Is Solar really worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushwanderer

The reason grass is excluded is that it is almost 100% mature, and so ALL extra carbon used in further growth is removed by cutting.

What happens to your grass cuttings?

Further, fertiliser produces greenhouse emissions while encouraging extra growth in order for you to cut the grass more often.

Hardly a greenhouse-sustainable industry. :eek:

---

Well......are you a horticulturalist?

Im not entirely sure what your saying here but I will try and answer and extend on what your saying.

Grass is 100% mature, is this all the time......then why does it grow in the first place?.....kinda like what came first the chicken or the egg? your saying the chicken and thats not going to grow any more.......doesnt make sense to me.

As far as our clippings, we trim 1/3rd of our plant (leaf only) at any one time, our fairways are pure santa ana couch and our greens are 50% bent/poa blend.

Normal cutting hights are +-1mm 75mm short rough (long rough is not cut at all) 15mm tee surrounds 10mm fairways, 8mm tees/ green surrounds, (2 to 3mm) greens depending on growth.

Our slippings are mostly cought, we have catchers on all machines other than rough mowers and there are few areas other than rough that we dont catch the clip.

The clippings are normally thrown into the long rough to break down naturally.

What your saying about fertiliser I dont understand.

Are you saying that the machinery produses carbon when we fertilise? if so, Nope sorry as we use injection through the irrigation system mostly and if we do granular is is with sand when topdressing anyway, doing 2 jobs at once.

As far as clippings go as fertiliser, its rubbish.

As it's breaking down it creates a black layer in the soil which prevents water from getting down into the sub soil thus why we catch all our trimmed areas and why we top dress.

A lot of golf courses put out carbon on greens etc to attract heat and improove growth and strengthen the cell wall as well as calcium/carbon make the plant more salt tolerant so it can take the high sodium levels in bore and recycled (either treated grey/sewerage or storm) water so it cant be all bad.

Is it solid carbon thats a problem or more carbon dioxide that they are more worried about?

If it's carbon then were stuffed as everything has carbon in it, it is a base element I think from my High school science days.

My point is that all plants are continually growing and converting C02 into oxygen so why remove certain plants from the list.

Ok, if grass produces as much as it uses then for sure but what about all our trees, why because we have gum trees over 30yo do they not count, they are still young in red gum years, shouldnt it go on the variety not just weather it is tree or grass.

We could cut down all the red gums and plant peppermint or swampgums which grow heaps fast but are crap trees, no good for anything and look hidius.

Hi Mcrover,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post and for providing all that extra detail (it gives me a better understanding of the complexity of developing and maintaining a golf course).

I see that my shorthand way of calling the grass "essentially mature" was unclear, perhaps not surprisingly. :( What I meant was that the grass was essentially at the point where any extra growth (which absorbs CO2) was countered by cutting it (which means that the CO2 is released back largely into the atmosphere) meaning that grass has a net zero greenhouse effect and therefore wouldn't be taken into consideration.

In support of this view, below I provide some extracts from a paper by an American (I know :() Jerry Hannan PhD, entitled "Our Role in the "Greenhouse Effect"".

"Carbon dioxide is absorbed by grasses, plants, shrubs, trees and phytoplankton by the process of photosynthesis."
and
"Grass absorbs CO2 but only on a short term basis. Grass clippings decompose or are eaten, but in a relatively short time much of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2. A more pertinent question would be to ask about the CO2 absorption rate of trees because they are the more permanent absorbers. Trees that have been converted into furniture provide a very long term storage of carbon."

The second extract above supports your view that trees should be taken into account (if they are growing and, therefore, absorbing CO2).

I agree with your view on this, depending on the end use of the trees. I imagine that, on your golf course, they are there for the "long haul" and so their end use could be considered to be "growing trees". I don't know why they are being excluded. Perhaps someone knows the argument that the department uses in this case and would post it for consideration.

Best Wishes,
Peter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushwanderer

.....
"Carbon dioxide is absorbed by grasses, plants, shrubs, trees and phytoplankton by the process of photosynthesis."
and
"Grass absorbs CO2 but only on a short term basis. Grass clippings decompose or are eaten, but in a relatively short time much of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2. A more pertinent question would be to ask about the CO2 absorption rate of trees because they are the more permanent absorbers. Trees that have been converted into furniture provide a very long term storage of carbon.".......
Best Wishes,
Peter

---

That may apply to American grasses, but is not the case with many perennial Australian native grasses. As I commented above, much of their carbon capture is concentrated in their root system, and when the plant dies, this becomes incorporated in the soil, often being more permanent than a lot of the carbon in the trees, which is largely converted back to carbon dioxide in the next major fire.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

That may apply to American grasses, but is not the case with many perennial Australian native grasses. As I commented above, much of their carbon capture is concentrated in their root system, and when the plant dies, this becomes incorporated in the soil, often being more permanent than a lot of the carbon in the trees, which is largely converted back to carbon dioxide in the next major fire.

John

---

However in golf courses (even if they are using native grasses) - this would most likely be countered by CO2e emissions from fertilisers and CO2 generated providing the irrigation water.

