backtop


Print 151 comment(s) - last by PlasmaBomb.. on May 20 at 5:28 PM


The DOE hopes to store billions of tons of CO2 in underground caverns
Geologic carbon sequestration gets put to the test

The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded $126.6 million in grants to test the feasibility of underground carbon sequestration in geologic formations.

Two test sites -- one in California, the other in Ohio -- will pump one million tons of compressed carbon dioxide into subterranean caverns designed to hold the gas indefinitely.  The DOE claims it has already identified enough underground locations to store more than 1,000 years worth of current emissions.

The current set of tests are designed to identify how effective underground caverns perform long-term storage, and how cost-effective the procedure will be. The Ohio test will be conducted below the Mount Simon Sandstone; the California test will be 7,000 feet below the San Joaquin Basin.

The project will eventually store 600 billion tons of CO2 in these two locations, according to Secretary of Energy Bud Albright.  In 2004, human emissions of CO2 totaled approximately 8 billion tons, according to 2004 data from the from the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.  Emissions from natural sources -- including volcanic sources -- are some 20 times higher: roughly 150 billion tons per year.

The DOE grants, dubbed "FutureGen," are subject to final approval from Congress. Private investment will bring the total price tag to $180 million.  The DOE originally planned to use the money to partially fund the $1.8 billion "clean coal" FutureGen plant in Mattoon, Illinois.

The 275 megawatt Mattoon facility would burn its share of Illinois' 104 billion ton coal reserves.  The plant was designed to pump emissions underground, rather than into the atmosphere.  However, with the new sequestration program, Albright simultaneously announced the DOE would reduce its pledge to Mattoon. Research from the new FutureGen projects would offset the DOE pullout, at least in theory.

In practice, however, the Mattoon facility will likely be abandoned in favor of smaller, cheaper facilities.

Environmental groups have already questioned the usefulness of FutureGen. Greenpeace issued a report this week calling carbon sequestration projects a "dangerous distraction." Emily Rochon, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, says "carbon capture and storage is a scam," and that governments need to reduce emissions directly.

49% of U.S. energy production is currently produced by the nation's 600 coal facilities.  Another 100 facilities are scheduled to be constructed before 2030 in anticipation of rising oil prices.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I don't get it....
By Connoisseur on 5/8/2008 1:52:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The project will eventually store 600 billion tons of CO2 in these two locations, according to Secretary of Energy Bud Albright. In 2004, human emissions of CO2 totaled approximately 8 billion tons, according to data from the from the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). Emissions from natural sources -- in particular volcanic sources -- are some 20 times higher: roughly 150 billion tons/year.


So is this a well known fact? Basically, it's saying that human CO2 emissions total only about 5% of all emissions worldwide? If that's the case, how is it that so many people argue that global warming is some crazy man made phenomenon? It stands to reason that natural emissions have a far greater affect on any theoretical climate shifts than anything humans can muster. Can somebody refute this claim?




RE: I don't get it....
By lightfoot on 5/8/2008 2:17:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
how is it that so many people argue that global warming is some crazy man made phenomenon?

I blame substance abuse, although science education in the US also shares some of the blame.

Ever wonder why it was a washed-out politican to point out the problem? Probably because politicians are respected more than scientists for their honesty.


RE: I don't get it....
By burnit999 on 5/11/2008 8:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
When you think about it global warming(regardless of cause) would cause some serious issues for the current state of human existence. Rising temperatures, sea levels, changing weather patterns and other major issues. Thus, working to reduce the effect of excess CO2 would be good.


RE: I don't get it....
By Talon75 on 5/12/2008 3:04:00 PM , Rating: 1
That's like trying to stop a freight train with a BB gun. What we should be doing is to stop trying to turn "Global Warming" into some kind of fad. We should be trying to be less wasteful and destructive to our environment because it should be simple common sense. I recommend reading the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton if you would like an interesting story to read about my point. Yes it's a fictional story, but it's deeply steeped in politics and based on facts.


RE: I don't get it....
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/8/2008 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, this is well documented by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at ORNL. Raw data is here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004....

This data has been used as the cornerstone of global warming research for years, though it's not the only method. The UN's method, (as seen on Wikipedia), incorporates "equivalent" gases and other funny logic. Even by those figures, the global "equivalent" output is 27 billion tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

That's still 1/5 of the 150 billion tons of CO2 emissions from things like animals and rock weathering.


RE: I don't get it....
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 11:45:18 AM , Rating: 4
And that 150 billion tons is just natural CO2. It doesn't count the natural "equivalent" gasses, such as SO2, which are also expelled in mass amounts by volcanoes and such. I've heard that when Mt. Saint Helens blew up in 1980, it released 10,000 times more "greenhouse" gasses than man had ever produced. I didn't notice any drastic global temperature increase from it, did you? Anything man does is utterly insignificant compared to nature.

I am so sick of this global warming BS. Think how much good that money could have done if we had spent it on a real environmental issue that can actually be helped, or on infrastructure or something.

Pumping CO2 into the ground is so utterly retarded I am at a loss for words. Do these people honestly think that filling an underground cavern with gas that could be feeding plants is going to have an actual effect on the globe other than starving plants?

Why don't we all just get together and do a massive rain/cooling dance with chanting to stave off the natural temperature fluctuations of the earth? It would have just as much effect, make just as much/little sense, and we'd have alot more fun doing it. Rave for the environment!!!

Holy crap I hate hippies.


RE: I don't get it....
By eskimospy on 5/11/2008 5:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if your post was serious, I really hope not.

You might have heard that when Mount St. Helens blew up it released more greenhouse gases then in all of man's history, unfortunately that is incredibly, hugely false. That's why you didn't notice a lot of warming when it erupted.


RE: I don't get it....
By PlasmaBomb on 5/20/2008 5:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sulphur dioxide causes global cooling not global warming. Also with the vast quantity of ash expelled in an eruption it isn't surprising that Mt. Saint Helens didn't produce any global warming.


RE: I don't get it....
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 5
Your post beat mine. :)

quote:
It stands to reason that natural emissions have a far greater affect on any theoretical climate shifts than anything humans can muster.


Man-made global warming advocates base very little of their reasoning on reason.


RE: I don't get it....
By Polynikes on 5/8/2008 9:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I'm so glad we're dumping millions more into this myth.


RE: I don't get it....
By MozeeToby on 5/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it....
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 2:48:02 PM , Rating: 5
When the snowflakes begin to fall in Texas in July 2050, I hope we line up every global warming activist and flog them. Hell, why wait?


RE: I don't get it....
By MozeeToby on 5/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2008 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 5
> " I highly doubt that wikipedia's numbers are off by several orders of magnitude "

Both Wikipedia and this article are correct. Volcanic sources are a very small part of natural CO2 emissions -- weathering of silicate rock and biologic sources are two of the largest.


RE: I don't get it....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/8/2008 3:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Termites – I have read they are the largest out-putter of CO2, and South America one of the largest supplies of termites. In a twisted way, if logging in South America kills termites...then it would be a pro-green life style change. So what if a good supply of the air we breath comes from those trees, and those trees need to high level of CO2 to grow correctly, and they need the termites to help clear out the old dead fallen trees to keep the forest clean, and the new trees need the fertilizer from the rotting trees (with help from termites) to grow, which will help produce more air for breathing....(circle of life)
Point being – man as a whole is not smart enough to try and control our environment, we will kill ourselves well before we help ourselves. We need to focus on things we can control, like get more out of the resource we use (better gas millage, more food per square foot farmed, control pollution out put in populated areas – non or low populated areas tend not to have this problem – do not reply with examples yes they are out there, replanting new trees after cutting them down)


RE: I don't get it....
By AlphaVirus on 5/8/2008 5:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
Just a question, how does weathering of silicate rock equate to higher CO2?


RE: I don't get it....
By Ringold on 5/8/2008 8:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know the relevance of silicon, but sedimentary rock, such as limestone, plus whatever sea creatures form when they collect on the oceans floor over millions of years, are huge repositories of CO2.

It would be logical, then, that as these rocks are lifted out of the ocean, in to the sky, and then eroded by weathering, that CO2 is then released once more -- so it can soak back in to the water, and get soaked up again by new sedimentary rock, etc.


RE: I don't get it....
By SectionEight on 5/9/2008 8:23:56 AM , Rating: 3
It doesn't. Weathering is a sink of CO2. It combines with water to form Carbonic Acid and can get locked up in the resulting weathering products. It is thought the rise of the Himalayas and the increased weathering of them is what brought CO2 levels down to their more recent (past several million years) level. CO2 was possibly 6x modern levels during the Cretaceous, pre-Himalayas.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/8/2008 3:18:30 PM , Rating: 5
CDIAC only exists to monitor human synthesized CO2 and nothing else. You can look at the raw data here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004....

