Storing Liquid CO2 in the Oceans? 242
Roland Piquepaille writes "One of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to capture carbon dioxide at its source, when it is emitted from power plants for example, and to store it in other places, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs or even the ocean after liquefaction. But, according to Youxue Zhang, a professor at the University of Michigan, there are pitfalls in this last plan. If the carbon dioxide is not injected deep enough, it can come back to the surface and return to the atmosphere, which is obviously not the desired goal. But, even worse, the liquid-to-gas conversion could happen too suddenly, which could cause a potentially dangerous eruption. So Zhang has developed a model which shows that liquid CO2 would have to be injected to a depth of between 800 and 3,000 meters to keep it from escaping from the ocean."
Eeeeek! (Score:5, Informative)
And this site [willthomas.net] kindly points out the following:
Not to mention the environmental effect of millions of farting & belching sea creatures. I think we should keep a close eye on this man :)
What the hell does that mean?? (Score:3, Interesting)
What????? People drink frothy carbonated water all the time and they don't drop dead. It's slightly acidic if anything. It's not this uber chemical of doom.
Re:What the hell does that mean?? (Score:5, Informative)
Worst. Science. Idea. Ever.
Re:What the hell does that mean?? (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, I was going for tongue in cheek ;)
Re:What the hell does that mean?? (Score:2)
Roughly 1/3 of the CO2 that is emmited is eventually dissolved in the ocean and as you say this makes the ocean slightly more acidic. However he Woods Hole institute seems to think that is a problem.
"People drink frothy carbonated water all the time and they don't drop dead."
How long would a fish survive swimming in red wine, coca-cola, coffee, tea, or any other palatable beverage? Just because people drink it does not mean it is harmless to the ocean.
No, I did
I forgot the Woods Hole link.... (Score:2)
There was supposed to be a link to the press realese from Woods Hole [whoi.edu] describing a paper they published in Nature.
Re:What the hell does that mean?? (Score:5, Informative)
After hearing rumours of the extreme acidity of coca-cola I did just that, with various objects. The copper ones came out cleaner looking, the others weren't visibly affected, including a tooth
(everyone, if you hear urban legend bullshit like this and it's safe to try it to see for yourself, go do so. There's a lot of misinformation floating around)
Re:What the hell does that mean?? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, HOW strong is the acid in your stomach compared to carbonic acid in coke? mmmK?
Carbonated seawater (Score:2)
Never mind your right (Score:2)
Reckless idea (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea of dissolving CO2 in oceans is incredibly reckless. Look at the consequences of degassing of a small lake [und.edu] and you can dismiss this silliness out of hand. The earth's natural mechanism for CO2 removal is limestone formation. Perhaps would be wiser to imitate that.
Re:Reckless idea (Score:2)
Great, but where are you going to get the Calcium without resorting to Calcium Carbonate?
Re:Reckless idea (Score:2)
Ca ions are already present in the oceans massive quantities.
Re:Reckless idea (Score:2)
Re:Reckless idea (Score:2)
So you are back to carbonating the oceans and seeing what happens?
The oceans are already a sink for CO2 through the production of calcium carbonate, both through precipitation in chemical rich (warm) waters and generated by microorganizms (coral). All I am suggesting that that we imitate the natural process. I personally think it is a waste of time anyway. The CO2 cycle is self-regulating.
Re:Reckless idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, yes. The earth heats up, we all die out, and then it cools down again.
Donate it all to Coca Cola and PepsiCo (Score:2, Interesting)
I know one group that benefits... (Score:5, Funny)
explosion? c'mon (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH I failed science.
Re:Diffusion Re:explosion? c'mon (Score:3, Informative)
At high pressures (great depths) CO2 will remain in solution. All is well. However, if conditions change, this CO2 can suddenly release to the surface killing animals/people.
look at this for more info on how deadly it can be [und.edu]
This normally isn't a problem with lakes because of the temperature change with the seasons cause the water to cycle, and CO2 on the bottom will be released subsequently. (This happens because water density changes with temp, and if
Coral? (Score:5, Interesting)
kulakovich
Re:Coral? (Score:3, Insightful)
Coral is extremely sensitive to heat. Global warming can cause Coral dieback [google.com.au] which could make it harder to encourage further coral growth.
But certainly, converting CO2 to solid carbon is the only future proof way of dealing with the problem.
Of course, to do this you need to put the energy back in...
The complex... Made more complex. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The complex... Made more complex. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The complex... Made more complex. (Score:2)
You are favoring a method that makes a huge (and most likely quite unpredictive) change in ecology over one that has no effect on nature because it involving plankton means it is "natural".
Re:The complex... Made more complex. (Score:2)
Re:The complex... Made more complex. (Score:2, Informative)
Well, to quote from actual Science (well, at least the magazine):
The relatively modest increase in carbon export does not appear to be large enough to make iron fertilization a viable method for sequestering anthropogenic CO2, however.