Interestingly, one of my colleagues recently did a study comparing CO2 emissions from irrigated and non-irrigated tree plantations in WA. The irrigated case had significantly lower emissions, since the (different) fertilisers applied in the non-irrigated case had MUCH higher N2O and CO2 emissions.

Actually, I suspect the major part of carbon emissions from fertilisers is typically from the energy that is used to mine, refine, transport and apply the fertilisers. For fertilisers derived from atmospheric nitrogen, replace the "mine, refine" with "synthesise" - probably representing a much larger energy and hence CO2 cost. Compared to the carbon emissions involved in this regard any emissions after application would be negligible - and most fertilisers, by increasing the vigour of the plant growth, would, I think, increase CO2 absorption.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Actually, I suspect the major part of carbon emissions from fertilisers is typically from the energy that is used to mine, refine, transport and apply the fertilisers. For fertilisers derived from atmospheric nitrogen, replace the "mine, refine" with "synthesise" - probably representing a much larger energy and hence CO2 cost. Compared to the carbon emissions involved in this regard any emissions after application would be negligible - and most fertilisers, by increasing the vigour of the plant growth, would, I think, increase CO2 absorption.

John

---

Superphosphate fertiliser in OZ works out at 40kg CO2 per tonne (mining to delivery at wholesaler). Though in many cases this is high purity CO2 and is used to make soft drinks fizzy (but still ends up in the atmosphere).

N2O emissions can be quite significant (especially since N2O has significant GHG potential). (West) Australian soil chemistry means that N2O emissions from fertilisers are usually lower than in other countries though (on an identical application rate/HA).

There is some evidence to support your assertion (perennial crops which fix N and C in the soil are likely to have net sequestration (including fertiliser CO2e contributions). However annual crops which are left to decompose or fed to ruminants will have a net emission.

Now at this point it shows why I chose a path to become a mechanic and not normally have to deal with all this stuff as now my brain hurts thinking about all this.

So all in all, regardless of the fact that we have about 140 acres if green grassy/tree'd area we are still polluters as far as carbon emissions goes.

How are we meant to get closer to a zero Co2 emission level which I think would be benificial to us as to be able to justify putting up green fees and memberships.

Then after all this, Is it all worth it,, how do we calculate acurately what our emissions are now.......etc etc?

It just goes on and on.

Ive run out of time at work at the moment to bother with it but come winter the brain pain may have subsided enough to be bothered to look into it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Superphosphate fertiliser in OZ works out at 40kg CO2 per tonne (mining to delivery at wholesaler). Though in many cases this is high purity CO2 and is used to make soft drinks fizzy (but still ends up in the atmosphere).
...

---

That figure sounds a bit low to me - I wonder if that is only part of it - I would have thought most of the CO2 involved would have been as diesel exhaust; if your talking about high purity CO2, that sounds like the byproduct of conversion from phosphate rock to superphosphate, but my understanding of the process is that neither heat nor much energy is involved.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcrover

So all in all, regardless of the fact that we have about 140 acres if green grassy/tree'd area we are still polluters as far as carbon emissions goes.

---

That depends. You would have to do an assessment. I have never seen an independant one for a golf course. However some colleagues are doing a study for a turf farm, so the results may be comparable.

But in short - most trees sequester significant carbon for the first 80-100 years of growth - so if you have young trees then they will be sequestering something.
Grass - depends on species, fertiliser use, soil sequestration, management practices, etc... - these can be OPTIMIZED!

Then you have straight emitters - all your small engines/vehicles, and electricity consumption.

An assessment of all of the above would need to be done, there are established methods, but you would need a consultant to help.

Quote:

---

How are we meant to get closer to a zero Co2 emission level which I think would be benificial to us as to be able to justify putting up green fees and memberships.

---

There are plenty of ways - electric vehicles, hydrogen powered vehicles (Toro has a prototype H2 greens mower in the US),etc... Recharged by "green power" - same for the clubhouse and workshop(s).

You could also start harvesting the mature trees on the course and replant (if possible?) - or plant extras...

Quote:

---

Then after all this, Is it all worth it,, how do we calculate acurately what our emissions are now.......etc etc?

---

Whether all of the above is financially worth it is another matter... The answer is probably no, until the Carbon price is $50+/tonne and includes agriculture and golf courses. UNLESS your members are willing to pay a significant premium for playing on a "carbon neutral" course...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

That figure sounds a bit low to me - I wonder if that is only part of it - I would have thought most of the CO2 involved would have been as diesel exhaust; if your talking about high purity CO2, that sounds like the byproduct of conversion from phosphate rock to superphosphate, but my understanding of the process is that neither heat nor much energy is involved.

John

---

That figure comes straight from a manufacturer. To be honest I don't know the breakdown (i'm sure you are right that transport is 50% or more). All I know is that all soft drinks in WA and bottled CO2 comes from the above process!!!


EDIT - sorry the figure doesn't include mining, just transport (by ship) from the terminal near the mine to the processing facility.