So their numbers are extremely reliable, and widely used for many things.

Volcanos, as you mention, account for a small percentage of atmospheric CO2. The carbon cycle includes things like animals breathing, rock weathering, trees burning, etc. The 150 billion ton estimate is from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and is also widely used and cited.

What isn't mentioned in the article, or anywhere else really (since nobody really knows) is how much of that 158 billion tons of carbon (150 + 8) is "sunk" every year.

Even when the physicists calculate the parts per million in the atmosphere in relation to the amount of carbon we know has been released, there are very large disparities.

Unfortunately those sort of problems don't prove or disprove anything, they just make people step back and wonder why the heck we haven't figured out pretty large pieces of this puzzle before we started spending billions of dollars on framing it.


RE: I don't get it....
By PigLickJF on 5/8/2008 3:03:18 PM , Rating: 1
Just beacuse it's a small amount doesn't mean it's insignificant. A 5% increase of something in a system that is (or was) in equilibrium is a big difference.

For instance, let's say you consume 2000 calories a day, and your body burns off that same amount. You're in equilibrium - not gaining or losing weight. You decide hey, 100 extra calories a day is a tiny increase, no big deal, so you start eating that much more without changing anything else. Well, those extra 100 calories a day add up. That's about .02 pounds per day, again not much, until you realize that's almost 9 pounds a year. If you keep this up for 20 years (again, wihtout changing anything else), you'll have gained around 180 pounds, which will likely be affecting your health in some negative way.

The climate and atmosphere etc are obviously a much larger more complex system than that, it was just an illustration to prove the point that a seemingly small number can still mean a significant change, especially when compounded over time.

PigLick


RE: I don't get it....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2008 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 5
By the paleoclimatic record, the global carbon balance has never been in equibrium, with CO2 rising and falling on a near-constant basis.


RE: I don't get it....
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
When the timescale of a (CO2 vs Time) graph are compressed to include hundreds of millions of years, it doesn't seem to be in equilibrium. However, it is likely that during any one "minute" period (a millenium?), the atmospheric CO2 levels had a lot of linearity. In terms of the bigger graph, this would be a local linearity. Earth's climate systems (which are essentially thermodynamic) have been in a quasi-static equilibrium for most of history, with that equilibrium sloly shifting.


RE: I don't get it....
By TheDoc9 on 5/8/2008 3:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think in a closed system where nothing changes this might be possible. Fortunately for us humans our lives are constantly changing and so are our metabolisms. Same for the planet, 5% is something but it's unreasonable to assume that the planet and it's systems would stay the exact same. Therefore we can conclude that by various means the planet will adapt, whether it be absorbing more c02 in the oceans, more plant life, more absorption into soil, venting it into space, ect.


RE: I don't get it....
By PigLickJF on 5/8/2008 3:39:33 PM , Rating: 1
As I said, it's obviously a highly flawed analogy, but the point remains. A 5% increase in something is more than enough to affect a change, possibly a very significant change, especially over a period of time.

I have no doubt, by the way, that the Earth will adapt to whatever change is (or is not) ocurring due to man-made emissions. The trouble is how well humans (and other animals and plants) will be able to adapt. The Earth ain't going anywhere for a long time, and as an inanimate object has no emotions or feelings to worry about whatever changes are happening. Humans and our standards of living, could on the other, hand suffer greatly. Will it happen? Who knows. If it does, will it be because oif man's activities, or just due to some natural cycle? Who knows. That doesn't mean we should assume it can't or won't happen, so the only other thing we can do is continue to do research and experiment and try to predict as well as possible what may happen and what we can do about it.

PigLick


RE: I don't get it....
By drew494949 on 5/8/2008 3:27:32 PM , Rating: 5
How do you base your opinion that

Equilibrium = (Earth - Humanity)

I'd love to see that proof.


RE: I don't get it....
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't put words in his mouth. He was talking about fossil fuel carbon emissions.

Reliance on fossil energy source = Humanity

I'd love to see THAT proof.


RE: I don't get it....
By lightfoot on 5/8/2008 4:30:00 PM , Rating: 3
You missed the part that maintaining the same lifestyle involves you lifting the extra 180 lbs of your fat ass - that alone will burn more than the extra 100 calories per day. You would actually reach an new equalibrium after gaining as little as 10 lbs.


RE: I don't get it....
By i3arracuda on 5/8/2008 5:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't quite work that way.

As your weight increases, the number of calories necessary to sustain that weight also increases. Using your example, a sedentary person would determine the amount of calories the body needs to sustain it's weight using the following forumlas:

Men
BMR = 66 + ( 6.23 x weight in pounds ) + ( 12.7 x height in inches ) - ( 6.8 x age in year )

Women
BMR = 655 + ( 4.35 x weight in pounds ) + ( 4.7 x height in inches ) - ( 4.7 x age in years )

(Where BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate)

You would have to eat considerably more than 2100 calories a day to reach the weights you describe.


RE: I don't get it....
By AlphaVirus on 5/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: I don't get it....
By lightfoot on 5/8/2008 9:57:16 PM , Rating: 4
Actually you are the one who has the concept wrong. Any system that is in a state of equilibrium is a system that has forces applied to it from both directions. The weight example is a case where additional calories will cause an initial weight gain, but the system will be self-correcting and reach a new equilibrium - in this case the weight gain will be measurable, but relatively small. Biomass requires calories to sustain its self - even fat burns calories.

The earth has mechanisms that control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - namely plants. It has been well documented that plants grow more rapidly when they are exposed to higher levels of CO2 and warmer temperatures. Thus the increase in CO2 emissions will raise the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but that will be offset by additional plant growth. This system of counteracting forces allows the point of equilibrium to be shifted, but the system does not spiral out of control due to some imaginary tipping point. A "tipping point" implies a system that is in an unstable equilibrium as opposed to a stable equilibrium. Most (if not all) natural systems are stable equilibriums. A minor disturbance over a couple hundred years is not going to destabilize a system that has evolved over several billion years.

Mankind is notoriously egotistical; we like to think the universe revolves around us. But we don't have nearly as big an impact on our planet as we like to think we do. The damage we do to this planet on accident is nothing compared with the damage we are capable of if we actively try to change the planet. I fear the greatest environmental disaster will be the one that the environmentalists create in their futile attempt to “save” us.


RE: I don't get it....
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're making no distinction between stable and unstable equilibrium. The whole point of the "runaway global warming" theory is that under higher CO2 levels, Earth's climate is an unstable equilibrium that will cause a cascading effect.

That said, I don't believe that is true. I'm fairly sure that Earth's climate is a fairly stable equilibrium. In the relatively long period of time that Earth has had its current climactic patterns, you would think it would have started the cascading effect sooner.

Either way, the global warming argument is stupid. All you need to do is stop stressing Earth's biosphere and just take what is sustainable. Use solar power. Preserve forests, wetlands, and marine ecosystems. All this is good policy anyway, so global warming is irrelevant.

Attempts like these to burn as many fossil fuels you want and then trap them, basically borrowing against the future (think catastrophic break). Also, that concentration of CO2 will probably change the geologic properties of the ground there. Way too many unknowns.


RE: I don't get it....
By i3arracuda on 5/9/2008 9:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Thus his analogy included something everyone can relate to, weight and calories.


Oh, so what I should take out of this is that it's OK if it's a flawed analogy, just as long as it's one that everyone can relate to?


RE: I don't get it....
By lightfoot on 5/9/2008 11:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
What you should take from it is it is better to be wrong and popular than right and unpopular. Just ask any of the following:
Socrates - executed
Martin Luther King, Jr. - assassinated
Galileo Galilei - imprisoned


RE: I don't get it....
By Spuke on 5/9/2008 4:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
So you are equating the tragedies of great individuals to the "cause" of global warming?


RE: I don't get it....
By lightfoot on 5/9/2008 5:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
Not at all - I'm just saying that global warming may be popular, but that doesn't make it right. People who disagree with the popular dogma are frequently persecuted for it.

I was just pointing out that the analogy did not have to be accurate, it just had to be popular. There is a popular belief that eating more causes weight gain, that isn't necessarily correct.


RE: I don't get it....
By rodrigu3 on 5/9/2008 2:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
This is assuming that we have no excrement and retain every single calorie we eat.


RE: I don't get it....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/8/2008 4:12:42 PM , Rating: 5
"If that's the case, how is it that so many people argue that global warming is some crazy man made phenomenon?"

Because Al Gore is an idiot and has made $783,000,000.00 (and growing - maybe not to much of an idiot, I've have not con'ed that much money out of people) and a Nobel prize off of selling "green" idea, by running around like chicken little screaming about the sky is falling based on very, very little scientific evidence that does not include some basic heat control items like the average tempter of the big yellow thing in the sky that gets hotter and colder a few degrees every century (hence part of the reason we have mini ice ages - yes I know way more to it then just the sun).


