Climate Change

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Solution to the carbon problem could be under the ground

Hope for the fight against climate change as study finds greenhouse gas can be buried without fear of leaking

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Carbon dioxide captured from the chimneys of power stations could be safely buried underground for thousands of years without the risk of the greenhouse gas seeping into the atmosphere, a study has found.

The findings will lend weight to the idea of carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) – when carbon dioxide is trapped and then buried – which is being seriously touted as a viable way of reducing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide while still continuing to burn fossil fuels such as oil and coal in power stations.

There are two substantial problems with CCS. The first is how to trap carbon dioxide efficiently in power-station emissions and the second is how to ensure that the underground store of the gas does not leak back into the atmosphere and so exacerbate the greenhouse effect and global warming.

In seeking to answer the second question, scientists looked at natural underground reservoirs of gas. They found that carbon dioxide trapped underground had been stable for possibly millions of years because it dissolves harmlessly in subterranean stores of water which do not appear to have leaked any substantial quantities of the gas back into the atmosphere.

The researchers believe the study shows that it will be possible to inject vast amounts of carbon dioxide from power stations into deep underground reservoirs where it will dissolve in water and remain undisturbed for at least as long as it will take for mankind to completely abandon fossil fuels and generate clean, carbon-neutral electricity.

Stuart Gilfillan of the University of Edinburgh said: "The study shows that naturally stored carbon dioxide has been safely stored for millions of years, which means that these sort of storage timescales should be achievable for the deliberate sequestration of the gas.

"It suggests that underground storage of carbon dioxide, in the correct place, should be a safe option to help us cope with emissions until we can develop cleaner sources of energy not based on fossil fuels," Dr Gilfillan said.

The study, published in the journal Nature, was based on an analysis of the chemical isotopes of helium and carbon dioxide in nine natural gas fields in North America, Europe and China. These gas fields have filled with carbon dioxide for many thousands or millions of years as it seeps from even deeper sources resulting from either volcanic activity or the heating of carbonate rocks.

The ratio of the two isotopes in the gas fields can tell the scientists whether any substantial quantities of carbon dioxide have seeped out of these underground sites during the period of time that they have filled up with gas.

Professor Chris Ballentine of Manchester University, who took part in the study, said that the isotopic technique will also be invaluable for further research, particularly when engineers begin carbon sequestration.

"The new approach will be essential for tracing where carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired power stations goes after we inject it underground – this is critical for future safety verification," Professor Ballentine said.

One of the reasons why the carbon dioxide remains trapped in the nine natural gas fields studied by the researchers could be down to physical changes occurring after its dissolution in water.

Dr Gilfillan said that when carbon dioxide dissolves in water the solution becomes denser than ordinary water and so sinks. This feature may have helped to keep the carbonated water underground for a long time, he said.

"We already know that oil and gas have been stored for millions of years and our study clearly shows that carbon dioxide has been stored naturally and safely in underground water in these fields," he said.

"It's good news in terms of the understanding of the system of carbon dioxide storage. It means that what actually happens in the natural storage of carbon dioxide suggests that it is possible to achieve the 10,000-year storage widely quoted as being necessary for effective carbon sequestration," he added.

There were initially fears that injecting carbon dioxide into the ground could simple result in it bubbling to the surface like a source of carbonated mineral water, releasing the gas into the atmosphere. The scientists also found that the underground carbon dioxide would not tend to form minerals and so form immovable solids. Mineral deposits block pores in rock, limiting the size of the overall carbon sink.

"It's bad news in the sense that mineralising the carbon dioxide would make it even more stable. But the good news is that mineralisation would have limited the amount of carbon dioxide that could be pumped into any one reservoir," Dr Gilfillan said.

Barbara Sherwood Lollar, a geologist at the University of Toronto, said that it was important to understand how carbon dioxide was stored in natural underground reservoirs if the problems of long-term storage of carbon dioxide were to be solved.

What we found was remarkable. At sites throughout the world, we found that the major way carbon dioxide is stored is by dissolution into the underground water, rather than by mineral trapping," Dr Sherwood Lollar said.

