backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 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.