RE: I don't get it....
By Schrag4 on 5/8/2008 4:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's the "tipping point", or "straw that broke the camel's back" argument. I don't buy it, but that's what the Al Gore followers (man-made global warming believers) will tell you.


RE: I don't get it....
By Schrag4 on 5/8/2008 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 3
Let me explain a little more about why I don't buy it. So we increase the CO2 by 5%. Some may say a 5% increase can be significant. BUT, doesn't the output of CO2 by volcanos vary drastically from year to year? So this year we added 5% to the CO2 output, and that's "bad". But next year the volcano output might be 50% more than it was this year. How can we be causing the climate to pass the "tipping point" if the volcanic CO2 output can vary so much when comparing to our own output?

That being said, next year, volcanos might output so little CO2 as to effectively wipe out 2 decades worth of CO2 that human-kind is 'responseble' for, right? I don't have any numbers to back this up. Anyone know if volcanic CO2 output varies from year to year, and by what percentage?


RE: I don't get it....
By smitty3268 on 5/8/2008 6:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
The point that the Gore types would make is that over decades any temporary shifts in volcanic output will even out. Maybe there's 10x as much this year, but that will be followed up by several years of below average output. No ones claiming that a single bad year is enough to cause any significant harm, they're saying that over 50 or 100 years of constantly increasing totals will cause a problem.


RE: I don't get it....
By BlackIceHorizon on 5/8/2008 7:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
These facts are absolutely well known, but the wording of the article is highly deceptive. Natural CO2 sources are much higher than human, but volcanoes are only a small portion of this. According to the United States Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg...

The other natural sources are larger than anthropogenic emissions but are also fundamentally different when total cycling is considered because negative fluxes (sinks) balance their effects. Simply, dead plants release massive quantities of CO2, but live plants absorb about the same amount. Geological weathering releases huge quantities, but similarly large amounts are added to the lithosphere through marine snow deposition on the Abyssal Plane, etc. Natural sinks are absorbing some of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere, but can't keep up with present input rates; cycling times for atmospheric carbon are on the order of hundreds of years.

Skepticism is a virtue in science, but let's not pretend we know a lot about things we haven't studies ourselves. How many of the people responding on this forum have actually taken a quantitative course in Earth Environmental Systems or biogeochemical cycling? I have. The size a given chemical flux in relation to the size of a reservoir (say the atmosphere) or to the size of other fluxes isn't really the issue. It's the net flux of a reservoir that causes changes in the concentration of a given chemical species.

During the last several hundred thousand years of the Pleistocene, the CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere were approximately in equilibrium, on average. We can argue all day about theoretical adaptations of the climate system or the lack thereof. But looking at the well-accepted atmospheric CO2 concentration data provides strong evidence that a precipitous shift in the net atmospheric CO2 flux has happened in the last 150 years.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 cycled between 200 and 300 parts per million (ppm) during most of the Pleistocene. It is a well-accepted scientific fact that [CO2] never went above 300 ppm for at least the last 400,000 years. Yet from a level of 280ppm in 1800 it has climbed to 380 ppm today and the very consistent trend still shows a positive and increasing rate of growth. (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_... At present emissions levels carbon dioxide will surpass 400ppm well before 2050. Now, is it chance that the industrial revolution and an unprecedented increase in CO2 concentration, two events that both occurred only once in at least the last 400,000 years, occurred during the same 150 year period of history? Maybe, but that seems pretty damn unlikely. The evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent a novel unbalancing of the atmospheric carbon cycle is strong. We have both a very plausible mechanism for increasing atmospheric CO2 and strong scientific evidence from atmospheric sampling stations all over the world that is actually happening.

Debate is paramount to science, but I encourage the author of this article to actually pursue education in biogeochemical cycling if he's interested in such issues. I think he would find that the debate over the cause of the current spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide is all but over. Global warming, being one step further down the chain of causality, is of course less certain, but that's another issue for another post.

"Ignorance more freely begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871


RE: I don't get it....
By MRwizard on 5/8/2008 7:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
have to post this

"According to the United States Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes."

I hear a whip in the back of my mind


RE: I don't get it....
By Ringold on 5/8/2008 8:32:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Ignorance more freely begets confidence than does knowledge"


Ah, the elitism shows itself. You are all-knowing and superior, those who doubt your words are ignorant swine.

I could send the same quote right back at the vast majority of global warming fanatics with the question "What does it matter to the prosperity of mankind?" Why can I do that? Because the majority of economic analysis suggests even worst-case global warming scenario's as defined by the IPCC would be more of an annoyance over the next 100 years than anything else, and I can think of reading of at least one study in Reason that modeled 200 or so years in to the future and came to a similar conclusion; slightly lower global GDP than would be the case without the worst-case warming, but still fantastically higher, with fantastically higher standards of living, than what we have today.

So even if environmentalists in their ivory tower are indeed correct and global warming is unstoppable, they're still wrong in that it doesn't likely matter -- particularly if capitalism comes quickly to Africa. Climate change doesn't hurt advanced economies much, but as Burma has shown, third world nations can rack up huge death tolls whenever the wind blows. The solution then isn't crippling advanced nations to save poor ones from global warming, its to repeat the capitalist success story of China and others in the few places remaining not yet blessed with such success. That'd be far easier, and reduce poverty at the same time.


RE: I don't get it....
By porkpie on 5/9/2008 10:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So even if environmentalists in their ivory tower are indeed correct and global warming is unstoppable, they're still wrong in that it doesn't likely matter -- particularly if capitalism comes quickly to Africa. Climate change doesn't hurt advanced economies much
That's the scarlet elephant in the room as far as environmentalists are concerned. They spink fantasies like "cities under the ocean" because the real effects of global warming aren't that bad (and might actually even be good for us humans).


RE: I don't get it....
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 4:43:47 PM , Rating: 3
Thing is, the people in power who are behind the global warming lie don't want us to lift poor nations out of poverty. They want to keep those countries down in order to continue exploiting them for cheap labor, etc. Global warming controls are a means of doing this, because in order to develop, 3rd world countries must go through an economic stage of heavy carbon emissions to get to where we are.

This is the real heart of the global warming agenda. Money, power, exploitation.


RE: I don't get it....
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:55:03 PM , Rating: 1
Ok. First off, lets set the elitism aside and start addressing points. I do like the quote though.

" I could send the same quote right back at the vast majority of global warming fanatics with the question "What does it matter to the prosperity of mankind?" Why can I do that? "
You cannot possibly be suggesting that the fate of mankind and the planet are unrelated. The same people that argue that humans are too "small" to cause global warming will have to agree that humans are also too "small" to be impervious to nature's fury.

"The solution then isn't crippling advanced nations to save poor ones from global warming"

Assumptions here are that reduced fossil fuel use would be economically crippling and that there are no easy alternate energy sources. I reply by saying that capitalism as an economic system does not depend on fossil energy. In fact, it will work better without that dependence.

"So even if environmentalists in their ivory tower are indeed correct and global warming is unstoppable, they're still wrong in that it doesn't likely matter -- particularly if capitalism comes quickly to Africa."

Now we go into politics(fuck...).
Capitalism is already in Africa, just like it is in almost every nation on Earth (even many "communist" ones). Africa's problems are caused largely by strife and conflict.

"...repeat the capitalist success story of China and others in the few places remaining not yet blessed with such success."

Seeing as how China's new found wealth is extremely concentrated and is probably not enough to support its 1.5 billion people at Western standards, and how countless Chinese suffer and die whenever there is a disaster, I'd hardly call China a success story yet. Keep in mind that China is not even really even capitalistic in the Western sense.

/looonggg rant


RE: I don't get it....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/9/2008 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 4
> "These facts are absolutely well known, but the wording of the article is highly deceptive. Natural CO2 sources are much higher than human, but volcanoes are only a small portion "

You're absolutely right, which is why I clarified this in a post prior to yours. Natural sources outweigh anthropogenic by a factor of some 20:1...but volcanoes are only a small part of that.

> "But looking at the well-accepted atmospheric CO2 concentration data"

The Vostok ice core data is well-established, surely. But there is some degree of uncertainty in how well ice core proxies capture atmospheric CO2 data, particularly short-term spikes. Ice is a poor matrix for reconstruction of ancient atmospheres; CO2 preferentially dissolves in ice much moreso than O2 and N, particularly when under pressure, and the very coring process itself doesn't give a resolution of less than a century or two, which means any short-term spikes are automatically "averaged" in by the process itself.

Plant stomata data, on the other hand, shows several cases in the past few hundred thousand years where CO2 levels have risen sharply. I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions as to why stomata proxies are less favored than ice cores.