However, even if the sequestration part of the equation is solved, there is still the major problem of how to capture carbon dioxide emitted by power stations efficiently and cheaply.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]kw9751 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 11:33 pm (UTC)
Yay!... shove it under the carpet approach!
Carbon Dioxide
[info]gary52 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 11:53 pm (UTC)
Oh yes, the oil companies would love to see all that CO2 burried and forgotten about. However, the technology to convert CO2 to Methane(CH4), through the use of naturally occuring Methanogens (microorganisms) is making great progress. Methane storage technology is almost to a point where it will be at least as safe and convenient as liquid natural gas, for automotive or home usage. Start unwinding your oil positions.
Re: Carbon Dioxide
[info]sublibellous wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)
But when methane is burnt it produces carbon dioxide again!

CH4 + O2 => CO2 + 2H20

Red herring
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 11:58 pm (UTC)
What a beautifully expensive way to solve a problem that does not exist. It is becoming increasingly obvious that man made carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate as more research is done. The only other concern is the effect on humans of breathing air with high levels of carbon dioxide. Levels of 1000 ppmv. are often found in office buildings with no ill effects, and 1200 ppmv. is the maximum level allowed in submarines. If the current rate of increase continues, it will take 300 to 400 years to reach those levels, by which time we will surely have left behind reliance on fossil fuels. However if the Earth continues to cool as it has been doing for 6 years now, CO2 levels will soon begin to drop, and the problem will simply go away.
Re: Red herring
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 12:19 pm (UTC)
There's a clear link between CO2 levels and climate. Also the Earth hasn't been cooling, the average global temperature is still rising.
Re: Red herring - [info]calum100 - Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 12:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Red herring - [info]solipsistident - Friday, 3 April 2009 at 12:39 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Red herring - [info]calum100 - Friday, 3 April 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Red herring - [info]solipsistident - Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 01:11 am (UTC) Expand
Eh?
[info]dwdp wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 02:31 am (UTC)
"It is becoming increasingly obvious that man made carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate as more research is done."

Obvious to who? Can you please provide us with some names of people who have published reputable, peer reviewed work concluding that "carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate"?

Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Re: Eh?
[info]calum100 wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 03:32 pm (UTC)
The data from the Vostok ice core studies prove conclusively that it is temperature that drives CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

Also radiosonde and satellite studies over the past 50 years have conclusively shown that there is no HOT SPOT in the atmosphere - no HOT SPOT no radiative forcing.

The AGW hypothesis has been denied a physical cause and effect.

The only way that the AGW hypothesis can stand this test of criticism is for it to become dogma.

Man-made global warming is pseudo-science that borders on the religous. It is little wonder it's adherents are zealots. No scientific test can dent their faith.
Re: Eh? - [info]silburnl - Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 06:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Eh? - [info]silburnl - Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 07:18 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Eh? - [info]calum100 - Friday, 3 April 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Eh? - [info]silburnl - Friday, 3 April 2009 at 08:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Eh? - [info]silburnl - Friday, 3 April 2009 at 08:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Eh? - [info]calum100 - Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC) Expand
Biochar is Cheaper
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 04:50 am (UTC)
It will be far cheaper to create enough biochar to offset CO2 emissions. It is low tech and biochar is a soil improver. Soil can hold more carbon than the oceans and atmosphere combined and is a proven technology. Princess Margaret biochared all her land and doubled the amount of food produced.
Re: Biochar is Cheaper
[info]emigr wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 08:35 am (UTC)
Like to see a reference for the Princess Margaret story, Andy.

Biochar seems like the way to go. I calculated that all the "excess" CO2 in the atmosphere would be equivalent to a 2mm layer of charcoal over the Earth's surface - or to converting a sixth of our arable land into Terra Preta with 50cm of charcoal. A big project, to be sure, but it could certainly be done on the cheap. (Full calculations at www.abrazohouse.org/?p=237.)
[info]hydrocardon wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 06:20 am (UTC)
Why is so much effort being done by so many to clear up a mess rather than put the effort into developing net zero power generation systems These will avoid the need to clean the mess and also prolong the life of the world's finite hydrocardon deposits for something more useful than just being burnt.
Re: Red Herring
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
Quite right, an expensive solution to a non problem. All the climate models assume that the increase in atmospheric water vapour caused by carbon dioxide heating leads to a positive feedback mechanism resulting in even higher temperatures. In fact without such a feedback mechanism there can be no serious warming and no tipping point. This assumption is now being challenged experimentally and theoretically. What alarmists all fail to admit is that there has been no warming trend for a decade even though their codes predict continuous warming, that the predicted, and essential hot spot in the upper tropical troposphere just does not exist and that sea temperatures are not warming but cooling. Unfortunately too many political and scientific reputations have been made to admit that climate models are useless unless they can be experimentally verified, and there is no verification whatsoever.
The matter is becoming so serious that one hundred prominent scientists have signed a open letter to Obama who is absolutely sold on the man made global warming hypothesis and is supporting policies that will seriously damage US industry and its economy. This letter can be found at: http://climatesci.org/2009/03/31/open-letter-by-the-cato-institute-on-climate-science/
Re: Red Herring
[info]silburnl wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC)
ptstroud has managed to include an impressive collection of errors in his post - let me fisk the ways:


