Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Carbon Sequestration 89

Posted by michael from the carbonated-seawater,-yum dept.
An Anonymous Coward writes "Yesterday the Boston Globe printed an article about 'carbon sequestration' techniques - an example of which involves injecting carbon dioxide into the ocean as an answer to greenhouse warming. The Bush administration is supporting this as the preferred alternative to emission controls."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carbon Sequestration More

Carbon Sequestration

Comments Filter:

  • Lemme get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by littlerubberfeet ( 453565 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:12PM (#3690569)
    Bush wants to dump something that has been PROVEN to work in favor of a theory? Besides, industrial pollution is the SOURCE of the problem, so why not just fix that? Its like fixing a security hole by tking all valuable files off the server, instead of just patching the hole.
    • You have it exactly right: Bush wants to use something that might be 50% less effective, but costs about 1/10 of 1% of the other solution.

      It's a bad idea, but you make it out to be even worse than it really is.

    • Re:Lemme get this straight (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Another link germane to the debate - new research indicates the huge droughts around the Sahara region in Africa may be related to industrial pollution.

      http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9 99 92393

    • Unfortunately dealing with the results of the problem, rather than the cause, tends to be the American political way these days. A couple of examples: spending more money on jailing its citizens, than on the education system, which would help reduce crime. And imposing price increases on Canadian wood, simply because the US wood industry has problems - I thought NAFTA was abou free-trade?

      This isn't meant to be a troll, but a description of the current situation. Until a change of approach is taken, the US is going to be taking short term decsions and letting future generations to clean-up the resulting mess.

      • NAFTA is about free trade but not at the expense of our domestic companies. The point of NAFTA is to improve our well-being. NAFTA or no NAFTA our industries should not suffer and measures should be taken to combat sluggish performances.
        • Errrm,

          If your industries *are* sluggish performers, they *should* suffer the consequences. But nooooo, *American* companies should no-matter-what end up above the rest of the world.

          US moderators: Feel free to mod me down as troll :-) I know it hurts to hear such things.
          • But nooooo, *American* companies should no-matter-what end up above the rest of the world It is rational to assume that America wants its companies to suceed. America is a nation-state folks, we have a right to want the best for our people. Would those interests sometimes contradict another nations interest? Yea.

  • Yeah right ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by fini ( 571717 )
    ... let's fuck with the oceans! Considering our already limited ability to modelize long term weather in the current know conditions, it's 20/20 clear that we also should mess with the main thermal and CO2 regulator of the planet. Great idea. Just great.

    Exxon's profits are soooo important (for GWB, at least).

  • YeeeHawww! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Pauly ( 382 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:18PM (#3690608)

    Oil baro^H^H^H Democratically electe^H^H^H Dubya advocates dumping tons of toxins into the oceans over more responsible action (Kyoto protocol) to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions"? Isn't that like building a bigger toilet to cure an over-eating problem? Or declaring a war on drug...oh, never mind.

    • Re:YeeeHawww! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Verne ( 249617 )
      It's the classic western medicine solution. Cover up the symptoms, no more problem!

      However, this is a good idea along with reducing the cause, because stopping the cause now won't reverse any of the damage already done.

      • because stopping the cause now won't reverse any of the damage already done

        Incorrect. If we were to do the unlikely, and greatly reduce/stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels; over time, the manmade global warming effects would dissipate. The earth's natural carbon cycle between the air, ocean and land would (over a looooong time) alleviate the unnatural quantity of carbon in the air.

        • Re:YeeeHawww! (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          That is if the algie didn't go spazastic with all the extra food and poison half the worlds fish population..

          pick A, or B, I'll be over somewhere near the correct solution.

    • You missed the real joke in there (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @01:21PM (#3695051) Homepage Journal
      (Damn web browser's crashed twice, and the computer once, while trying to write this. Something doesn't want the facts to get out... or maybe it's just Billy boy's crappy excuse for an operating system.)