It seems very unlikely that mankind isn't contributing to the current CO2 rise. However, its even more unlikely that man is responsible for all that rise. We now emit over 1,000X as much CO2 as we did during the early industrial age...yet the rate of atmospheric CO2 rise has barely increased. That's proof right there that natural processes hold a much larger position than most people are willing to admit.


RE: I don't get it....
By hopscotch1541 on 5/9/2008 11:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
Connoisseur, if you'd research the same source you're using to support your crackpot "theory", you'd find your answers. According to the CDIAC, 64% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused by fossil-fuel combustion .

This was copied from the CDIAC website:
"According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC . In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion ."


RE: I don't get it....
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 12:26:34 PM , Rating: 3
That's all well and good, but where is the proof that CO2 actually warms the earth? CO2 has been on a drastic increase since 1850. Ok. Well, for 30 years during the 20th Century, global temps decreased while CO2 concentration rose.

Now, despite being "on the very brink of irreversible warming damage," due to our all-time high CO2 emissions and high CO2 concentration, the globe cooled very drastically last year. One year doesn't prove a thing you say? Perhaps not, but it sure disproved something, which is the idea that the warming is irreversible and all our fault. Obviously nature plays a far greater role than we do.

And even if one year doesn't prove anything, the UN is predicting another temperature drop this year, and now we're supposed to go through a cooling trend until 2020. Where is this irreversible warming I keep hearing about?

And to add further rebuttal to the "one year doesn't prove anything" idea, I would say that in a 4.55 billion year old system, 29 years (since 1979) sure as hell doesn't prove anything either. Nor does 150.


What if?
By arazok on 5/8/2008 2:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
If this underground store were for any reason to rupture, allowing the gas to suddenly escape to the surface, wouldn't it likely kill every living thing in the area?




RE: What if?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/8/2008 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's not stored as a gas.


RE: What if?
By lightfoot on 5/8/2008 2:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Dare I ask what carbon dioxide is, if not a gas?

Under pressure it may be solid, but the question was specifically what happens if the containing vessel (the cave) is ruptured - thus releasing the pressure.

Does it perhaps turn into a heavier than air gas that kills people (like carbon dioxide?)


RE: What if?
By MrBlastman on 5/8/2008 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 3
It is kind of like a politician.

They are all full of pressurized hot air, but it is only when they open their pressure-release valve (their mouths), that the room begins to moan and groan in agony.


RE: What if?
By lightfoot on 5/8/2008 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, carbon dioxide under pressure is a liquid (supercritical fluid actually,) not a solid. My bad.


RE: What if?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2008 2:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the process. In some injection trials, its not a liquid or a gas, but rather adbsorbed directly into the material of the formation itself.

But yes, if the pressure is somehow suddenly reduced, the CO2 *can* escape...just like the CO2 in your cola evaporates out, once the top is taken off the bottle.


RE: What if?
By djc208 on 5/9/2008 7:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
So 10 years after this place closes down some company will start mining the groundwater to sell $3 bottles of "naturally carbonated spring water".


RE: What if?
By MozeeToby on 5/8/2008 2:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter how it's stored, if the containment leaks preasure will drop and it will become gas.

As to what would happen if containment were to somehow fail (relatively unlikely given the way the systems work but still possible), we would have a result very similar to what happened at Lake Nyos in '86.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

Basically, a volcano released a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere very rapidly. CO2 is heavier than O2 so it settled to the ground and sufficated about 1,700 people.

Of course, our carbon traps will likely be much deaper than the magma pocket was in this case. It is probably unlikely that our traps would produce a sudden catostrophic outgassing but only research and trials will determine exactly what the risks are.


RE: What if?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2008 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 3
Remember that private companies have already been injecting millions of tons of CO2 into underground reservoirs. In the oil and gas industry, this is done to increase output, for one.

Most such geologic deposits are already under tremendous pressures; the possibility of a catastrophic release is very slight.


RE: What if?
By MozeeToby on 5/8/2008 2:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree the risk is small; I wasn't refuting your claims, merely trying to answer his question (what would happen if...?).

There are some risks involved, especially if we move to carbon traps that aren't currently high pressure deposits (not sure we would ever do this) for logistical reasons.


RE: What if?
By Schrag4 on 5/9/2008 9:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
To an environmentalist, the risk of killing a few hundered or even thousand people is well worth saving the environment. Some environmentalists would even see it as a step toward reducing man-made emissions. You think I'm joking...


RE: What if?
By daInvincibleGama on 5/11/2008 12:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
No. I think you're a joke.

You just created a caricature of an environmentalist in your head and then proceeded to make several unfounded (i.e. stupid) claims about it.

Has it never occurred to you that many (if not most) environmentalists believe that saving the environment is key to saving humanity? Or how about environmentalists who prioritize human life over the environment (if forced to make a choice)? Or those who believe that nature/planet is out God-given treasure? (Disc: Not religious.)

</bang head against wall>


RE: What if?
By Schrag4 on 5/11/2008 3:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
Jacques-Yves Cousteau , environmentalist and documentary maker: "It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."
John Davis , editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
Paul Ehrlich , Stanford University population biologist: "We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."
David Foreman , founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
David M. Graber , research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
Alexander King , founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."
Merton Lambert , former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
John Muir , founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"
Prince Phillip , Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Maurice Strong , U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Ted Turner , CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Paul Watson , a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."


RE: What if?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2008 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You just created a caricature of an environmentalist in your head and then proceeded to make several unfounded (i.e. stupid) claims about it.


And where ever did he get that impression from ? Oh yeah, the words and actions of environmentalist. In my opinion they are one step above P.E.T.A. in their anti human pro planet views. At least environmentalists sometimes pretend they are normal people.

quote:
Has it never occurred to you that many (if not most) environmentalists believe that saving the environment is key to saving humanity?


We don't care anymore. Go away. We're tired of your scare tactics with no proof or science behind it. We're tired of paying the price for your guilt ridden existence. Honestly, just live your fu$%#($ life and stay out of everyone else's. I'm getting so SICK and tired of activists trying to tell everyone else what they need to do and how they need to live. Its absurd. You just want to ruin it for everyone else so YOU can sleep better at night. At what cost ??

When I was a schoolboy in the 80's I was told that by now, today, because of the " hole in the ozone layer " we would all have to wear oxygen masks and re-breathers to go outside because there would be no air. Based on what ? Junk science !

Then in the 90's when I was in high school " Global Warming " was drilled into our heads in science class. By that point I was a little less gullible and began to question the theory.

Now we have " Climate Change Crisis ". The same old BULLSHIT in a new wrapper. With the same scare tactic life changing mandates behind it. With the same sketchy junk science and lack of proof behind it.

So no thank you. Fool me twice shame on you, fool me three times shame on ME.


RE: What if?
By nofranchise on 5/9/2008 9:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't a volcano. It was a lake with volcanic activity beneath it, which slowly built up a astonishing amount of CO2.

A large quantity of this vast amount suddenly released one night, because a limnic eruption ocurred. The gas washed over the valleys around the lake killing thousands of people and animals.

A similar problem is about to occur at Lake Kivu in Rwanda, which is 1700 times as large as Lake Nyos.

But actually these young African volcanic lakes are also so dangerous, because they contain huge amounts of methane gas. Organic material ends up on the bottom, and because of the topology etc. there are no winds and therefore no movement in the water letting it gas out slowly.

At Lake Kivu they are testing a methane gas powerplant utilizing the gas from the lake. In 2020 it should run a 400 MW power plant.
You could store CO2 in cave I guess, and because it is heavier than air it should stay there. Of course if it is pressurized then it wouldn't.

The rocks must get saturated somehow, or I have a hard time seeing this as a valid solution.

If I remember correctly, the Japanese are working on storing CO2 beneath the ocean floor - the water pressure down there will keep it nice and tight - just like in the lake, but with less risk of release, and no potential human victims, if something goes wrong.

Now the cost of that is probably another matter entirely.


I challenge you all...
By jmn2519 on 5/8/2008 1:46:50 PM , Rating: 4
I challenge you all to find me a better example of our government throwing money down a hole.




RE: I challenge you all...
By Integral9 on 5/8/2008 1:52:16 PM , Rating: 1
It's a long term investment program to create diamonds...


RE: I challenge you all...
By MrBlastman on 5/8/2008 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 4
Shhhhhh... Debeers is listenening. You might just dissapear.


RE: I challenge you all...
By mattclary on 5/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: I challenge you all...
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:56:26 PM , Rating: 1
I'll second that. Someone !up him for me.


RE: I challenge you all...
By Denithor on 5/8/2008 3:42:33 PM , Rating: 1
+1


RE: I challenge you all...
By mal1 on 5/8/2008 4:09:32 PM , Rating: 4
War on Drugs
War on Terror
Department of Homeland inSecurity

Not quite as literally as this program though.