"All the climate models assume that the increase in atmospheric water vapour caused by carbon dioxide heating leads to a positive feedback mechanism resulting in even higher temperatures. In fact without such a feedback mechanism there can be no serious warming and no tipping point. This assumption is now being challenged experimentally and theoretically."

What? Not only is this not right, it's not even wrong. I have to assume that ptstroud has mangled his thoughts here somehow.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere depends upon the average temperature of the atmosphere (warmer = more vapour). Therefore if the atmosphere warms (however that warming occurs), the percentage of water vapour will increase, it's contribution to the greenhouse effect will increase also and this enlarged greenhouse effect will, in turn, cause more warming to occur. That is the textbook definition of a positive feedback and it is utterly uncontroversial that this is occurring. Indeed if it didn't work like this then the last ice age would not have ended and I would be typing this post from underneath an extremely large glacier.


"...there has been no warming trend for a decade..."

False. This has been a popular talking point for several years now, but it only works if you are willing to cherrypick your start year (1998), ignore the inconveniently hot 2005 and then refuse to do any kind of trend analysis. In fact the most recent 10-year trend in the global surface temperature record shows that temperatures are still increasing (+0.125K/decade). This is not a statistically significant result however (10 years is not long enough to resolve signal from noise in this series), so it is better to use a 30-year sample of data instead - this trend is also positive (+0.16K/decade for the period 1979-2008) and *is* statistically significant.

"even though their codes predict continuous warming"

False. No-one predicts a continuous, monotonic increase in the earth's temperature as a result of AGW and all of the computer model realisation runs feature extended periods of relative (or even absolute) cooling in the global temperature series that they project. The fact that 2008 was sufficiently below trend that it was only about as warm as 2000 was, is completely unremarkable to a climate scientist.


"that the predicted, and essential hot spot in the upper tropical troposphere just does not exist"

This became a favourite talking point last year after David Evans wrote an op-ed about it in 'The Australian'. It is wrong in two different ways.

Firstly the tropospheric hot spot is not a prediction that derives from AGW theory, it is a consequence of the behaviour of the moist adabiat and, as such, the hot spot should appear any time that there is surface warming (and irrespective of the cause of that warming). Consequently if it was confirmed that there was no tropospheric hot spot at the same time that we have verified surface warming, this would indicate that our understanding of how the moist adabiat works is wrong in some way. Such a result would be big news in atmospheric physics, but it would have no implications for the correctness of AGW theory.

Secondly however, it is incorrect to say that the hot spot does not exist - you can only say that it has not been detected (and even that assertion is debatable). Recent work (Allen & Sherwood, Nature Geoscience 1 (2008)) uses the windspeed data (which is collected at the same time as the temperature data by the radiosonde stations that are used to monitor the troposphere) in order to get a better estimate of how accurate the temperature readings are. Their results reinforce long-standing suspicions that the absence of a hot spot in the data is an artifact of the detection network (that is, an error) rather than an actual physical fact. Work is ongoing in this area to try and improve the quality of the radiosonde network in order to constrain these errors, but the smart money says that once this has been done a hot-spot will be found.

