Soil Carbon Capture

Over the last few years there have been many words spoken and much hype about the carbon capture and storage of the emissions from our coal-burning power stations, and yet we are no further advanced. This is still an unproven technology but it is realised if it is possible it will be difficult to do, be very expensive and consume much of the power plants that produce it.

Coal-burning power stations are known to be amongst the most inefficient and highest carbon dioxide producing of electricity generating technologies, yet we are throwing buckets of money at researching this questionable technology. All this and where will the carbon dioxide when captured be store is also still not a proven technology. It all seems illogical and not making sense.

A technology that is very well understood, from before carbon burning power stations were even developed for the burning of coal, is soil carbon capture and this is what put the carbon (coal) in the ground in the first place. That is, plants draw carbon out of the air and into the soil.

The evolution of human beings on earth was only possible after the evolution of plants by their carbon cycle, and are sustained on earth by their carbon cycle of plants for animal and human food production. That is, plants draw carbon out of the air and into the soil as a continuous carbon cycle, probably the best-known technology o fall humankind, and vital for the survival of humankind.

It is also known that modern intensive agriculture has depleted the vital carbon content of soils in many areas of up the 50% since before we developed the technology of the plough. This carbon has contributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the earth's global warming. It is also known high soil carbon content is synonymous with economically efficient agriculture.

The technology of agriculture and soil carbon capture to put the carbon back is well understood but is not being practised in much of the world. Alex McBratney, Professor of Soil Sciences at the University of Sydney, has calculated that if the carbon content of a quarter of the world's land surface was increased by just 1% (by changing agricultural practices), it would result in the removal or sequestering of 300 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

All this and yet no government-budgeted moneys are considered for the world's hugely beneficial agriculture are carbon capture and storage are proven technology, while at the same time we are throwing buckets of money on an unproven technology of trying to capture the carbon emitted by our coal-burning power stations with nowhere to put the stuff when it is collected.

Sort of doesn't make sense or logic, does it? What can we do?

Created by Hugh Walker. Last Modification: Wednesday 31 of August, 2011 16:40:54 EST by Hugh Walker.