I have an idea. Instead of pumping our CO2/tax dollars into the ground, why doesn't every American taxpayer burn $2 to reduce the inflation that the not-so-Federal Reserve is creating? Doesn't make sense? Well neither does pumping CO2 into the f'ing ground.

Wake up people! Our economy, currency and food supplies (not to mention water, bodies, minds and civil liberties) are under attack. More and more of these attacks will take the form of "being green" since politicians have discovered that environmentalism is a weak spot for the public that can be exploited to introduce oppressive legislation. It won't be long before you're taxed for the very air you breath.


RE: I challenge you all...
By hcahwk19 on 5/8/2008 8:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Then we will all be like on Spaceballs where they put air in cans and labeled it PerriAir. The politicians will horde it like President Scroob, and sneak in their sniffs of pure air so they can keep blowing hot air and bullcrap out of their mouths.


RE: I challenge you all...
By Ringold on 5/8/2008 8:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why doesn't every American taxpayer burn $2 to reduce the inflation that the not-so-Federal Reserve is creating?


When the non-recession is over, or at least the media stops talking about the non-recession, will the inflation hawks quiet down?

Not to burden you with data, but the monetary base growth rate has been crashing.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?cha...[1][id]=BASE&s[1][transformation]=pc1

The post preview screws up the above link, so a summary: 1984 - Today, a long term channel for the monetary base growth rate of between 5% on the low side and over 10% on the top side breaking at the end of the last recession at the start of this decade, with growth rate steadily declining to 0.7% today. This despite negative real interest rates by the Federal Reserve. Less food and energy, the CPI is benign.

By a certain, practical definition, we have very low inflation at the moment as it has not translated in to wage inflation. What we've got is a couple billion people working on joining the middle class, and building cities comparable to Chicago every time we blink an eye, even building artificial islands such as in Dubai. That's why prices are going on, not because printing presses are running.

By the way, all you gold bugs out there, I'm pissed off at you all. I bought in to the madness that it was divine providence that Gold is the only true thing of value and bought GLD -- right before it declined from about $100 to the high $80s. Believing the Ron Paulistas handed me my largest trading loss since I started almost 8 years ago. I hate you all. :P


RE: I challenge you all...
By Ringold on 5/8/2008 9:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Further:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/pag...

And before MZM and M2 scares you, it's the rate of growth thats important, and both of those are, as I pointed out, crashing lower. But while my earlier graph suggested monetary base was growing .7%, this report shows it strongly negative.. *scratches head*

Just pointing out the tame yield curves, anyway.


RE: I challenge you all...
By BansheeX on 5/9/2008 11:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Paulite here. The gold market is indeed volatile and has seen major corrections even in the wake of this prolonged bull market. Look at what happened last year when gold had a major consolidation - it rocketed right back up to new highs. This is the same sort of thing. You bought at the wrong time, gold was overbought when tensions were high in March and we were on the verge of a meltdown. You always want to buy on the dips when it gets oversold and no one wants it. Still, even with the bad call you shouldn't have bailed for a loss. That's the thing about bull markets: even if you buy at the wrong time, they save you in the end. Gold will probably be at $1200 by the end of the year, and we will probably have a dollar crisis within the next two years. Keep adding to your position on the declines, don't get in late and freak out when it drops, that's what the manipulators want.


RE: I challenge you all...
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why is he getting rated up for irrelevant comments?

I actually agree with what he's saying, but come on...


RE: I challenge you all...
By daInvincibleGama on 5/10/2008 11:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
* SOME of what he's saying.

Dear god...


RE: I challenge you all...
By B on 5/9/2008 11:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
I accept your challenge:

Down a hole: Filling the strategic petroleum reserve with oil at $100 or more per barrel. "Over the last eight months, the Department of Energy purchased more than 10 million barrels of oil for the SPR as the price rose $40 to above $120. This is not sensible. It puts upward pressure on oil prices at the worst possible time. It is a waste of taxpayer money. It gives aid and comfort to unfriendly nations. And it is an insurance policy that, for the most part, is no longer needed." - Source WSJ opinion piece by Lincoln Andersen

Note that I disagree that its no longer needed, but aggree with his buy low, sell high sentiments.


The Deep Ones
By Parhel on 5/8/2008 1:45:15 PM , Rating: 4
I'm all for the advancement of technology, but what happens when we start waking the giant subterranean monsters from their slumber?




RE: The Deep Ones
By mrteddyears on 5/8/2008 1:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
I believe we have seen the effect when the spawn of malcor is awakened (balrog) and what happened to the unsuspecting travellers. Will the government not learn from this tragedy in the mines of moria.


RE: The Deep Ones
By elpresidente2075 on 5/8/2008 1:57:50 PM , Rating: 4
Aye, but would not the fires of their lives be put out by CO2's natural fire-retardant capabilities?


RE: The Deep Ones
By bebbe on 5/8/2008 2:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
you mean monster will be no problem because they already suffocated from the CO2 ?


RE: The Deep Ones
By daInvincibleGama on 5/11/2008 12:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Nice.

+6


RE: The Deep Ones
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 3
We won't. They'll die of asphyxiation. ;)

This is really a plot to save the world from vampires.


RE: The Deep Ones
By Parhel on 5/8/2008 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
I could really get behind that then. If we can solve both our global warming problem AND our subterranean vampire problem, that's a win/win.


*sigh*
By WayneG on 5/8/2008 1:47:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Environmental groups have already questioned the usefulness of FutureGen. Greenpeace issued a report this week calling carbon sequestration projects a "dangerous distraction." Emily Rochon, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, says "carbon capture and storage is a scam," and that governments need to reduce emissions directly.


Seriously I'm fed up of hearing these hippies poo on every god damn idea that people come up with, I mean jeez will they only be happy once we live in caves with 100% clean fire logs?

If the project is able to achieve that sort of intake then I fully back up one hundred percent, I am worried about the potential disasters that could occur if they were to split (due to earthquake or even intentional sabotage).




RE: *sigh*
By maverick85wd on 5/8/2008 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 3
but THAT MUCH money is just a huge waste. It could have been spent on something more beneficial in the long run. If this project stores, say, 2 billion tons per year (a quarter of what we supposedly produce for those slow at math) that puts us at 6 and nature at 150 tons per year.

What a great way to spend $180M large. /sarcasm


RE: *sigh*
By paydirt on 5/8/2008 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
$180 Million is a drop in the bucket.


RE: *sigh*
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 2:42:07 PM , Rating: 3
Yes because the BILLIONS spent researching man-made global warming, which is increasingly clear that it isn't happening to anyone with half a brain, is money well spent.

I think this is a dumb idea too but $180M is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions spent on one of the largest political shams in history.


RE: *sigh*
By maverick85wd on 5/8/2008 3:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it wasn't a small amount compared to how much they've spent so far... the point is why are we still wasting money? I don't care what anyone says, $180M is a lot of money that could be better spent on other things.


RE: *sigh*
By AlphaVirus on 5/8/2008 5:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the point is why are we still wasting money?

<Buzz!>
"Ooo I know I know, because they are the government?"

But seriously, the government wastes stupid amount of money, for example look at how much they spent on the stimulus act.


RE: *sigh*
By WayneG on 5/8/2008 2:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
How is $180M a lot of money to the government?! Especially when the potential lies for alot more CO2 to be absorbed? Your statement is ridiculous...


How much energy used?
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 1:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
So, sounds like it would take a lot of energy to compress all that CO2 and pump it underground... Is this going to be worth it?




RE: How much energy used?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/8/2008 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
It takes quite a lot of energy actually. I haven't seen the actual figures, but it's almost twice as much coal to get the same amount of power.

Of course, in the U.S. we pretty much have enough coal to keep doing stuff like that for the next 100 years even without improvements in efficiency. Coal is cheaper than dirt in some places of the U.S., which is why it powers half our grid.


RE: How much energy used?
By Oregonian2 on 5/8/2008 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 4
Two questions:

1. How much carbon is generated when producing the power used getting rid of the carbon.

2. How much Oxygen is being gotten rid of. Would be nice not to have a pure Nitrogen atmosphere.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/8/2008 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
1.) Zero, in theory. That's the point behind zero-emission facilities like Mattoon. I think the requirement for "clean coal" is 300 MW at 70% carbon capture though.

2.) Earth's atmosphere is 20% oxygen, 0.038% CO2 -- so that's probably not something to be too concerned about. None of the methods I've read up on are particularly oxygen intensive either.


RE: How much energy used?
By WheelsCSM on 5/9/2008 12:57:27 AM , Rating: 3
I work for an electric utility company and I'm on a team investigating carbon capture options for our coal fired plants. Most of the options currently available for capturing CO2 reduce a plant's output by about 8-20% of the gross generation. Then once you capture the CO2 you have to compress it to about 3000 psi to put it underground. That takes another 10% of the gross generation.