[tbc]
Re: Red Herring - [info]silburnl - Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Carbon dioxide sequestration
[info]helicosphaera wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 09:54 am (UTC)
Just how much carbon dioxide is generated in the process of sequestering the carbon dioxide? It must take a significant amount of energy to effectively pump the gas underground to a depth where it is secure.
In addition, the storage capacity in most depleted natural gas reservoirs is very finite. Recent estimates of such gas fields in Germany, suggested that they would have only two years before they were full, and UK has far few field which would be candidates for such emplacement
As carbon dioxide, water and heat (all by products of energy generation) are important components of plant growth, perhaps using them to power greenhouses in the vicinity of energy generation stations would be an alternative. Why waste such valuable resources by burying or releasing them to the atmosphere? This is especially relevant to water vapour which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Re: Red Herring
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 10:44 am (UTC)
Further to my earlier comment here is a more direct link to the Cato Institute Letter to Obama: http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html However, the original link has the added value that it records comments by Dr Roger Pielke Sr a very prominent climate scientist.
Retreat into Fantasy
[info]frankiew wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
Why is it that carbon dioxide which is essential for all life continues to be demonized? It is as though this rare and precious gas is the Devil's own brew. We have now reached the absurd stage that that which supports All life has now got to be buried. And who will pay for all of this? Taxpayers? And for what purpose? Recent estimates for Carbon Capture and Sequestration shows it would make coal fired power stations worthless.
To continue to portray carbon as some kind of monster that will destroy all mankind is insanity and this be the reason why:
Carbon is a unique element because with hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements it can form a large and varied amounts of compounds. There are close to Ten Million known carbon compounds, many thousands of which are vital to life processes.
To believe that carbon is a demonic element and that carbon dioxide is an evil, the Devil's own brew, is a retreat into fantasy.
Re: Retreat into Fantasy
[info]emigr wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 11:39 am (UTC)
I think the comments on this thread amply illustrate why you can't have a public debate about climate science.

Over what to do about climate change, there certainly should and must be a public debate. Over climate change itself, there can't, because most people simply aren't qualified to offer an opinion. Not that that stops people like the previous poster.
Re: Retreat into Fantasy - [info]man_is_ignorant - Saturday, 25 April 2009 at 03:53 am (UTC) Expand
Uncomfortable truth
[info]pstolypin wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 12:48 pm (UTC)
The amelioration of human-caused climate change, inasmuch as that change is caused by carbon dioxide emissions, clearly lies in technological solutions such as that described in this article. 50 years from now we will likely look back at the 'flat earthers,' who would halt economic development in the name of saving the world, in the same way that the air was taken out of Malthusian agricultural economics by technological developments. The problem may well be real, but the solution will be found in science, not emotive orgies by tatooed youth in the City of London.
Re: Uncomfortable truth
[info]man_is_ignorant wrote:
Saturday, 25 April 2009 at 04:02 am (UTC)
The solution does rely on technology. Just not this kind of dead end, status quo pseudo solution. It is time to grow our economies with energy sources that are clean and ubiquitous. Once we move to solar and wind on every building can we meet all our energy needs and stop poisoning our environment in the pursuit of energy. In other areas tidal and geothermal can contribute or meet energy needs.

Once this technology is installed the fuel is free. That is why it has not happened yet. The energy corporations can own it, control it, manipulate it, or price gouge off it.
'Hawking trhe Techno Fix'
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 12:58 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't trust a neoliberal bunch like the Cato Institute over a weather forecast, let alone climate change.

Media Lens have a very good riposte to 'fixes' like CCS:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080909_hawking_the_technofix.php
Emigr: CCS Is A Fantasy
[info]frankiew wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 02:09 pm (UTC)
Emigr if you wish to have a debate then I will oblige. Carbon Capture and Storage is a fantasy. All of this separation, compressing and pumping requires more energy from more coal burning. Fossil fuels are diminishing and are becoming more valuable so why would you support this wanton destruction of resources which CCS really means and what Mr Connor's article is all about. After all the aim of us all is to reduce consumption of our valuable fossil fuels.

