h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Recently, some trials were done with barley in which they were exposed to a carbon dioxide rich environment; the results were staggering- they produced much higher yields and used far less water. a problem; how do you apply this on a high scale?
In the case of crops which used pressurized irrigation
such as trees and vines; why not dissolve as much co2 into the water as possible (which would be quite a bit due to the 60psi pressure of the water).
Co2 dissolves in water according to:
CO2 + H2O <--> H2CO3
High pressures will increase the amount of co2 able to be dissolved in the water.
Therefore as the water leaves the sprinklers or drippers or whatever, the carbon dioxide will be liberated right underneath the trees or vines (as the pressure is greatly reduced).
It's just like opening a bottle of soft drink.
However, can current irrigation infrastructure be adapted to suit this purpose; effectively and cheaply?
[link]
|
| |
One wonders if the carbonic acid wouldn't have a negative effect on plants... |
|
| |
As soon as the the water is at atmospheric pressure, the equilibrium position immediately moves backwards - there would be no more carbonic acid in the water than there would be in any sample of water taken from a river or stream. |
|
| |
The real problems lie in the delivery ... can anyone offer an opinion on that ? |
|
| |
pipes/seals are designed for a maximum head pressure which usually exceeds the expected ordinary operating pressure. whether existing systems could adapt depends on the order of magnitude by which the water pressure would be altered for your system - can you advise? |
|
| |
most irrigation systems draw from rivers or lakes, this is done to a quota and up to that quota the source water is free. for your system towork you may also need to replace the existing system of supply, but at a competitive cost to other water sources offset by benefit of increased production. |
|
| |
could you add your reference study as a link? |
|
| |
Not in Australia, we have a pressurized distribution network from the river; and we pay for every drop. |
|
| |
Sorry I can't advise how much the the pressure in the system would increase; I'm a high school student. However, I would assume that as the water flows from the pump into the farm pressure would decrease, causing problems as the co2 gas expands/is evolved. |
|
| |
Here is a link to the study, though. |
|
| |
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2008/07
/080707100152.htm |
|
| |
(sorry about breaking up the link; but it was too long to be posted as one word.) |
|
| |
Pump the water (in batches) into a depressurization vessel and remove the atmospheric gasses then pump into a pressure vessel and add CO2 to bring the water back to atmospheric pressure with the much greater disolved CO2 content. The CO2 rich water can then be introduced back into the normal distribution pipework. Simple! Or have i forgotten something... |
|
| |
You could get a fair amount of CO2 into the water... possibly an interesting take on pest control.[+] |
|
| |
That would be impossible in a natural field situation. Soil has a natural pH due to the makeup of the soil, drainage, water quality, and other factors. The action of a perpetual addition of bicarbonate ion to the soil would be to make it more alkaline. Some soils and crops need a more acidic soil, for these it would be a positive (although it would increase the ionic concentration of the soil would certainly be negative in the long term). For the bicarbonate that didn't have a chance to destroy the soil and bubbled into the atmosphere, the concentration would fall rapidly within seconds of the application as diffusion and wind carried the gas away. Outside of a greenhouse the idea of a localized higher CO2 concentration is unworkable. Irrigation delivery of CO2 is completely unworkable. |
|
| |
//trials were done with barley in which they were exposed to a carbon dioxide rich environment...how do you apply this on a high scale?// |
|
| |
Simple: You burn as much coal as you can in power plants, and fertilize the world! |
|
| |
So you've got bottled CO2, which you then dissolve into irrigation water, pipe to the vines, and then release the CO2 into a gaseous state (to be dissipated almost instantly). |
|
| |
Why not just take the bottle to the vine? |
|
| |
the article referenced is talking about greater CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere due to climate change and their effect on barley. your idea if I understand it is to try to increase this effect by transporting the CO2 to the plant locality in irrigation water. |
|
| |
That's a great idea... why not apply it to a greenhouse situation, forget about the irrigation dissolving problem and just pump in CO2 straight into the house! |
|
| |
What about, instead. Moist, warm CO2 gas from brown coal / crude oil power stations if fed directly into a greenhouse containing Sugar Cane and Nitrogen fixators (to supply nitrates to the soil). The Sugar Cane could be harvested and used to make fuels ... a good form of energy recovery, no ? |
|
| |
However that probably takes this topic into the energy section. |
|
| |
the research he is pilfering is just as you describe, a greenhouse with a controlled atmosphere. The growth encouraging effect of higher CO2 concentration on plants was discovered sometime in the late sixties and i don't see anything new here other than a major misunderstanding about plants, water, and soil. |
|
| |
Ouch ... perhaps this was a bad idea. |
|
| |
I apologize for wasting everyone's time. |
|
| |
Don't take it too hard. Come back soon with a better one. |
|
| |
got more buns than most of my ideas... |
|
| |