One of the biggest things holding utilities back from doing things like this (besides the ridiculously high cost and power usage) is liability. Once you put the CO2 in the ground who owns it? Who is responsible if it leaks out in 500 years?

The way things are going in this country (and the world) now, we will be facing CO2 regulations in the near future. When that happens, prepare for your electric & heating bills to go up.


RE: How much energy used?
By porkpie on 5/9/2008 10:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When that happens, prepare for your electric & heating bills to go up.
That's a good thing to the hardcore environmentalist. Higher prices means people use less, and businesses make fewer products. It's forced deindustrialization, which they see as bringing us closer to "mother earth".


RE: How much energy used?
By Spuke on 5/9/2008 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's forced deindustrialization, which they see as bringing us closer to "mother earth".
Nope. It'll just increase the gap between the rich and the poor. That's all. Households that can afford to buy will continue to do so and if it's "cheaper", then they'll buy even more. Those that can't will buy less. A slow erosion of the middle of the middle class.


Gotta love it
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 2:31:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In 2004, human emissions of CO2 totaled approximately 8 billion tons, according to 2004 data from the from the U.S. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Emissions from natural sources -- including volcanic sources -- are some 20 times higher: roughly 150 billion tons per year.


We freely admit that, compared to natural sources, humans only contribute only 5% of the worlds CO2 output. But we have nut jobs ranting and are forming economic policy based on that we are going to end the world from just that 5% extra.

When the man(and scientist) who founded the Weather Channel tells me that we're not affecting the climate, I tend to listen to him over a bunch of tree hugging hippies, Al Gore, and a bunch of scientists who only care about their research budget disappearing.

NOTE: I am not advocating burning anything and everything we can. Just that we should not be spending billions of dollars trying to prevent something that is not happening. I'm more concerned with an asteroid hitting the Earth than am I with man-made global warming.




RE: Gotta love it
By michal1980 on 5/8/2008 2:52:46 PM , Rating: 3
whats futher amazing, is that 5% has to be divided up futher by the factor it contributes to global temperatures.

we might be spending billions on attempting to infulence far far less then 1% of the earths temprature.


RE: Gotta love it
By Spuke on 5/8/2008 8:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
whats futher amazing, is that 5% has to be divided up futher by the factor it contributes to global temperatures.
Can you explain that a bit further please? I'm not understanding that.


RE: Gotta love it
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 3:46:42 PM , Rating: 3
And that 5% extra is not nearly as large as it sounds. CO2 makes up like 0.36% of the atmosphere. Not 0.36 of the atmosphere, but 0.36%. I.E. less than 1%. 5% of that .36% is ours, which means that man-made CO2 emissions make up 0.018% of the atmosphere of our planet. Obviously we're totally responsible for what's happening. I mean, 0.018%. Wow, that's huge. That's 0.00018 of the atmosphere. Or, to put it in a fraction, that's 1/5,556th of the atmosphere. Man, I can't believe how reckless we are.

And to think that all you fools believe that 1/5556th, or 0.018%, or 0.00018 of the atmosphere isn't significant enough to make a major difference in global climate. How can you be so blind?!?!


RE: Gotta love it
By elgueroloco on 5/12/2008 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow my math was off. Apparently it's not 0.36% CO2. The atmosphere is only 0.038% CO2. That means that if all the CO2 in the atmosphere is from recent emissions, man made CO2 makes up 0.0019% of the atmosphere. Or 0.000019 of the atmosphere, or 1/52632 of the atmosphere. That's assuming that all the CO2 is recent enough to be 5% man-made, according to the current emission ratio.


Remove the C from CO2?
By soloman02 on 5/8/2008 2:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
With the advent of carbon nanotubes and the potential for graphene as a future replacement for Silicon, and all the other new uses for carbon (carbon fiber, etc), isn't there some way to remove the carbon from CO2 to use in the processes described above? We need to get that carbon somehow. And we will not have a net loss of oxygen. Solves both problems. We get the benefit of being able to use the carbon and prevent the supposed problem of "global warming." Someone more knowledgeable in chemistry than me please let us know how feasible it is to remove the carbon from CO2.




RE: Remove the C from CO2?
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
First major problem. How do you collect it? Attach a tube to the smoke stack of every coal and oil power plant in the US?

I'm not calling your idea stupid. If it is possible, its a great idea. But I don't think its a feasible one.


RE: Remove the C from CO2?
By soloman02 on 5/8/2008 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
I know it may be hard to collect the CO2. But according to the article, they already have ways of getting the CO2 from the power plants. Instead of dumping it into the ground, why not try to separate the O2 from the carbon? I do not know how much energy is required to remove carbon from CO2 but I imagine it can't be more than removing Aluminum from Bauxite, which requires large amounts of energy (Hall-Héroult process).

I found a process that yields pure carbon. it is called the Bosch reaction (thank god for wikipedia).
CO2(g) + 2 H2(g) ? C(s) + 2 H2O(l).
In layman terms:
Gaseous CO2 plus gaseous Hydrogen reacts to form Solid carbon (graphite or diamond) and liquid water. So it can be done, the question is, how much energy is required to do this. And we get pure water to boot.


RE: Remove the C from CO2?
By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2008 3:26:07 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with the Bosch reaction is the supply of hydrogen. If you generate it from natural gas reformulation (the typical method) you release even more carbon than you gain from the reaction. If you generate it from water hydrolysis, you spend more energy than you get from burning the coal in the first place.

A nuclear reactor would solve the problem...but if you postulate that, you remove the need for the coal plant in the first place.


RE: Remove the C from CO2?
By Visual on 5/9/2008 12:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
the idea goes counter to the original reason we create and emit that CO2 for.
we burn (that is, oxidize, combine with O2) carbon (well, carbohydrates really) to get energy out of it.

it will obviously require the same amount of energy to do the reverse, and that makes it pointless


By DamnBrit520 on 5/8/2008 6:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the wikipedia paragraph talking about natural versus anthro. sources, any thoughts people? Source 13 and 15 are the IPCC reports by the way. Source 14 I can't get to load right now

"Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and of some other important greenhouse gases.[13] Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[14] but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era.[15]"




By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
That's nice, but 10,000 years isn't much to go on. I'm gonna copy and paste something from another site here that will be beneficial to our understanding.

I took this from here: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

The first 'flaw' in your article starts with your first fact. You compare two data sets. One from bubbles in ice from the Vostok surveys over 420,000 years that show a variance of 180ppm to 300ppm using CO2 lab measurements. And another form of measuring, atmospheric, of CO2 from modern times, namely over the last 50 years.

Any good scientist will tell you ligning up 2 different data sets, using different collection techniques and different measuring techniques is not very good science. This punches a small hole in your argument.

Second problem is geographical difference. The Vostok records are from polar regions. The modern measuring is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii an equatorial/warm region. This punches another hole in your argument.

Finally what nobody at the IPCC has recognised in any report 1998 to 2004 is knowledge of the CO2 Solubility Pump. Indeed it's barely mentioned in the IPCC 2007 Report.

If any climate extremists understood this they'd appreciate that CO2 is dissolving in the oceans of Polar regions scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in lower CO2 measurements.

Similarly they'd appreciate measuring in Hiwaii in warm waters where CO2 is outgassed leads to higher CO2 measurements.

That's a mighty big hole in your argument.

And it gets worse. Hawaii is next to the biggest outgassing, the Pacific Ocean, on the planet. And scientists are on record as waiting for strong trade winds (sea winds) further increasing CO2 levels as huge plumes of CO2 outgass over Hawaii.

And it gets even worse (pretty bad already). The Vostok ice-cores measurement intervals are every 1,000 to 2,000 years. So to measure a peak in CO2 over 420,000-700,000 years the chances of measuring a peak is 3.5%.

So when the IPCC and other climate warmers claim we are enduring the highest CO2 levels in 700,000 years there's actually a 96.5% they're not near the truth. That's even without counting in all the problems with measuring CO2 mentioned above.

And that's just addressing the first 'fact' you mention in your article. I could go on and on and on what's wrong with your 'facts' but we haven't the space here.


By Spuke on 5/9/2008 5:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could go on and on and on what's wrong with your 'facts' but we haven't the space here.
I would but then I can be an a$$ at times.


Call me ludicrous...
By MrBlastman on 5/8/2008 1:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Cars:

O2 -> engine -> CO and CO2

CO2 -> plant -> O2

O2 -> engine -> CO and CO2 -> Ground

Net decrease in atmospheric O2
Net decrease in total CO2 buildup (though the buildup is still in the positive, the positive factor is not as great)

Instead of O2 -> Car -> CO2 -> Plan -> O2

Granted, it isn't a perfect cycle, but you have O2 being re-introduced into the atmosphere from CO2 rather than O2 being depleted and pumped into the ground.