Re: Retreat into Fantasy
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC)
emigr you are completely wrong. There are hundreds of scientists who are very well qualified to debate the issue and would be pleased to do so. Unfortunately the IPCC and other AGW alarmists who have based all their predictions on tunable computer models will never allow open debate. Whenever a prominent climatologist or physicist casts doubts on their predictions by quoting empirical data that falsifies their predictions they revert to ad hominem attacks but refuse to defend their work as other scientists do. Why? Because they have too much riding on the hypothesis. A good example is the quote that temperatures are still rising. THEY ARE NOT. Every data set, bar one, shows we are now, if anything, in a cooling trend. Even the US NOAA has had to admit this at last. The only set that might show warming is the NASA GISS set that has been continuously adjusted up for recent values and downwards for old values. Who is the guardian of this particular set? Dr James Hansen the srch alrmist. You have been given two links: why not look at them? First the open letter to Obama at: http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html and secondly the global temperature profile at: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Only a little searching will find many more.
Re: Retreat into Fantasy
[info]silburnl wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 07:07 pm (UTC)
"There are hundreds of scientists who are very well qualified to debate the issue and would be pleased to do so."

The debate in science happens in the peer-reviewed literature. Why are the hundreds of scientists who have empirical data which falsifies the predictions of AGW theory not publishing it?

The scientist whose work overturned AGW would be cast-iron certainty for a Nobel - a Wegener for the 21st century. Surely there is one out of the hundreds you claim are out there who has the ambition to shoot for such a prize?

Regards
Luke
RE: Hawking the techno fix
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 02:37 pm (UTC)
thorntongate, how typical of the AGW faithful. No scientific counter argument just name calling. Go over the list of signatories. I know something about many of their scientific reputations but have no way of knowing their political views, neither have you. These men are mostly academics with proven track records in high level research. But unfortunately AGW is becoming much like a religion and anyone who happens to disagree with the doctrine is deemed a heretic or a denier. Well old son, the number of heretics and deniers is increasing apace and as temperatures continue to cool the number will increase even more.
Re: Hawking the techno fix
[info]silburnl wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 06:44 pm (UTC)
"These men are mostly academics with proven track records in high level research."

Doubtless this is true for many of them (although not, I fear, for the Orgone guy) - but apart from Lindzen, Douglass and Christy none of them have any record of publication in the relevant literature.

Why should I pay any heed to what (say) a professor of marketing or a nuclear engineer or a materials scientist has to say about the significance of the recent temperature record or the utility of GCMs?

Regards
Luke
Re: Hawking the techno fix - [info]ptstroud - Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 07:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Hawking the techno fix - [info]silburnl - Friday, 3 April 2009 at 09:43 pm (UTC) Expand
You Are Right
[info]frankiew wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 04:13 pm (UTC)
Ptstroud
You are absolutely spot on about these Warmers. They have no counter argument. All that they have in their quiver is abuse and name calling. You are either in the pocket of Big Oil or a Tobacco Scientist or know nothing at all. Pathetic.
The reason for this post is that you might be interested in the following paper titled
"Geologic Global Climate Change"
Author: Nasif Nahle
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
I am sure you will find this paper very interesting.


Carbon Sequestration
[info]shrimper53 wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 07:10 pm (UTC)
Here's more evidence of this insanity train rolling down the tracks towards a fix of a non-problem. We can't even keep our existing infrastructure intact.... Petroleum IS our fuel source for the time-being.... With the continuing hystyeria, one would think we've done NOTHING to curb emissions in 50 years.... hog-wash. It has become self-fulfilling that we even accept the premise that MAN-MADE sources and actions are causing climate change ( I find it curious and quite telling alone that it is suddenly no longer "global warming", but climate change)..... this way when we finally realize that it is actually getting COOLER..... then they can still claim they-re right. ... This whole issue has been the greatest scam in the history of mankind!... And look at how rich all the proponents have gotten.....

Besides......... will we next be expected to all wear masks to capture what we, and every mammal on earth, exhale as part of being alive.??....
A forced timescale
[info]sableagle wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 08:25 pm (UTC)
Isn't " ... as long as it will take for mankind to completely abandon fossil fuels ... " by definition less than or equal to " ... as long as it will take for mankind to completely exhaust fossil fuels ... " or are we hoping someone finds a way to catalyse fossilisation of woodchip or kudzu or something?
Serious flaw...
[info]solipsistident wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC)
This plan has a serious flaw. Or, worse, several.

They assume while CO2 has been safely stored for millions of years in undergrround deposits together with oil/gas, it should be safe to inject CO2 back into those deposits. Well, have you ever heard of an oil/gas deposit that was being emptied without series of earthquakes happening in the proces? That means fractures are formed. And fractures can be the pathway for explosive releases of CO2. It will certainly be possible in some cases, but I doubt it can generally be considered safe.

