Print 63 comment(s) - last by MisterChristop.. on Feb 19 at 9:49 AM

Drilling has begun on a massive $84M USD U.S. Department of Energy carbon sequestration project. The project and other sequestration efforts have many critics, including the IPCC and utilities, two rivals which typically disagree on climate issues but in this case are in agreement.  (Source: Wired)

The DoE project drills deeper than past U.S. sequestration projects, into sandstone of Mt. Simon, shown here. The reservoir along with similar ones in other parts of Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois could store up to 100 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.  (Source: Wired)
Why worry about your problems, when you can bury them away?

As the U.S. Department of Energy's first-of-its-scale project in carbon burial launches, interest in carbon burial and sequestration is at an all time high.  Many nations wish that there was an alternative to traditional emissions cuts, which can hinder growth, and could reduce their net contribution to atmospheric carbon.

Carbon sequestration could provide just such a solution.  By burying the substance in underground cavities or in carbon rich soils in swamps or other sites, the net contribution of a country to emissions can be reduced.  And while many in the environmental community no longer like the idea, pointing out that such deposits could be easily released and don't solve the overall problem, the movement to adopt carbon sequestration still has powerful supporters.

Drilling began this week in Illinois on the DoE project, which will bury one million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the ground by 2012.  The project is the first of its scale in the U.S., and while still small compared to total U.S. emissions has the potential to grow much bigger.  Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky have enough underground space to store approximately 100 billion tons of CO2, enough to completely negate 25 years of emissions at the current rate, if fully filled.

Robert Finley, the manager of the current project states, "This is going to be a large-scale injection of 1 million metric tons, one of the largest injections to date in the U.S."

While Mr. Finley is enthusiastic about the project, others aren't.  The Bush administration last year canceled funding for an even bigger carbon sequestration project, FutureGen, citing concerns about the practice.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, typically a strong voice in support of emissions control, has sided with the utilities for once in vocally opposing carbon burial.  It has released studies indicating 30 percent of the energy from a coal burning plant would be wasted trying to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas.

One thing that could give supporters of burial a boost though is new carbon-specific filtering materials produced in labs like Omar Yaghi's at UCLA and at Georgia Tech under Chris Jones.  These materials may potentially make capture much cheaper and more efficient, making storage the only remaining challenge.

John Litynski, who works in the fossil-fuel-centered National Energy Technology Laboratory's Sequestration Division, believes storage should be easy as pie for the U.S.  He states, "What we found in the U.S. with the research that we've done over the last 10 years is that there is a significant potential to store CO2 ... in these very large reservoirs that are underground."

However, many of these reservoirs are deeper underground that existing sequestration projects have reached.  That's why the deep reaching Illinois project, which drills into the Mt. Simon sandstone, is such a critical test bed.  Scientists will, for the first time, be able to observe what happens when they pump compressed carbon dioxide 6,500 feet below the surface.  Describes Mr. Litynski, "We have numbers for what we think the capacity is in the U.S., but the only way to prove that is to actually drill a well."

The Illinois project will pump carbon dioxide produced by ethanol fermentation underground.  Archer Daniels Midland provided land for the site.  Even with these concessions, the project will cost over $84M USD, thanks to the high cost of drilling.

At a recent speech Mr. Litynski was challenged by an audience member who pointed out that 10,000 projects of the scale of the Illinois one would be needed to offset current emissions.  Mr. Litynski refused to back down from his support of the concept, though, dodging the question and stating, "From my point of view as someone working in this field ... the political rhetoric gets to the point where it's all supposed to be solar or wind or coal or natural gas (versus sequestration).  The reality for the situation is that we need all of these technologies."

Comments     Threshold

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

By ninus3d on 2/17/2009 3:44:52 PM , Rating: 3
"From my point of view as someone working in this field ... the political rhetoric gets to the point where it's all supposed to be solar or wind or coal or natural gas (versus sequestration). The reality for the situation is that we need all of these technologies."

I disagree, we don't need these technologies but we need to explore them, only then may we find the most viable solution and I doubt that means using wave, solar, wind, earth etc combined.

One solution will be the best in the end...
How about... nuclear power? :)

RE: Disagree
By Adul on 2/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By freeagle on 2/17/2009 4:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
But much more abundant. You probably won't find oil in the space...