I'd gather there are far better things to do than to just pump it into the ground - perhaps find a way to separate the C from the O2 and reintroduce the O2 into the atmosphere over time so the global O2 dilution is not decreased within the atmosphere.

I don't know how much is used per year and how much CO2 is pumped out but it is an idea worth thinking about.




RE: Call me ludicrous...
By lightfoot on 5/8/2008 2:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...perhaps find a way to separate the C from the O2 and reintroduce the O2 into the atmosphere over time so the global O2 dilution is not decreased within the atmosphere.

The chemistry is quite straight forward to do that process, the problem is that it REQUIRES energy. I propose that we build a giant coal fired powerplant to provide the power necessary to seperate the Carbon from the Oxygen so that we can keep BOTH the carbon and oxygen. Hell we could then BURN the carbon to generate power! Too bad little things like reality prevent such free energy schemes.


RE: Call me ludicrous...
By MrBlastman on 5/8/2008 2:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you pay me 300.00 I'll allow you to be a free energy associate. If you recruit 3 people who pay 300.00 apeice, I'll spiff you 80.00 a person and give you a cut of their power bill they pay to boot.

If they in turn recruit 3 people apeice, I'll give you another 100.00 per person they recruit plus a cut on their residuals as well.

I no time, you'll be wealthy beyond your entire dreams. Lets get free energy to the masses so they can all save on their energy bills!

I think the scheme just might work...


another waste of taxpayer money
By Screwballl on 5/8/2008 3:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
ok, so man is putting out 0.05% of the earths CO2... the plants of this planet can adjust their CO2 intake to absorb at least 100% more CO2 than it normally does... so this is just another waste of our taxpayer money, let nature clean the air, man is not making enough of an impact to warrant such wasteful spending.




RE: another waste of taxpayer money
By Denithor on 5/8/2008 3:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
...not if we keep cutting down the forests, rainforests, jungles, etc where the plants that absorb CO2 and return O2 grow.

And now we have a program on Discovery glorifying logging...


By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 4:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that deforestation is a dangerous problem that needs to be stopped. Also, deforestation is something that we can actually do something about as humans.

However, responsible logging, limited by gov't permits, such as is shown on Ax Men, is not the problem. The problem is slash and burn farming in the Amazon, which results in all the top soil washing away, destroying the land and making it barren and useless so nothing can grow back. That practice will do far more to increase CO2 levels, (which I still hold are harmless) than anything else we're doing.


By phxfreddy on 5/8/2008 4:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Challenge 1 - since its an assumed fact your coastal property will soon be under water....sell it to me for 10% of its nominal appraisal value!...its about to be absolutely worthless!...10% is better than nothing at all!

Challenge 2 If we should pay carbon taxes while the climate is warming....then its logical to assume you support SUBSIDIZING carbon usage when the climate is cooling!....

and yes put your response in writing and have it notarized because the word and world of a liberal MMGW religion adherent is about the same as something out of Alice in Wunderland.




By dhalilahma on 5/8/2008 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think oil wars are going to be a much greater factor in the near future than climate change. People will look back and wish they could produce as much CO2 as we are now. Not to worry though, your politicians will fool you into thinking that the wars are for honest reasons anyway, and you will vote for them again.


By Spuke on 5/9/2008 5:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People will look back and wish they could produce as much CO2 as we are now.
Nope. People will look back and reminisce about how far their dollar used to go. No worries, if you are in the top 20%, you continue to make more money and most what will happen will not affect you although the socialist party would like you to think it will.


Man has no negative impact on climate?
By rodrigu3 on 5/9/2008 2:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
Go to a coal-burning area in China and breathe in the thick air and tell me that human CO2 emissions are a joke. Or take a look at the smog dome over LA and say the same thing. Man can indeed have a very significant impact on their immediate environment and it couldn't possibly hurt to use our resources more efficiently and control the impact our technology has on the environment.




By lightfoot on 5/9/2008 3:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon dioxide is a colorless odorless gas. The thick air that you are describing has to do with the soot (smoke), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ground level ozone and carbon monoxide that is emmited from the Chinese factories. The U.S. has STRICT emissions controls on these actual pollutants.

I am all for pollution control, but to call carbon dioxide a pollutant is to lose sight of the toxins that really pollute the environment.

The global warming agenda de-emphasizes actual health dangers and only focuses on carbon dioxide which is a fairly benign and harmless gas.


By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 4:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Lightfoot's reply and would further add that CO2 is as much a pollutant as oxygen. CO2 is necessary to all plant life, and many forms of single-celled life. It is not a pollutant, it is a life-giving substance that is necessary for the survival of life on this planet, including oxygen breathers, which need to eat CO2 breathers to live. Considering that it only makes up 0.36% of the atmosphere, I don't think we should be trying to drop that level, unless you want food prices to rise even higher due to lower crop yields.

Also, I would point out that that one city in China is a tiny, tiny area of the globe, and will have no effect on the big picture.


Here's an idea!!
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 3:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
For all you folks that are so concerned about anthropogenic global warming, I have some startling, perhaps even terrifying information for you. Did you know that every time you breathe, you exhale CO2 into the atmosphere? OMG, YOU'RE WARMING THE GLOBE!!! Every day, you emit at least a kg of CO2. Multiply that by 6 billion ppl, and 365 days/year and that's 1 billion, ninety-five million tons of CO2 being carelessly breathed into the atmosphere by us terrible humans. Therefore, I propose that if you really want to see carbon emissions eliminated, you do the world a favor and stop breathing.

Save the environment, stop breathing!!




RE: Here's an idea!!
By jcherrybon on 5/9/2008 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, breathing destroys the planet. Pure genius!

How about we control the things we are able to? Nah... there are no consequences to anything. Yay!


RE: Here's an idea!!
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2008 3:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about we control the things we are able to? Nah... there are no consequences to anything. Yay!


Like spending hundreds of millions to research ways to make cows fart less ? Because as we all know, cow farts are killing the planet. Sigh.


Earthquake and then what?
By Senju on 5/9/2008 12:05:14 AM , Rating: 3
OK. We start stuffing this stuff into the Earth for 10 years. Then the big Earthquake comes and cracks open the stored CO2. It comes out like a cloud of stuff and kills all life.
I do not think this is a very good idea!




RE: Earthquake and then what?
By lightfoot on 5/9/2008 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It comes out like a cloud of stuff and kills all life.

On the bright side, think of how many hippies it will take out.


WRONG figure
By MadMaster on 5/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: WRONG figure
By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2008 3:07:56 PM , Rating: 4
> "You're VERY off by a factor of 1000 here"

No. Volcanic sources are a very minor contribution to total CO2 emissions-- silicate rock weathering and biologic sources (decay of plant material, respiration processes, etc) are two of the largest.

The article is correct. Anthropogenic sources are roughly 5% of total carbon emissions. This fact isn't in dispute, and is given even within the UN IPCC reports itself.

> "There is also a VERY strong correlation with when the world started burning lots of fossil fuels to when CO2 concentrations went up"

There's a much greater correlation from when the earth started warming after the Little Ice Age. That explains why the CO2 rise has stayed roughly linear over the period, even though human CO2 emissions have increased a thousand-fold.


the real reason
By johnsonx on 5/8/2008 3:57:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Environmental groups have already questioned the usefulness of FutureGen. Greenpeace issued a report this week calling carbon sequestration projects a "dangerous distraction." Emily Rochon, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, says "carbon capture and storage is a scam," and that governments need to reduce emissions directly.


This again shows what 'Global Warming' is about. It isn't about global warming, the environment, carbon emissions, or anything like that. It's about CONTROL, and it's about MONEY. That's why a project to simply lock up 'excess' carbon emissions is dangerous distraction.




Great Idea
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 4:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of allowing CO2 to be released so it can be naturally processed by the Earth, as it has done since before man arrived. Lets store it underground where it will never be consumed by plant life and other natural processes.

Brilliant !!!

sigh...




RE: Great Idea
By MRwizard on 5/8/2008 7:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Haha! u read my mind

on the other side, i don't think they will really be able to contain these fluids. If i remmeber corrrectly, Toxic subsances WILL eat away at the container after awhile. so i guess, after a while, it'll be "naturally processed"


Partial joy
By Basekid on 5/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Partial joy
By lightfoot on 5/9/2008 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
We accept that climate change is happening - what we don't accept is that it is a major disaster, and that mankind is responsible for it. The fact is that the earth is coming out of an ice age - you should expect the planet to warm. This is not the first ice age that we have come out of, however it is the first in which humans have tried to take credit for it. Global warming is not nearly the threat to mankind that global cooling would be - humans actually thrive in a warmer climate (as do most other species.) Warming causes all natural processes to speed up (due to additional energy in the system) including the water cycle and the carbon cycle.