This Week in Science [sciencemag.org]
The full paper reference is:
Robotic Observations of Enhanced Carbon Biomass and Export at 55S Durin
Re:The complex... Made more complex. (Score:2, Informative)
The obvious answer is to eat more sushi, and get that Nori under control.
hmm yes. now *thats* responsible (Score:4, Interesting)
does he honestly think that acidic seas would be better for the environment?
Re:hmm yes. now *thats* responsible (Score:2)
Best Idea Yet (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe... eventually... people like this will come to the realization that you can't hide everything when you only have a limited amount of space. This is just another example of short-sighted solutions that lead to future generations problems. Sweeping everything under the rug doesn't solve a damn thing except letting corporations get away with being more environmental
Re:Best Idea Yet (Score:2)
The biggest drawback to all this is that it depletes a finite source of material over time. We only have so much of everything, and if we fire
Mass depletion. (Score:2)
Now, depleting the world's store of certain rare elements, well, that might be worth kvetching about. But making earth shrink appreciably? I think not.
Re:Best Idea Yet (Score:2)
Uh, it might be finite, but it is VERY LARGE!
And, the more of it you toss towards Jupiter, the less you need the elevator in the first place. If mass erosion really becomes a problem a billion years from now, you can sleep well knowing that as the Earth is carved up to make space statio
This would be a BIG mistake (Score:3, Interesting)
If we just bury / submerge the CO2, this could happen all over again. Thus wiping out any life in the area it occurs.
As a side note, if someone out there could find the article I'm referencing and post it, it would be appreciated.
An article on deadly CO2 lakes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An article on deadly CO2 lakes... (Score:2)
Re:This would be a BIG mistake/ Found the Link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This would be a BIG mistake (Score:4, Informative)
The theory is indeed about having large amounts of CO2 trapped at the bottom of a body of water. When its disturbed, the CO2 escapes to the surface, and being quite a dense gas kills quite a number of O2-loving lifeforms through suffocation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/killerl
Re:This would be a BIG mistake (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This would be a BIG mistake (Score:2)
\me shakes his head and walks away.
Re:This would be a BIG mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
Begs a question... (Score:2)
Do you think there's realistically any chance that we produce CO2 in such large quant
Re:This would be a BIG mistake (Score:2)
Not a Good Idea (Score:3, Funny)
Exhaling tax... (Score:2, Funny)
Plusses and minuses... (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to allowing CO2 to recombine with the system in a more natural way (next to the O2 in the water that makes up the C), this offers the side benefit of transforming ocean life dumb enough to swim through the layer to freezer-ready seafood.
However, it is important to note that fluidic injection of a medium density liquid between two light density liquids is neither the safest nor most effective method of obtaining a clearly-delineated stack. Anyone who has mixed a layered drink will tell you that you go from highest density to lowest density, pouring each layer of liquor against a spoon so as to prevent gravity from making an environmental disaster of your nightcap. Pumping liquid CO2 into the sea thus begs the question of what sort of sludge should go under it to replace the water (and where to find a spoon that large.)
Could CO2 be better used in sealed greenhouses? (Score:3, Interesting)
The resulting biomass could even be feed back into the energy cycle.
By the way, it was John Wyndham who first popularised this concept.
Re:Could CO2 be better used in sealed greenhouses? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Could CO2 be better used in sealed greenhouses? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the best solution right now is to plant trees, cut down trees, and replant trees. If we could create a tree that matures quickly, it would help reduce CO2 and help preserve natural forests.
I am a strong supporter of tree farms. Every tree represents CO2 taken out of the air.
Re:Could CO2 be better used in sealed greenhouses? (Score:2)
All ready being developed (Score:2)
This plan is better (Score:2)
Re:This plan is better (Score:2)
Sort of.
The problem is: The vegetation on this planet has problems to keep up with the sheer amount of CO2 released by humanity. Of course, deforestation doesn't help at all, but even without it, the plants couldn't extract all of the additional CO2 from the atmosphere.
Re:This plan is better (Score:2)
Re:This plan is better (Score:2)
In all cases? This seems dubious, can you provide a link? At the very least, it would make for interesting reading.
Re:This plan is better (Score:2)
> similar way, collect it up, and bury it somewhere.
So grow trees, cut them down, and bury them in the deep ocean.
Plan to clean up the air.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good plan guys. Keep up the good work!
Roland Piquepaille Watch (Score:3, Interesting)
Subscribers must be pissed...
Myself, I can only join the rest of the Roland Piquepaille Watch squad in a unison Nelson-like laugh: "HA-ha!"
And no, mods, this ain't offtopic. Look at the submitter and his submissions history to see what I mean.
Re:Roland Piquepaille Watch (Score:2)
So now
Kyoto (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and while we're at it: Please vote a president that will submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification. Ferkrissakes even China signed it!
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Methinks China's terms in the protocol may have been a bit more to their liking th an the terms for the USA.
C//
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
Do some reading. (Score:2)
Sheesh.
Re:Do some reading. (Score:2)
The "market" can not sort out pollution problems unless
Norway - largest per capita Oil Producer (Score:2)
"Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway. - But with a population of only 4.5 million, Norway is the largest per-capita producer of oil by far."