      "More responsible", in this case, is like limiting your speed to 90 MPH on icy streets in a school zone instead of 100 MPH. The hilarity of the Kyoto protocol is that it would only require (some) nations to cut back their greenhouse-gas emissions 10% from the levels of 1990. Never mind that stabilizing the atmospheric levels of CO2 needs something close to a 70-80% reduction. The Kyoto accords are thus exposed as a political mountain superimposed over an ecological molehill.

      Ironically, the USA could probably get that 10% in short order and without a lot of hassle. Simply replacing the SUV as a commuter vehicle with something similar to this Volkswagen supercar [news24.com] would cut total vehicular emissions by roughly half, or total emissions by about a quarter. Another large chunk could be slashed off consumption by over-riding state laws on overall truck length and allowing truckers to put aero gear (boat tails and such) on their rigs and trailers; streamlining can cut drag (and power requirements) by more than 75% over what it takes to drag a square-cornered box through the air.

      We could take other large pieces out of fuel consumption (and emissions) using technology such as co-generation; wherever heat is required, burn fuel in an engine instead of a furnace and use the engine's heat emissions for the original purpose, while diverting the engine's power output to some other purpose and replacing the fuel that would have gone to that. As an example, if you need 100 KWH of heat (I'm using KWH throughout here; if you want to convert to BTU, consult an engineering book) you could burn 103 KWH worth of gas in a 97% efficient furnace. Or you could burn gas in a co-generator; if it yielded 30% out the crankshaft and 3% heat losses, you'd burn 149.3 KWH of gas to get your 100 KWH of heat, and also yield 44.8 KWH of work out the crankshaft. If you turned a generator, your 44.8 KWH output for the extra 46.3 KWH of input is 97% efficiency compared to a typical 30% at the average steam-cycle powerplant or 60% at the best combined-cycle gas turbine powerplants. The electric load could be supplied with between 1/3 and 2/3 the fuel, at least while heat was required.

      To the dyed-in-the-wool cynics and curmudgeons, the insistence of our "America First" regime that more oil is still The Way To Go, and the technophobia of the opposition, are screamingly funny. Neither one of them has even half a clue, and neither one is ever going to get where they claim to want to go unless they're dragged, kicking and screaming, against the special interests who keep them in office.


      • Amen! Bravo!

        People with your combination of knowledge and common sense are woefully under represented in the ongoing climate change debate.

        • Since I'm a geek and not a c\o\n\f\i\d\e\n\c\e\ m\a\n\ politician, do you have any suggestions for getting the facts out there in a form that is easily digestible by the public and tends to make them discount the wackos (preferably the ones on both sides)?

          • Wow, this is a challenge.

            For starters, I would stay away from all commerically funded media. I prefer sources from within the scientific community and from non-profits with clearly stated goals of objectivity. Specifically, I've been impressed with the work of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch]. Their document "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions" is available for download here [nap.edu]. This is an excellent introduction to the current state of the climate change debate.

            If only everyone were as motivated to seek out the truth for themselves as you are. sigh.

  • Old News (Score:3, Funny)

    by dnight ( 153296 ) <dnight@lakkaCHEETAHdoo.com minus cat> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:27PM (#3690656)
    I've been farting into the couch for years. I have yet to get caught.
  • So he wants to turn the ocean into Carbonic Acid which is what happens when you add CO2 to Water. How is that good for the fishies?

    On the other hand it will be good for that giant red wine spill in Antartica.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bitsy Boffin ( 110334 )
      Yea, but think of the ready supply of carbonated water for Coca Cola & Pepsi :-) Who needs fish when we have Coke !

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Linux_ho ( 205887 )
      Well, actually, the carbonic acid would quickly be consumed by algae, as carbon is probably the growth-limiting nutrient in ocean environments. We would have massive algae blooms, which would hopefully be consumed quickly by plankton and other critters. Assuming the algae wasn't one of the many highly toxic varieties. Hopefully it won't cause massive red tides and kill off huge populations of... wait, never mind. It still beats having multiple gargantuan hurricaines circling the globe because of global warming. Boy, all this stuff stresses me out. Think I'm gonna take the wife and kids up to the mountains in the Suburban for some fresh air.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jerkface ( 177812 )
        As it turns out, the most important growth-limiting nutrient for algae is usually iron. In fact, the sprinkling of iron filings in the ocean [actwin.com] has often been proposed as a way to reverse or slow down the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Apparently the total potential CO2 removal from iron "seeding" could be enormous.
      • Think I'm gonna take the wife and kids up to the
        mountains in the Suburban for some fresh air.