What I personally take issue with is environmental groups who want to divert funds from proven humanitarian disasters such as hunger, poverty and disease and put it toward hypothetical scenarios just so that people like Mr. Gore can buy another private jet and summer home.

So I ask you - how many lives do you want to sacrifice today so that you can pat yourself on the back tomorrow for averting a disaster that never would have occured?


RE: Partial joy
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for refusing to accept a lie that makes no sense.


Armchair scientists
By jcherrybon on 5/9/2008 3:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
I love how all these armchair scientists are all smarter than the real scientists who work in this area. Oh and Al Gore is not a scientist by the way... for those who seem to think he came up with the concept of global warming.

Yes, pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will have zero consequences in the long run. We can emit as much as we want. The planet won't explode over some C02 so why should we worry about it?

Too funny.




RE: Armchair scientists
By elgueroloco on 5/9/2008 4:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
The job of a professional scientist is to come up with data to convince everyone else that his/her conclusions are right.
So far, the scientist pushing the global warming agenda (who, btw, have a vested interest in the global warming lie, as well as many others who fund them) have not come up with anything I find convincing.

However, the scientists who dispute man-made global warming, have advanced their own data and explanations for global temperature that I find far more convincing. For instance, it has been found that ice ages very likely correspond with variations in the earth's orbit which take it farther from the sun and shift its axis, and that smaller, more short term variations in temperature correspond with minimum periods of solar activity, such as the minimum (has some weird name with an M) that resulted in the "little ice age."


Foolish...
By maverick85wd on 5/8/2008 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded $126.6 million in grants


quote:
Private investment will bring the total price tag to $180 million.


quote:
In 2004, human emissions of CO2 totaled approximately 8 billion tons, according to data... Emissions from natural sources -- in particular volcanic sources -- are some 20 times higher: roughly 150 billion tons/year.


I am all for less pollution and more efficient energy... but that is way too much money to be spending on this. That is 180 million that could be going towards more efficient engines, fuel cell technology, nuclear power research, etc. Then again, I also think global warming is a hoax endorsed on by politicians with nothing better to do *cough cough Al Gore cough cough*




Conspiracy!
By PKmjolnir on 5/8/2008 2:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
We'll either have an IPCC sponsored CO2 measuring station placed on the locations to get those snacky PPM numbers to skyrocket because of co2 slowly seeping out trough cracks.

Or we'll wait until the storage ruptures thanks to an earthquake or natural stress and suffocate every living thing within a few hundred miles radius. We'll then have even snackier deaths statistic from CO2 to further push our beloved climate agenda!

I already see Al preaching in AIT-2; "We once belived co2 to be harmless! It have now been proved to be a killer gas! Look at this graph, it shows a ten thousand fold increase in co2 related deaths only in the last year! if this is allowed to continue all life in the universe will be dead by fall next year!"

Branded most important movie ever, recives 10 oscars, Al gets a dozen more nobel prizes, politicians outlaw co2 production, you know the drill.




Stupid Idea
By superunknown98 on 5/8/2008 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
This idea is on par with a 6 year old's intelligence. "It's burried so it's gone!" Well what happens when the caverns leak the Co2? Or worse, they release all of it at once. Ever read about those Co2 sink holes, where the pressure builds up untill a giant cloud of Co2 breaks through the ground and displaces all oxygen in the area. Well imagine that except the cloud is 100 miles long.




hmm... lets pump gas under us!
By Cheapshot on 5/8/2008 3:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
...and wait until the CO2 build's up around areas containing magnesium . Should make for an interesting reaction given the right conditions.




Bluegreen or other Algae please?
By rupaniii on 5/8/2008 5:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm.... why can't we just setup huge algae farms next to every one of these things and pump/divert the CO2 towards the algae fields. Its not gonna be Edible Spirulina, but, you certainly could convert it to a Biofuel, which would be quite the fun side effect. Compressing CO2 and putting it underground is just asking for an issue. If you biologically divert it and have it processed naturally into something far more ecological then you have solved a problem. Here, we are just spending a tremendous amount of money to merely push off handling a problem to later.
It's better to spend money to solve a problem, particularly potentially alot less money, than to spend it to merely change and compound the problem.
Hell, even if you didn't want to convert the algae to anything, you could dump it in the sea and feed sea populations damaged by algae die off, or even for fertilizer. Lots of possibilities.




By AssBall on 5/8/2008 9:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
To sensationalize otherwise interesting science and technology news...




Shouldn't we...
By technohermit on 5/8/2008 11:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
...worry about what to do when the weather changes dramatically rather than how much CO my Honda Element produces? It has been shown, mostly by Al Gore's lectures and movie, that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere havent been this high since the last ice age.
If parallels exist between major climate shifts and high CO2 levels, wouldn't it be wise to study other factors contributing to large climate change, and possibly ways to survive it? Seems to me like there would be no stopping it. It definitely didn't happen for the dinosaurs.




FutureGen
By SectionEight on 5/9/2008 8:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think the reason why the DOE pulled out of the Illinois project is because they realized there is nowhere to actually put the gas underground. They were going to put it in the Mt. Simon Sandstone, but I've done work on that formation and can tell you there wouldn't be much space to put it. My work is on samples that were shallowy buried (<1km) and their pores are mostly full of secondary minerals. The Mt. Simon in Illinois is deeper, so it is likely even further cemented, plus the 'holes' in the rocks that haven't been cemented are usually filled with water (or sometimes hydrocarbons) that is often overpressured. So I think the DOE realized that displacing all the water would be a lost cause in Illinois.




By SilthDraeth on 5/9/2008 9:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
And the suffocate.




Education Fails
By Nik00117 on 5/10/2008 9:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
So we are spending over 100 million dollars to store CO2 in the ground? 100 million dollars to take a naturally occuring event and subdue it? Watch pretty soon we'll be talking about placing hurriances in holding cells for the apporiate time to be released.

Ladies and gents, our Education has failed terriablly. To invest any amount of money in any project is simply pathic on all levels.

How about we take this 100 mill and put, what is it to put a person towards college 2,857 kids through a proper education. assuming that is college is 35,000 a year.

This is just plain stupid.




I Don't Get It
By KuhnKat on 5/10/2008 3:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
According to a DOE chart made in 2000 (table 1 in
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

CO2 ppm was 368,400 in 2000
CO2 ppm was 288,000 pre-industrialization
80,400 added since industrialization
11,880 was contributed by man leaving
68,520 by nature

So, since industrialization NATURE has contributed 85% of the CO2 INCREASE!!!

Industrialization was about 1900.

68,520 divided by
100 years is
685 ppm per year natural

In other words, if the increase does not change, NATURE would increase the atmospheric CO2 from the 2000 level of

368,400
68,520
To 436,920 in 2100

with human increase CO2 will be

(assume 20% increase in human CO2 production 11,880x1.2=14256)

436,920
14,256 human CO2 increased by 20%
451,176

Natural CO2 is 68,520 per 100 years
685 per year

human contribution is 14256 per 100 years divided by
685 natural CO2 per year
21 years is how much longer it would be before we reach
451176

Again, we get an extra 20 years WITH ABSOLUTELY 0 GOOSE EGG NADA HUMAN CO2 PRODUCTION!!!!!!!

So, 200 years from now CO2 will be over 550 ppm with INCREASED human CO2 production and everything else remaining relatively the same.

These figures are debatable, BUT, keep in mind that no matter whose numbers you use, the honest figures will still show NATURAL CO2 being several times the size of HUMAN CO2 addition to the atmosphere!!!!!

So, what exactly are we gaining by worrying about CO2 other than to put a load of CASH in climatologists, Al "the inconvenient MORON" Gore's, and other snake oil salesmen's pockets???

WE ARE DOOMED RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You might want to read these recent papers to understand why CO2 increase will NOT destroy the planet:

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

If you don't want to wade through it, (I can't do math like that either and apparently neither can James Hansen and other global warming alarmists) here is an editorial about the first one:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi...

That's right, you may have already read about it and IGNORED THE FACTS!!!!

Go on, go about your business. There's nothing to see here!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




Greenpeace needs...
By dluther on 5/14/2008 11:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
to have a nice big, hot, steaming cup of STFU.

Carbon sequestration is one of the key aspects of "clean coal" technology, which is very exciting for many aspects. As a transitional technology to things like nuclear and geothermal for domestic electricity production, liquefying coal and sequestering the CO2 helps our economy in jobs, helps our national security by working significantly to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and helps the environment by not releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere which otherwise would.

Militant environmentalists like GreenPeace aren't helping the environment, and they are giving those who are truly working to effect a real, sustainable change for the better in domestic environmental policy a bad name, because "environmentalists" tend to get painted with the same brush by people who don't know the difference, and don't care to figure it out.




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki