anyway, not a whole lot of luck.  The ones that biodegraded did so too quickly to be useful.  We had one that was pretty decent for a day but a few hours in the light and it crumbled to dust, interesting stuff.  So we loaded it up with light stabilizers and it wouldn't degrade, no happy middle ground we ever found.

Fun project, amounted to squat but some useless patents.
I have no doubt that landfills delay degradation. But by which extent - a matter of a hundred years? Thousands? I'm just not sure it's enough to be part of a global solution.

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #584 on: August 21, 2018, 04:44:45 PM »
Bacteria and algae etc. usually need air to stay alive, which means turbulence in the growth medium of some sort.

Then you have to filter the gunk, which isn't easy to do at scale (or even in the lab).  You can spin it down of course but that requires energy too.
Those prone to film formation will settle out of suspension without need for centrifugation. And I was speculating about the possibility of pumping it into a pit/mine already in the process of dying, much like the trees would be. Hence the need for serial sealant application.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12135
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #585 on: August 21, 2018, 05:52:39 PM »
Most people would roll their eyes at the idea that plastic could be our answer, but I think that's compelling:
Making plastic not out of oil refinery or natural gas products (something that had been outside of the active carbon cycle) but out of something (trees) that is still within the carbon cycle.
So... I'm supposed to use plastic straws to SAVE the planet now? 
:smiley_confused1:
:57:

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71156
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #586 on: August 21, 2018, 05:56:32 PM »
Plastic usually comes from oil, or natural gas.  If you burn =oil, you get CO2 obviously (and water).  If you make it into a polymer, you usually turn it into something that will not biodegrade or otherwise degrade for quite a long time.

Our landfills are loaded with trapped carbon.


Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #587 on: August 21, 2018, 06:41:09 PM »
Plastic usually comes from oil, or natural gas.  If you burn =oil, you get CO2 obviously (and water).  If you make it into a polymer, you usually turn it into something that will not biodegrade or otherwise degrade for quite a long time.

Our landfills are loaded with trapped carbon.


I'd call it delayed carbon. It's only trapped on the time scale of one or a few human lives. Swamped trees locked in stone are trapped on geologic time. By comparison, being trapped for a few thousand years (and though I'm no "garbologist," I think that number could be generous) isn't being removed from the carbon cycle. It wouldn't even be older than the oldest tree.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.