Carbon sink comes from the Kyoto Protocol, and the original English text is carbon sink, which essentially refers to the collection of carbon dioxide fixed from the atmosphere. Therefore, there are only two ways to obtain a real carbon sink, one of which is to obtain artificial atmospheric carbon captureThe second is that plants harvest natural carbon through photosynthesis.
By capturing carbon emissions from fossil fuels and converting them into carbon-containing materials CCUS, sequestering carbon dioxide CCS, and using green hydrogen to synthesize blue methanol, carbon sinks cannot form carbon sinks in the original sense of carbon sinks, but can only be a technology to reduce carbon emissions.
Carbon sources are divided into green carbon sources and gray carbon sources, biomass on the earth provides green carbon sources, and fossil energy provides gray carbon sources. Carbon sources and carbon sinks are not the same concept, and green carbon sources cannot be equated with carbon sinks. If the green carbon source contained in biomass is naturally decomposed, the greenhouse effect of methane greenhouse gas is 23 times that of carbon dioxide, which is less harmful than direct combustion into green carbon dioxide and released into the atmosphere.
So. Green carbon sources are carbon sinks that are carbonized into carbon materials and are no longer released into the atmosphere after CCS, which can be traded in exchange for the same amount of fossil energy carbon emissions.
The merits of stubble burning
There is nothing inherently wrong with the fact that straw burning is banned because it produces smog. , which is mainly a haze that is a serious pollution to the atmosphere;Second, the green carbon resources rich in straw do not play a good role in carbon neutralityThird, harmful gases such as carbon monoxide will be produced during the incineration process.
After the ban on straw burning, how to deal with the straw is the key.
Straw crushing and returning to the field is more harmful than straw burningStraw crushing and returning to the field to naturally decompose biomass, the first thing produced is methane greenhouse gas, which is known as biogas, methane is 23 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, obviously straw return to the field amplifies the greenhouse effect of straw burning.
Not only that, the residual pests and diseases of the current year carried by the straw were not burned and eliminated, and the production of the next year was affected by the retention of the returned to the field. Moreover, the natural decomposition of straw requires a process, such as three years for the complete decomposition of rice stalks, which will directly affect the loose and breathable soil of cultivated land and endanger the root growth of new crops. Therefore, the straw should be disposed of off the ground, not crushed on the spot and returned to the field.
Disposal of straw energy stateEnergy state science creates and guides the off-site disposal of straw distributed carbonization co-generation green energy. The straw charcoal produced by straw carbonization can improve the soil, and 1 ton of straw charcoal per mu of cultivated land can be transformed into black soil for 8 consecutive years, which is not only fertile but also inhibits the growth of pests and diseases, and promotes organic agricultural production. Not only that, the carbon sink factor of straw charcoal is greater than 3, that is, for every 1 ton of straw charcoal returned to the field, 3 tons of real carbon sink can be obtained.
According to expert calculations, the nearest distributed straw carbonization co-production of green methanol, taking rice straw as an example, will increase the income of agricultural energy by about 500 yuan per mu for farmers. If the country's agricultural straw is converted into an energy agricultural industry, the annual per capita income of the agricultural population will increase by 2,000-3,000 yuan, and at the same time, China's carbon emissions can contribute to carbon reduction by more than 5% after reaching its peak. Therefore, straw is a valuable green carbon source, and the road of distributed carbonization co-production of green methanol is the road to carbon neutrality to promote the common prosperity of rural areas.
People call on all competent departments of the state and the scientific and technological community to work together to adopt the correct way of scientific and technological innovation, so as to benefit the people as soon as possible.
A biogreen carbon source is not exactly a carbon sink
Forestry is one of the largest sources of biological green carbon on the planet, and it cannot be simply equated with carbon sinks. The natural decomposition of the branches and leaves dropped by deciduous forests every winter to produce methane greenhouse gases will have a more harmful effect than the carbon sequestration effect of tree trunks. If the dead leaves and branches are collected and the green methanol is co-produced by carbonization, it will play a role like agricultural straw to drive the common prosperity of mountain villages and make a great contribution to carbon neutrality.
Therefore, in the new afforestation operation, it is necessary to plant evergreen forests as much as possible in the mountainous areas where it is inconvenient to collect dead leaves and dead branches at high places, and try to plant deciduous forests in the mountainous areas that are convenient for collecting dead leaves and dead branches, which can form energy forestry, increase new forestry output, and benefit mountain people and the world.
According to remote sensing technology, the carbon sink gains and losses of forest fires in Canada are equivalent to 11100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Therefore, some people have proposed that carbon sinks become carbon sources in the vicious circle of global warming due to fires, which not only lose carbon emission benefits, but also need to pay global sky-high compensation, and at the same time, carbon emission indicators should also be discounted.