        We really need a +1 (ironic) moderation for this :-)

    • You need to know what is actually involved in this "dumping carbon dioxide in an ocean".

      Do a web search on ocean carbon sequestration and you'll find that what is being studied is putting frozen or liquid carbon dioxide in the deep ocean. So far down that the pressure makes it stay liquified. You end up with a large puddle on the ocean floor, far below tuna and other fishies...except the few deep-ocean creatures, and that does require more study.

      Actually, the best spot for this would be at a subduction area where one tectonic plate is slipping under another...and the carbon can get carried along.

  • Beer Sea (Score:4, Funny)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@ c h i p p e d . net> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @08:53PM (#3690795) Homepage Journal
    Now if only we can get the beer companies to dump thier excess hops in too... I can't believe it, my ultimate dream is so close to coming true!
  • CO2 isn't a toxin but where are you going to get it? It's Carbon MONoxide that's the problem. That and Cow farts. What next? Fizzy lifting drinks ala Willy Wonka?
  • The Ultimate Watercooler?

  • algee problem.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thorgil ( 455385 ) on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:12PM (#3690884) Homepage
    ...didn't have the time to read the article but anyways....

    Every greenhouse grower is aware of the fact that carbon dioxied can be used as fertilizer in some cases.

    If carbon dioxide is solved in the sea this will probably act as fertilizer for carbon fixing algees (the ones that produce all the oxygen for us).
    This will probably mean more algees in the oceans.

    Problem is that if we get to much algees near the coastline (where all the emitted carbon dioxide is) we might get problems like anaerobic conditions on the sea ground (created by dead algee degrading on the the sea ground)

    this will result in:
    * dead fishes
    * corals, bye bye.
    * a lot of trouble

    (same thing happends if we flush out to much phosphates and other nutrients from industries, agriculture and cities.)
    I nice (bad) example of this is the baltic sea witch has low waterexchange to the rest of the world sea. Surrounded by Russia, the baltic countries, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden (YES! we went to the playoffs) and Finland.
    Result:
    Dead sea ground,

    I don't know what to think....
    .... and who is right?

    • wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cryptochrome ( 303529 )
      Growth of any living organism is ultimately limited by the growth requirement in shortest supply. Algal growth in the ocean is typically limited by the availability of soluble iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, or silicon, wheras carbon dioxide is readily available. Also, pumping up the CO2 level in seawater will a) increase the acidity of the water, b) decrease the partial pressure of oxygen. All of these factors can adversely affect the balance of the ecosystems in a variety of ways.

      P.S. They've tried (expensive) fertilization of the ocean in the hopes that all that fixed carbon would end up in the sea floor eventually - but there was no evidence that it did end up there [nature.com].
      • >Growth of any living organism is ultimately limited by the growth requirement in shortest supply.

        in most cases this is true.
        but:
        By increasing the partial pressure of co2, the photorespiration can be lowered and thereby increasing the photosynthesis efficiency.
        This will produce more biomass -> more algee.

  • Good idea, needs more development (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <`dh003i' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday June 12, 2002 @09:16PM (#3690900) Homepage Journal
    This is a good idea, but it needs more development -- studies need to be done on the possible side-effects of storing CO2 in water.

    People are reacting prematurely paranoid about this. The best one in the article was a criticism of the plan to reforest with genetic modifications so trees can take up more CO2: "What if there's a fire in these reforested areas?" Gee, brilliant comment. Back in the Jurassic period, when more of the world was covered with forest than ever before, there didn't seem to be much of a problem from a few local forest areas burning.