Norwegian research has shown that the mineralisation would happen over hundreds if not thousands of years. Reinjection would happen fast, so the blocking by mineral deposits in the pores would be a neglectable problem anyway.

The dissolution will happen, no doubt, but to say that this happens throughout the world, seems a blatant exaggeration. That would mean that they would have done practical experiments and actually injected CO2 back in empty deposits and see what reactions would occur. Obviously, they haven't done so, so in the best case they have a nice, new theory which would need lots and lots of further testing.

Wouldn't it be faster, cheaper and more sensible to cut out all fossil fuels fast, and convert to solar, geothermal, tidal. wind and hydro power!? We need to make the conversion anyway, so why investing in prolonging its deathstruggle...????
Capture & store carbon from air
[info]markcapron wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 01:06 am (UTC)
Go to the House of Commons, Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee "Engineering: turning ideas into reality" page 17 of http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/memo/1264/ucm1.pdf. You'll notice the submission from PODenergy, "Applying Wikinomics to Geo-Engineering" contains the suggestion of Ocean Anaerobic Digester for both sequestering carbon from air and simultaineously producing energy, increasing species diversity, and feeding people.

We need to get away from narrow-focus solutions, that only address one issue. We need more solutions that address several issues at once, sustainably.

Mark E. Capron, Professional Engineer
Solution to Carbon Problem Might Be Underground
[info]danevanswestwoo wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
This seems like a pipe dream. Lets hear the thermodynamic analysis of what it takes to capture gaseous CO2 and pump it underground. Besides, the natural underground storage isn't really that safe. An underground bubble of CO2 escaped one night in Mexico, and an entire town died of suffocation in their sleep.
I sequester carbon all the time
[info]canadastan wrote:
Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 05:44 am (UTC)
I throw my old newspapers in the landfill.
Hilarious!
[info]canadastan wrote:
Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 05:46 am (UTC)
The real reason C02 is pumped down old oil wells is to increase production of the field.
But if you want to pay the oil companies to do what they would do anyway, fill your boots.
Re: Hilarious!
[info]solipsistident wrote:
Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 06:20 pm (UTC)
Actually, it has been said in an article in Global Capital that it is a problem for oil companies due to current tax systems working against such use of their installations. It would cost them plenty!

Isn't it more economic to inject steam or hot water into nearly empty wells, increasing the pressure dramatically while lowering the viscosity? Just a question, I am not an oil geologist, more into mineralogy and magmatic geology.
Re: Hilarious! - [info]colinru - Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 10:26 am (UTC) Expand
"The only hope for mankind"
[info]brutalprose wrote:
Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 07:03 am (UTC)
This innovative technology is described by a former UK Chief Scientist, Sir David King, as "the only hope for mankind" So why wouldn't pundits of green energy enthuse about it instead of damning it? They reject the notion of clean coal and insist on sticking to what they blithely call sustainable energy such as the puny offerings of wind, solar and tide. You can't make steel from ore without coal so we shall always need it.

Paul Roberts,
Lake Cathie
NSW
Australia
Re: "The only hope for mankind"
[info]solipsistident wrote:
Saturday, 11 April 2009 at 08:59 pm (UTC)
Making steel is one thing. Making electricity is a completely different issue. No, we won't deny Asutralia to make the steel so desperately needed to "improve" our modern world.

But we don't need coal to produce electricity. Especially Australia doesn't need fossil fuels. You have plenty of desert areas where you can produce electricity by harvesting the energy of the sun.

The only reason you don't, is because of the interests of a specific kind of industry which has no concerns about the future. Easy money, fast money. That's all they care about. They are the cancer in our society. You need to get rid of them! There is no viable future for any society that hangs on to non-sutsainables...
Sequestering Carbon dioxide
[info]man_is_ignorant wrote:
Saturday, 25 April 2009 at 03:17 am (UTC)
WHY? Why do you insist on burning fossil fuels? Why go to the expense of burying it? Why when there are other alternative sources of energy that are powered by the sun, gravity, or the fission reaction taking place in the core of the earth. WHY do you people insist on burning this crap and leaving the energy corporations in control of our essential energy needs? There is no reason but brainwashing or greed.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date