According to the definition of a real carbon sink, the carbon emissions from forest fires in Canada are green carbon emissions. If the burned forests are already used for forest carbon sequestration trading, it is reasonable to make a refund.
In addition, it is necessary to distinguish the types of forests that have been burned, as long as the dead leaves and dead branches of deciduous forests are not collected and carbonized every year, it is difficult to say whether this burning is a bad thing or a good thing for climate warming. The burning of evergreen forests is undoubtedly a bad thing, and in the long run, this part of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the fire increases the burden that humanity needs to repair the earth in the future.
The main tree species in Canada are fir and pine non-deciduous plants, and the market** is about $330 per cubic meter, and the fires cost Canada nearly $7.26 trillion worth of economic losses to trees burned alone. From the perspective of carbon sinks, if this batch of wood is used as a material in the future, and the waste generated in the production process is used for carbonization and co-production of green methanol, the potential economic loss for human beings will be greater.
Forests need to be cautious in the trading of carbon sequestrations, and the biggest inspiration from the fires in Canada isThere is uncertainty in the direct conversion of green carbon sources into carbon sinks in mountains and forestsA forest fire will bring forest carbon sequestration trading back to its original shape. Therefore, the development of forestry carbon sequestration should focus on the technical path of energy state, focusing on the development of green methanol co-carbonization of forestry biomass, and the woody high-grade biochar obtained can be used to convert into high value-added carbon materials at the same time, it can also obtain real carbon sequestration benefits, which is the hard currency of forestry carbon sequestration.
Forestry waste, like agricultural straw, also constitutes one of the important pillars of the forestry energy industry, the difference is that the economic income of forestry straw charcoal is lower than the value of woody high-grade biochar, and simply compared with carbon sinks, as long as it is not used for combustion, it is a carbon sink hard currency.
Scientists have found that 30% of the increase in atmospheric carbon is absorbed by the ocean, part of which is absorbed by seawater and dissolved in seawater to increase seawater acidification pollution, and part of it is absorbed by marine plants and converted into marine organisms.
If the goal of carbon neutrality is only to eliminate 70% of carbon emissions, then the absorbed 30% will release 70% of the absorbed 30% in a dynamic equilibrium, equivalent to 21% of the total increase in carbon emissions back to the atmosphere. Therefore, humanity's goal of carbon neutrality cannot be deducted from the absorption of the ocean.
The green carbon source absorbed by marine organisms is the same as agricultural straw and mountain forest straw, and the greenhouse harm caused by natural decomposition is much greater than the carbon sequestration contribution of marine organisms. Therefore, in order to convert the green carbon source of marine organisms into energy state, it is also necessary to take the road of carbonization and co-generation of green energy, marine biochar belongs to the real carbon sink, and the application of green energy to replace fossil energy belongs to the carbon reduction process.
The rights and wrongs of carbon sink trading
Since the introduction of carbon neutrality, many people have seen carbon sink trading as a new opportunity to make a fortune. It can be said that there is a surge around carbon sink trading. Especially those who want to make quick money, they are even more demons dancing.
When people understand the authenticity of carbon sinks, it will be clear that there is only one way for energy science to believe that the world's real carbon sink trading is the hard currency**Biomass is carbonized and returned to the field or converted into carbon materials, and green carbon dioxide will no longer be released into the atmosphere.
Carbon sink trading can be divided into three types: real carbon sink trading, quota carbon sink trading and special carbon sink trading.
Real carbon sink trading - the green carbon produced by biomass carbonization is returned to the field or converted into carbon materials, and the green carbon will not be released into the atmosphere.
Allowance carbon sink trading - Allowances belong to special industries and need carbon sink support, and should not be transferred to profit. Quotas belong to the state, and the quota saving enterprises should be returned to the state to obtain incentives and support for technological progress, and the saved carbon sink quotas will be uniformly allocated by the state to other industries that need support, so as to make the most effective use of carbon sink resources.
Special carbon sink trading - the green carbon produced by the carbonization and cracking of domestic waste is used as an environmental protection material, which is internationally recognized as a real carbon sink. Special carbon sinks need to be internationally recognized, and it is not for a country to be able to identify it on its own, and a country can make special emissions according to the needs of its own carbon neutrality undertakings, and the adoption of carbon sink quota policies is sufficient to cover it.
In fact, the origin of carbon sinks was originally a financial product used by developed countries to restrict developing countries, and with the increasingly serious climate warming crisis, it is turning to the carbon tax practice of imports. Therefore, the development of carbon sink trading market, or the practice of converting carbon sinks into carbon taxes, which is more scientific and more conducive to the transformation of a carbon-neutral economy, needs to be verified. (ENDS).