START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Carbon Management and Sequestration Center


Environment  (tags: climate-change, CO2emissions, conservation, ecosystems, environment, globalwarming, habitat, habitatdestruction, healthconditions, pollution, politics, research, science )

Kit
- 801 days ago - senr.osu.edu
Research on the best methods for reducing atmospheric CO2 through sustainable land management practices. Simultaneously, CMASC investigates strategies to enhance food security, improve water use efficiency, and reduce poverty.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kit B. (276)
Monday August 20, 2012, 9:31 am

Research Goals

1.Advance science of C dynamics in natural and managed ecosystems.

2.Provide technical support to industry, land managers and policy makers towards natural sequestration of C in land and water ecosystems by creating the database on rate of sequestration and sink capacity (capacity of the land to store C) of C for recommended land use and management practices.

3.Facilitate commodification of C in assessing its societal value for benefits to agronomic/forestry productivity, impacts on water quality and reduction of the greenhouse effects, and provide information useful for public and private strategic analysis for C sequestration and climate change management.

4.Develop a cadre of world-class scientists trained in the cutting edge of science and technology.

Research Objectives

The multi-disciplinary center is focused on C sequestration in soil, vegetation and wetlands, and in biofuel offsets. It is:

•Developing a national and international database on current and potential rates of terrestrial C sequestration for diverse land uses and soil/vegetation/wetland management options;

•Determining C sink capacity for major soils, vegetational zones and ecoregions;

•Establishing relationship between soil C and soil quality in relation to total biomass and economic productivity;

•Standardizing new and innovative methods of C determination in vegetation and soil;
•Assessing comparative economics of C sequestration through different processes;

•Assessing feasibility of biofuels as fossil fuel offsets and assess its energy ratio;

•Providing training opportunities for scientists and land managers; and

•Supporting C trading by assessing the rate of sequestration, and the societal value of C.

•Assessing ecosystem services influenced by C dynamics
 

Kit B. (276)
Monday August 20, 2012, 9:34 am

The Carbon Management and Sequestration Center (CMASC) is located on The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The mission of CMASC is to provide comprehensive, interdisciplinary research on terrestrial carbon management and sequestration techniques and technologies in the fields of agriculture, forestry, agroecology, water management, bioenergy crops, nutrient cycling and waste management.

The goal of CMASC is to provide accurate assessments of soil and biological carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation in order to improve basic scientific understanding on carbon cycling in terrestrial systems as well as to provide policy makers with relevant information on carbon cycling. A full list of peer-reviewed publications, chapters, books, and oral and poster presentations by CMASC researchers can be found here.

Research techniques include soil physical, chemical, and biological assessment;

GIS mapping and prediction; soil quality indexing; lifecycle assessment;

X-ray and mass spectroscopy methods;

regional and global carbon assessments; etc.

More information on our research facilities can be found here.

Rational

Improve and sustain soil quality and its functions through increasing the soil C pool to meet the demands of growing and progressively affluent world population through climate resilient agriculture.

Scope

•Science of C cycling in soils, vegetation, wetlands and biofuel plantations,

•Effects of C sequestration, acceptability of different options, and the human dimensions including education, communication and policy issues.

•Ecosystem services affected by C in soils and biomass
Multi-disciplinary Components

Soil science, climatology, environmental sciences, crop sciences, engineering, geology, economics, geography, social sciences, public policy, and communication.
 

Nancy M. (202)
Monday August 20, 2012, 10:38 am
No more exhaling! LOL
 

Past Member (0)
Monday August 20, 2012, 11:28 am
Thanks, interesting article.
 

Yvonne White (232)
Monday August 20, 2012, 2:15 pm
Interesting stuff.. I think biofuels should never be made from Food crops. I also think dependence on BigAgri treated seeds will ruin the food industry fairly quickly. I also hate No-Till methods, even though it supposedly prevents soil erosion it also increases the need for BigAgri chem.-treated seeds (plus it prevents surface hunting of artifacts, which I love to do!;)...
 

Jennifer C. (172)
Monday August 20, 2012, 9:12 pm
Thanks.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Monday August 20, 2012, 9:12 pm
Carbon sequestration is widely talked but not much used process. I have investigated it a month ago and found that it is implemented on far less facilities than we think. Cost of operating is the first obstacle, and there are more which I can't remember now. I will check my notes and get back with more.

High costs were a factor which stopped extracting oil from now profitable places. As with everything else, whether is something cheap or expensive depends of how bad do we need it.

Thanks, Kit for this info.
 