RE: Disagree
By kattanna on 2/17/2009 4:20:11 PM , Rating: 4
You probably won't find oil in the space...


13 February 2008 Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data.

RE: Disagree
By freeagle on 2/17/2009 4:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
methane and ethane, the oil we dig is made C5+ hydrocarbons

RE: Disagree
By FaceMaster on 2/17/2009 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
methane and ethane

These are also useful.

I don't know how useful the burying of this stuff will be, but I'd like to see the size of the grave stone!

RE: Disagree
By mindless1 on 2/17/2009 9:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly, considering their location. Make use a tanker rocket ship that runs on it and then we can at least refuel there for the trip back home.

RE: Disagree
By SectionEight on 2/17/2009 4:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if our space explorations find microbes on Mars, that coupled with the strong suggestions of hydrodynamic and sedimentary processes at some point in the past would create some potential to form oil there.

RE: Disagree
By icanhascpu on 2/17/2009 11:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, Earth was in space.

RE: Disagree
By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 5
Libtard thinking ...
there is only so much nuclear material that is available. Much like oil its a finite resource
stand back, it's going to blow.

From the next big future:
The total abundance of Uranium in the Earth's crust is estimated to be approximately 40 trillion tonnes. The Rossing mine in Nambia mines Uranium at an Ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors. If the energy cost increases in inverse proportion to the Ore concentration, shales and phosphates, with a Uranium abundance of 10 - 20 ppm, could be mined with an energy gain of 16 - 32. If deep burn reactors are developed and used where all of the nuclear fuel is used then 20 times more power would be generated from the same amount of metal.

If all of the 2 ppm fuel was able to be mined for higher energy return then the energy cost of mining then about 20 trillion tons is accessible. And then about quadruple that by including thorium. The earth's crust has 6 ppm of Thorium and 2 ppm of Uranium. Some deep burn reactor approaches such as fusion/fission hybrids do not require any enrichment. Any uranium is usable not just uranium 235.

80 trillion tons times 950 gigawatt days/ton times 24 billion watt/hours per GWd.
1750 billion trillion kilowatthours.

World net electricity generation nearly doubles in the IEO2008 reference case, from about 17.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2005 to 24.4 trillion kilowatts in 2015 and 33.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2030.

100 times current world electricity usage for 1 billion years.

Advanced nuclear (deep burn 99.9% usage of fuel) can last for billions of years at 100 times the energy usage rate we have now.

RE: Disagree
By Bateluer on 2/17/2009 4:34:22 PM , Rating: 3

RE: Disagree
By Choppedliver on 2/17/2009 8:16:24 PM , Rating: 5
Wow I hope 1 billion years gives us enough time to make solar and wind viable alternatives! :D

Oh and I hope duke nukem forever comes out too

RE: Disagree
By MozeeToby on 2/17/2009 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 3
3 parts per billion of sea water is uranium. That is almost 1000 times what is believed viable in the crust and it has been show to be economically feasible to extract it (not yet, but when the mined uranium gets more expensive).

Finite? yes.
Gonna last a hell of a long time? Yes.

RE: Disagree
By kattanna on 2/17/2009 4:23:51 PM , Rating: 5
One solution will be the best in the end... How about... nuclear power? :)

hopefully soon, the truth of that will become more widely known.

having a facility that covers mere 10's of acres producing clean energy in the GIGAwatts, instead of sources covering square miles producing MEGAwatts.

RE: Disagree
By yomamafor1 on 2/17/2009 7:37:07 PM , Rating: 1
Not to be a douche, but I wouldn't call a fuel source that needs to be buried and properly secured for millions of years a "clean energy".

Its an interim solution to hydrocarbon, but better long-term energy sources must be discovered.

RE: Disagree
By masher2 on 2/17/2009 8:42:37 PM , Rating: 5
What do you think we must do with the toxic byproducts from producing millions of tons of steel, concrete, and other materials used to build windmills? Or tens of millions of acres of solar cells?

No energy source is perfectly clean. With current technology, though, nuclear power seems by far the least polluting...and "clean coal" might actually beat many renewable alternatives.

