3-SAT: Forscher der Fachhochschule Bingen haben ein Verfahren entwickelt, mit dem sie Biokohle erzeugen. Sie bindet Kohlendioxid und kann als mineralienhaltiger Dünger der Natur wieder zugeführt werden.

http://stream-tv.de/sendung/1286690/nano-biokohle-zum-duengen-und-kohlendioxid-binden

The cynical view is that Hunt will provide Abbott with useful political cover. Perhaps. But Hunt will put his best efforts into giving the opposition a credible climate change policy. As opposed to an ETS, he argues to Inquirer, "direct action means that every dollar actually goes into reducing emissions". Hunt's "very conservative estimate" is that 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be taken out of the atmosphere each year by burying it in soils, plants and oceans. That is about one-quarter of present annual emissions.

The question is how much blue sky is in these projections. There is widespread agreement that biosequestration -- improved land management practices and innovations such as biochar that lock carbon in soil and increases agricultural productivity -- is technically feasible. But scaling up to commercial production, let alone nationwide application, involves some big steps. Nevertheless, according to Hunt, "you can easily achieve the 150 million tonnes by 2020".

The Australian

There are plenty of reasons to be disappointed with the Copenhagen climate talks that start today: the meeting will not result in a binding agreement, the timeframe for such an agreement is potentially years away, and of course, neither the US nor China has committed to binding reductions. While all this is certainly disappointing, the problem with the talks is actually much more serious. Even if the meeting did result in aggressive, binding reduction targets, achieving those reductions won't reduce atmospheric CO2 enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The real reason to be negative: we can't get there from here. (At least, not on the route we're taking.)

Die Tradition der Energiewirtschaft in der Region Berlin-Brandenburg ist lang und mit Werner von Siemens hat einer der Urväter der modernen Energiewirtschaft vor Ort gewirkt. Die Lausitz ist eines der 4 großen Kohleförderzentren Deutschlands und 33% (knapp 60 Millionen Tonnen p.a.) der deutschen Braunkohleförderung entfallen auf dieses Gebiet.

http://www.biomasse-nutzung.de/biokohle-und-hydrothermale-karbonisierung-in-berlin-brandenburg/

Die Verfahrenstechnik (Prozess) sieht folgendermaßen aus. Es wird Biomasse in ein Druckbehälter gegeben und ein Katalysator (chemischer Reaktionsbeschleuniger) hinzugefügt. Der Behälter wird luftdicht verschlossen und ordentlich mit Wärmeenergie (180°C)  versorgt. Den Rest übernimmt die Zeit, was bedeutet, dass ca. 12 Stunden gewartet wird. Im Behälter entsteht durch diese Behandlung der Auskochung eine Art Kohlestaub und Wasser. Nach einer Trockung erhält man reinen Kohlestaub, ohne während des Prozesses Kohlenstoff verloren  zu haben.

Es ist somit nicht eine Art der Energieerzeugung, sondern eher ein Prozess um organische Substanz aufzubereiten. In gewisser Hinsicht eine Veredelung von Biomasse in eine bestimmte molekulare Struktur.

http://www.biomasse-nutzung.de/hydrothermale-karbonisierung-ein-magischer-weg-zur-bioenergie/

The study, chaired by Professor John Shepherd FRS, was researched and written over a period of twelve months by twelve leading academics representing science, economics, law and social science.

Man-made climate change is happening and its impacts and costs will be large, serious and unevenly spread. The impacts may be reduced by adaptation and moderated by mitigation, especially by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. However, global efforts to reduce emissions have not yet been sufficiently successful to provide confidence that the reductions needed to avoid dangerous climate change will be achieved. This has led to growing interest in geoengineering, defined here as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.

However, despite this interest, there has been a lack of accessible, high quality information on the proposed geoengineering techniques which remain unproven and potentially dangerous. This study provides a detailed assessment of the various methods and considers the potential efficiency and unintended consequences they may pose. It divides geoengineering methods into two basic categories:

1. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques, which remove CO2 from the atmosphere. As they address the root cause of climate change, rising CO2 concentrations, they have relatively low uncertainties and risks. However, these techniques work slowly to reduce global temperatures.
2. Solar Radiation Management (SRM) techniques, which reflect a small percentage of the sun's light and heat back into space. These methods act quickly, and so may represent the only way to lower global temperatures quickly in the event of a climate crisis. However, they only reduce some, but not all, effects of climate change, while possibly creating other problems . They also do not affect CO2 levels and therefore fail to address the wider effects of rising CO2, including ocean acidification.

The report recommends:

• Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter;
• CDR and SRM geoengineering methods should only be considered as part of a wider package of options for addressing climate change. CDR methods should be regarded as preferable to SRM methods.
• Relevant UK government departments, in association with the UK Research Councils, should together fund a 10 year geoengineering research programme at a level of the order of £10M per annum.
• The Royal Society, in collaboration with international science partners, should develop a code of practice for geoengineering research and provide recommendations to the international scientific community for a voluntary research governance framework.

The Royal Society issued a call for submissions and convened a small ethics workshop as part of the evidence gathering process. More information is available in the main report. Royal Society