SuSanne P. (183)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 4:19 am
Thank you dearest Kit~ as I am far from understanding this complicated issue, I will not write anything whatsoever as this is far over my head. I only wish to thank you while acknowledging your submission. This is such a passion of mine and I will STUDY the facts until I can intelligently write my understanding and beliefs. Forgive me for being so late in noting, as I was falling asleep trying to understand yesterday:)
 

SuSanne P. (183)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 4:24 am
Unfortunately I cannot yet STAR Yvonne, as I understand most of what she spoke of.
 

wolfNoFwdsPls a. (135)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 4:29 am
"Carbon Management and Sequestration" is much like the current "Management" of (e.g.) Cancer: profitable for some, hardly any help for the victims, cosmeticist improvements (at best), and AT ALL COST AVOIDING (even thinking about) removing the causes of the problem...


 

Dave C. (216)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 7:37 am
any little bit will help for now, but long-term we still have to get over our over-consumption and addiction to pollution/petrol-coal-NG energy sources...
 

Anna M. (18)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 8:22 am

Chief Seattle, 1854
Humankind has not woven the web of life.
We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
All things are bound together.
All things connect.
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 10:46 am

This is not the only solution, it is but one of many possible solutions. We have expected the oceans alone to absorb excess levels of C02, the oceans are so polluted, over fished, over used and now suffering from increased temperatures. Adding proper use the soils into the consideration, the need for soils to be in a protective and safe manner, an end to the abuse by Agribusiness, the growing cycles re-instated, allowing land to "rest" and end to pollution of soils by petrochemical toxins, that then wash into our streams and rivers. This is not a shocking new idea, only one that rarely is talked about in terms that allow for general understanding. I do realize this subject can lead to misunderstanding and assumptions, it is however, one more way to logically support our only growth mechanism for food.
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 11:28 am

Sorry but my Green Stars are not yet replenished, so I'm sending out mental stars to all. Wolf, I know where you going with your argument, I just think you need to do more research.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 7:37 pm
There is an abundance of information at National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) of U.S. Department of Energy.

Best Practices for Carbon Storage Systems and Well Management Activities; NETL, April 2012.

More info:
Key Issues & Mandates

I must admit that I am not enthusiastic about NETL's "Clean Coal" concept, but they give an insight on R&D to "provide policymakers with expanded options for meeting vital national energy, environmental, and security needs."

IPCC on it's Publications and Data page offers reports which cover more than 20 years of research. In one of them (I saved C-Meyer-IPCC.pdf without the link), I found this indicative numbers:

* Global large stationary CO2 sources with emissions of more than 0.1 Mt CO2/year = 13,500 Mt CO2/year
---------------------------------------------------
** Electric power (oil, coal, gas) == 10,500 Mt CO2/year
** Cement production == 950 Mt CO2/year
** Refineries == 800 Mt CO2/year
** other sources === 1,250 Mt CO2/year
---------------------------------------------------
Total global CO2 emissions = 34,000 Mt CO2/year
===================================================

It is important to notice that thermoelectric plants contribute to 30% of total world CO2 emissions (abbr. CCS), representing a "low-fruit" for CCS, being both stationary and big CO2 source (emission of 0.8 kg CO2 per 1 kWh). Yet, there is not a single thermoelectric plant in a world with implemented CCS. I've found was that maybe 6 - 7 plants use CCS in testing phase.

Commercial use of CCS is implemented in less that dozen facilities (data from Nov. 2011.); one big cement production plant and about 8 oil and gas extraction fields. Numbers are uncertain, because there is much more CCS in test phase and some of them may have been implemented as permanent solutions, some may be abandoned... data from several sources differ both for CCS commercial facilities and also the date of the report. I didn't perform a deeper analysis, because I was primarily focused on thermoelectric plants.

Estimated cost of CCS is 2 - 4 US cents per 1 kWh for coal power plant, and 1.3 - 2.4 US cents per 1 kWh for gas power plant. (data from IPCC, Dr. Leo Meyer, IPCC Working Group III)

Finally, I understand and share wolf's concerns. If people were led to believe that CCS technology is in ready-to-use state, which is far from true, they might just keep drill-and-burn as there is no tomorrow.
 

Jelica R. (157)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 7:43 pm
Correction:

"... world CO2 emissions (abbr. CCS), representing a "low-fruit" for CCS, ..."

should be

"... world CO2 emissions, representing a "low-fruit" for CO2 sequestration (abbr. CCS), ..."

Hard to edit in small boxes...
 

Jelica R. (157)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 7:56 pm
Second correction: not "as" but ... LIKE there is no tomorrow. (I should have gone to sleep hours ago.)
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Kit B.

Kit B.
Kit's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 0
Stories submitted: 3517
Front Page stories: 3420




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.