RE: Disagree
By infinitybit on 2/17/2009 8:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be that way. Thermal reactors currently in commercial use are quite wasteful. They only use 3%-5% of total uranium in the fuel rod (or something like that). Fast (aka Breeder) reactors can burn so called "waste". At the end of the cycle you end up with short lived isotopes. Unfortunately fast reactors are too expensive right now.

RE: Disagree
By masher2 on 2/17/2009 9:04:04 PM , Rating: 3
While FBRs are somewhat more expensive to operate than traditional reactors, they're still far cheaper than solar power. The primary reason FBRs aren't used is because of government restrictions -- President Carter banned fuel reprocessing in 1979, a hit the industry never quite recovered from.

RE: Disagree
By MisterChristopher on 2/19/2009 9:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why did he do that? What were his objectives from this ban?

RE: Disagree
By A Stoner on 2/18/2009 10:45:58 AM , Rating: 4
Actually they are working on the solution to this problem. It is called conversion.

from the
The Fusion Development Facility Mission (FDF): Develop Fusion’s Energy Applications but the Fusion Development Facility could also be the basis for a steady state neutron source for transmuting nuclear waste from nuclear fission reactors
• Develop the technology to make
– Tritium
– Electricity
– Hydrogen
• By using conservative Advanced Tokamak physics to run steady-state and produce 100-250 MW fusion power
– Modest energy gain (Q<5)
– Continuous operation for 30% of a year in 2 weeks periods
– Test materials with high neutron fluence (3-8 MW-yr/m2)
– Further develop all elements of Advanced Tokamak physics

Another method... same source

This site had previously looked at non-direct electric uses for nuclear fusion and transmutation was one of them. Transmutation is over three times easier to do than fusion for electricity. It does not have to be positive energy generating for the nuclear fusion part. The electricity is supplied and the fusion device is viewed as an "energy using neutron generator". The uranium is converted by the neutrons back to an isotope or into plutonium that the nuclear fission reactor can use as fuel. The fusion neutron generator only has to be available about half the time.

A fusion-assisted transmutation system for the destruction of transuranic nuclear waste is developed by combining a subcritical fusion–fission hybrid assembly uniquely equipped to burn the worst thermal nonfissile transuranic isotopes with a new fuel cycle that uses cheaper light water reactors for most of the transmutation. The center piece of this fuel cycle, the high power density compact fusion neutron source (100 MW, outer radius <3 m), is made possible by a new divertor with a heat-handling capacity five times that of the standard alternative. The number of hybrids needed to destroy a given amount of waste is an order of magnitude below the corresponding number of critical fast-spectrum reactors (FR) as the latter cannot fully exploit the new fuel cycle. Also, the time needed for 99% transuranic waste destruction reduces from centuries (with FR) to decades.

The subcritical FFTS (Fusion Fission Transmutation Scheme) acquires a definite advantage over the critical FR (Fast reacotor) approach because of its ability to support an innovative fuel cycle that makes the cheaper LWR do the bulk (75%) of the transuranic transmutation via deep burn in an inert matrix fuel form. This cycle is not accessible to the FR approach because the remaining marginally fissionable long-term radiotoxic and biohazardous transuranics cannot be stably and safely burned in critical reactors. The fission part of the Hybrid consists of standard FR components; a sodium-cooled metal fueled lattice featuring geometry similar to that of the Generation-IV Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR) is proposed. The critical milestone in the development of the Hybrid lies in the realization of the CFNS as a relatively inexpensive, high source density fusion neutron source.

End source...

Basically, there are lots of opportunites that the liberals, the libtards, the media, the greens and every other progresive movement will never let you know about, let alone ever allow you to benifit from. There is alot of research going on that will fix all of these problems, the vast majority of it would by far do more for humanity than global warming research, wind and solar power, and thus they cannot support it nor allow you to have access to it. Once you have have access to it, they lose their coveted positions of power over you, telling you that you are evil for using too much toilet paper, too much electricity, too much gas, anything at all is too much if that makes your life anything better than humans living through the iceages past. That is why these are not front page, cable, or over the air news items that people get to know about. If you knew the truth, you would demand more funding for these projects and when they finally succeed, they lose their power over you while you reap untold freedom by being empowered by POWER.