A portion of the oil goes into plastics, and a small amount is used for lubricating, but over 95% is burned for fuel. Does Norway take no responsibility for this?"
But under Kyoto, Norway is responsible only for what they personally burn - they are not responsible, even though they are
Re:Norway - largest per capita Oil Producer (Score:2)
If I get drunk in a pub it is me who is responsible, not the bartender that has vast stock of C2H5OH.
Re:Norway - largest per capita Oil Producer (Score:2)
In the US, if you get drunk at the pub and the staff allow you to leave while intoxicated, they can be held liable for any damages or fatalities that your drunken stupor may cause. By the victim, not the drunken sot (you).
Re:Norway - largest per capita Oil Producer (Score:2)
Re:Kyoto (Score:2)
But why? (Score:2)
Collecting, processing and storing CO2 will cost some serious amount of money. So it will only happen if it can be used for something that earns back some of the money. The only thing I can think of is as "fill masses" in oil and gas wells to increase pressure so one can extract more oil/gas.
But the whole idea is hideously expensive so it probably only makes sense
GMTA (Score:2)
CO2 + H2O = Carbonic Acid = BAD IDEA!!! (Score:2)
Stupid Question: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid Question: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you breathe in air (O2 with some other minute elements), you exhale CO2, right? You took a certain amount of air and turned it into energy, which then gave off CO2 (or something like that). That CO2 is then recycled by plants back into O2.
Now what if we took that CO2 and launched it into space? The plants have nothing to recycle. That CO2 that would be turned back into air has now left the planet for good, and isn't coming back. By doing this, you t
How? (Score:2)
Ignoring for a moment that we need the oxygen portion here on earth, how would you propose to get the CO2 into space in the first place?
You can't just build a giant smoke-stack to pump it up there, as the earths gravitational well is just going to pick it all back up again. So then what? Load a ton or two at a time into rockets, blast them beyond the moon, and then leave them there? That in and of itself is a massive waste of energy and resources just to build and launch all those rockets, and even then
Plant life. (Score:3, Insightful)
Energy required (Score:2, Insightful)
Blurp (Score:2)
Tieing up the earths oxigen. (Score:2, Funny)
The green house effect has plaged our fragile Earth since before the extinction of the dinosaurs. If we want to survive we must start a zero tolerance campaign against anything that causes the green house effect. Obviously we can st
Instead of liquifying it... (Score:2)
Never mind the NIMBY BANANA exploding subsurface stuff.
Feed the trees? (Score:2)
If we are able to seperate the excess CO2 out like that, what about taking it into a forest and releasing it there? Or would the overabundance kill the trees?
Maybe capture it all and store it up, then launch it to Mars with some planting robots. Have the robots plant seeds (for plants that can withstand varying climates) in the ground, have some water to water the
Re:Feed the trees? (Score:2)
Mostly the carbon in the plant and animal material that got converted to oil plus energy and when we burn oil it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere produc
Re:Feed the trees? (Score:3, Funny)
The released oxygen actually comes from water that has been split using energy from the sun. The hydrogen from the water is combined with CO2 to produce sugars, etc.
They're Called Trees (Score:2)
But seriously, we solve the problem of pumping CO2 in to the air, where we didn't foresee the outcome, by pumping it into the oceans, where we also don't know the outcome?
Here's a clue: MAKE
produce less? (Score:2)
energy sources, solar energy, etc. Nah! Never happen. Not as long as big
business is controlling energy.
It can cool down all the radioactive waste... (Score:2)
Damn! So much for San Francisco Bay, eh Chevron? (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:2)
Not much, they've always liked Coke
OSLO, Norway (Feb. 20) - Things probably would have gone better without Coke for a codfish that swallowed a soda can.
Stig Skaar and his family in western Norway found a slightly dented but intact Coca-Cola can inside the stomach of the fish, media reported Friday.
''I could see something wasn't right,'' Skaar was quoted as saying by his local newspaper, Marsteinen, in the western Norway town of Austevoll, some 185 miles west of Oslo.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
We pay people to distance us from the filth we ge
Re:What does it matter? (Score:2)
Re:What does it matter? (Score:2)
I agree with what you say about "out of sight - out of mind", the same can be said of prostitution, drugs, starving people, the Bush administration and many other things that, in general, we want to pretend don't exist.
I can't agree with burrying ones own trash, as an old fart I can remeber communities where it was normal to burry your own trash. It was not a huge pr
Re:Don't Want To Sound Stupid... (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh... Another beautiful theory ruined by an ugly fact.
Re:Don't Want To Sound Stupid... (Score:2, Informative)
At the concentrations typically found in seawater, the concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide are independent of each other. A very high concentration of carbon dioxide could reduce the solubility of oxygen in the water, but at that point the drastically reduced pH would likely have caused other problems.
Re:err. liquify? (Score:2)
Re:liquefaction? (Score:2)
Re:Into The Sun (Score:2)
use nukes + CO2 to create oil (Score:2)