    Natural forest fires are often a good thing -- they often occur in regions with many old, dry, dead trees, which are blocking out light and preventing new trees from sprouting up.
  • Lets all just get along and start the biggest freakin ever pot greenhouse on the planet and load that place up with this stuff.
  • My last phyical science teacher(hes got a Dr in fromt of his name, I don't) mentioned that back in the good old days they said we'd raise the tempature by like 10 degrees by 2020 or something like that. the kicker is that there current estimate of tempature rise is something like one tenth what it was at first

    And there are other scientests that think that the whole thing is one long cycle and we just haven't been watching long enough to see one complete period.

    So until we know if Global Warming is happening I say we relax
  • So now when I'm out in the surf and I accidently breathe in some seawater, I won't just get all wheezy and hacking, I'll also feel like I just blew mountain dew out my nose? argh, that's going to suck.

  • Ignorant people want representation, too. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @03:01AM (#3692103) Homepage

    "injecting carbon dioxide into the ocean as an answer to greenhouse warming"

    I think it is a safe guess that this idea did not come from a fish.

    One way to get elected is to go around to all the rich people and tell them that, if you are elected, you will do anything they want. Such a candidate will get a lot of money to run a campaign; if he can avoid showing the average person the truth, and if the other candidates aren't extremely attractive, it is possible that he will win.

    This method works even for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the issues. Selling the government to the highest bidder only requires the intelligence necessary to know that one number is bigger than another.
  • A growing forest removes some CO2 from the atmosphere. A mature forest is carbon neutral (over human timescales, anyway). How long before we run out of room to plant new forests?
  • In the 1970's there was fear of global cooling which leads me to believe that this global warming phase is just a phase in a warming/cooling cycle. Yes, humans might contribute to the warming cycle we're in but not much.
  • duuuhhhhhh.... i am gunna put stuff into the ocean its fun. i like carbon dioxide... that means FISH LIKE IT!!!! here little fishies, here boy.
  • Sitting at the bottom of Lake Superior are 1000s of logs that sank while being shipped to market. They have almost no deterioration due to the cold and lack of O2 at the bottom of the lake. Because they are from original old growth forests, they have an incredibly fine grain that is quite valuable. There are companies [minneapolisfed.org] hauling them up right now and selling them to musical instrument makers and folks like Bill Gates for office panneling.

    So why not just grow forests? Chop them down every 100-200 years and dump the logs into the Arctic Ocean or the Black Sea: places that are way cold and have little O2. Instant carbon sequestration.

  • I may not know much about storing CO2, but I do think that messing with the ecosystem is a bad idea. Let's look at what pumping CO2 into the oceans will do:

    1. CO2 itself is non-toxic, however, if you can't get enough of the oxygen you need because there's too much CO2 in the air, you'll still suffocate.
    2. Fish skim oxygen out of water to breathe release CO2, sorta like how we breathe in air. If there's already CO2 in the water, it's harder to pump more in. This could possible suffocate fish and other marine life.
    3. I don't know how CO2 would remain in water for long periods of time. Think of what happens when you leave bottles of soda out on the counter (the CO2 escapes!) How long would this pumped CO2 stay in the water?
    4. CO2 is mildly acidic, so we'd be acidifying the oceans. This can't be good for the conditions of the beasties living there. I don't think it'd translate to acid rain, as the CO2 gas should come out of the water vapor when it evaporates.

  • What about "black water"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Noel ( 1451 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @01:46PM (#3695254)

    I suppose it's naive of me to think that the left hand and the right hand ought to communicate once in a while...

    Why don't any of these articles mention the black water problem [slashdot.org] in Florida? Current explanation [naplesnews.com] seems to be a "plant plankton bloom" or "algae bloom", and it has resulted in the death of many bottom-dwellers [naplesnews.com], including sponges, corals, and starfish. It also resulted in an almost complete lack of fish in the area, which is bad economically as well as ecologically.

    So far, we don't know what caused this bloom - suggestions range from industrial waste to disturbances of the sea floor.

    <rant>
    How can anyone seriously propose tampering with the balance of the ocean without even mentioning the possible dangers? Until we have a good idea what causes blooms like this, and whether introduction of huge amounts of CO2 into the ocean would increase the risk, we have no business considering it as an option.

    Oh, that's right, I forgot. As long as the short-term savings favor corporations, we must *never* think about long-term external costs!
    </rant>

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close