RE: Disagree
By randomly on 2/17/2009 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately nuclear power with it's very high capital costs is only economically competitive as base load power. You need to run it 24/7 to pay off the cost of the plant, fuel costs are minimal so you don't save much by not running full blast. If you can drop the costs it might also be used as a load following energy source but you will still need peak load sources as you nuclear plants can change power output only slowly and usually over a limited range. Current nuclear technology also needs very large water sources for cooling, so it's not suitable for just any location.
A mix of technologies will probably be the solution. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

As to the following comment on the limited amount of nuclear fuel, there are hundreds of years worth of readily accessible U235 available if you are using a once through fuel cycle. If you reprocess your fuel then you expand your fuel supply enormously as all fertile materials become available as fuel including the U238 and Thorium, putting your nuclear fuel supply capacity into the millions of years.

RE: Disagree
By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 4:54:25 PM , Rating: 5
The reason the capital cost is so high is because almost every single reactor we have built is unique. We were in the learning process, so each reactor learned from the previous one, we never got a muture position to allow economy of scale to kick in. Once the US government starts to stop allowing green libtard zealots to sue companies into bankruptcy for the gall to attempt to build a nuclear power plant, then companies can start to use new updated versions that are more economical to build and run. There are many designs around the world, and some companies are starting to actually build modular nuclear reactors that fit on an oversized tractor trailor and are portable, cost effective, and safe. It is a matter of making the choice, do we starve our nation of power, continue financing dictatorships that happen to sit on oil reserves, or do we make the choice to live free, prosper and use the power we have available today instead of some pipe dream of solar/wind that is unsustainable.
As for water, Nuclear power plants on the ocean use ocean water, it is not like it is contaminated in the process, it goes through a thermal pipe, not nuclear waste material. many new designs use no water at all, and are immune to meltdown due to having low concentrations of nuclear materials.

RE: Disagree
By masher2 on 2/17/2009 5:28:11 PM , Rating: 5
Did I have a son I didn't know about?

RE: Disagree
By randomly on 2/17/2009 10:23:38 PM , Rating: 4
It's a bit of an exaggeration to claim all the US reactors were unique. You bring up a good point though and the large variety of designs, and different builders certainly contributed to the high capital costs in the USA. The French did better with their cookie cutter approach and limited number of designs.

Reducing capital cost of construction becomes a very important goal for nuclear reactors. Sticking to only one or two designs and using the same contractors over and over would certainly help. Reducing construction time is also important since cost of financing during a 6 year build can increase total costs by 30%.
You cannot place all the blame for the high cost at the door of going down the learning curve over and over. The facilities are large, complicated, demand a great deal of care and oversight to build correctly, and require building large technically demanding equipment and safety systems. They are not like coal fired plants.
If you took advantage of economies of scale and knowledge retention by continually building new reactors with the same workforce you might reduce cost by 40%.

However currently production capacity is very limited since there is little in the way of knowledgeable trained construction workforce since no new reactors have been built in the US in at least 20 years. There are also other restrictions such as the heavy equipment needed to forge the single piece reactor vessel. Currently there is only one foundry in Japan that is capable of forging those, and they can only make 4 per year. There are other companies around the world that are adding such large forging capability but it will take time.
Currently demand for reactors outstrips the limited supply, and the price is not going to come down till that changes regardless of other factors. Such is the nature of free markets.

Lawsuits have also had an impact, mostly through costs of capital tied up during stalled construction. Even if you eliminate all those costs however it's not going to magically make them cheap to build. Like wind and solar they have high capital costs and cheap to free fuel costs, which means you need to run them at maximum capacity as much time as you can to pay down the infrastructure costs. That implies utilization as base load power.

The small nuclear reactors you refer to are commonly referred to as nuclear 'batteries'. Using fuel elements made of an alloy of uranium, plutonium and zirconium they are a fast breeder reactor design. With appropriately chosen alloy ratios the large amount of U238 in the fuel elements is bred into Pu239 at about the same rate the Pu239 is burned up. This greatly extends the fuel life over a standard enriched uranium fuel.
However these are tiny reactors in the 25 Megawatt class, not the 1000+ Megawatt reactors used for commercial power generation. They are good for remote locations, but they are not designed to be refueled and are not economically competitive with large reactors. You also have a problem of security and nuclear proliferation since the bomb grade Pu239 is easily extracted via chemical means. No difficult isotope separation is needed.

My comment on water needs was just to point out that they can not be placed just anywhere. Certainly if you are next to the ocean, large lake, or river you can probably get sufficient water supply. Location restrictions also apply to coal and gas fired plants stemming from fuel availability, transport, and land requirements. My point being there is no one technology that covers all applications.
None of the non-water cooled GEN IV reactors like Molten Salt reactors, Liquid metal cooled reactors, High temperature gas cooled reactors, and Pebble bed reactors will be commercially deployable for another 20 years. Even most of these require water for evaporative cooling towers or pumped reservoir cooling as the cold reservoir for the thermodynamic cycle even though they do not use water in the primary or secondary cooling loops.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of nuclear power and reduction of our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear has the potential to supply a great deal of our future energy needs, but it is not a panacea single solution and can still benefit a great deal from further development of GEN IV reactors designs, fuel reprocessing technologies, anti-proliferation technologies, and waste handling and storage advances.

Solar and wind power can probably be developed to the point where they are reasonably competitive on a cost per Kwh basis. However the sticking point that proponents always seem to gloss over is the intermittent nature of the supply and the lack of any cost effective and efficient energy storage mechanism. With no good energy storage solution wind and solar can only be used to provide the small fraction of our total energy needs that our other energy sources can make up for when it's not available. The cost and efficiency losses of an energy storage system to address the intermittent supply problem of wind and solar make it extremely difficult for wind/solar to ever be economically competitive.

They may reach positive energy output with the ITER tokamak but it seems at this point that tokamak fusion is too complex and expensive to ever be economical. Unless the Polywell fusion wildcard pans out, we're going to see mostly hydroelectric, geothermal, and a lot more nuclear reactors in our future.

RE: Disagree
By masher2 on 2/17/2009 11:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
The small nuclear reactors you refer to are commonly referred to as nuclear 'batteries'...
However these are tiny reactors in the 25 Megawatt class, not the 1000+ Megawatt reactors used for commercial power generation. They are good for remote locations, but they are not designed to be refueled...You also have a problem of security and nuclear proliferation since the bomb grade Pu239 is easily extracted via chemical means. No difficult isotope separation is needed
A few corrections here. A "nuclear battery" is an RTG, not a reactor. A few different companies (Toshiba, Hyperion,etc) are commercializing small nuclear reactors, some of which are indeed designed to be refueled.

Furthermore, it's rather trivial to design a reactor that generates very high levels of 240Pu, which quite effectively poisons the 239Pu, preventing it from use in a nuclear weapon without purification through isotopic separation.

RE: Disagree
By randomly on 2/18/2009 5:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
A few corrections here. A "nuclear battery" is an RTG, not a reactor. A few different companies (Toshiba, Hyperion,etc) are commercializing small nuclear reactors, some of which are indeed designed to be refueled.
The term 'nuclear battery' is also used for reactors with very long fuel cycles (15-20 years) and is not exclusive to RTGs.
Furthermore, it's rather trivial to design a reactor that generates very high levels of 240Pu, which quite effectively poisons the 239Pu, preventing it from use in a nuclear weapon without purification through isotopic separation.

Yes eventually you will build up enough Pu240 to 'poison' the Pu239. However the fuel cycles are so long that this happens slowly. The initial fuel charge will take years to build up to the 7% Pu240 that would preclude it's use for building a weapon without isotopic separation. It's that large window of vulnerability that is a concern.

RE: Disagree
By masher2 on 2/18/2009 8:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "The term 'nuclear battery' is also used for reactors with very long fuel cycles "

This must be some new use of the term. A nuclear battery is used to refer to generation by spontaneous decay, rather than forced fission.

> "The initial fuel charge will take years to build up to the 7% Pu240 "

No. It depends on the neutron flux within the reactor. Even in a normal LWR, you'll break 20% within a fuel rod's normal lifetime, and with some designs, you can achieve substantial 240Pu poisoning within weeks, long before significant quantities of 239Pu have been generated.

RE: Disagree
By randomly on 2/18/2009 12:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
This must be some new use of the term. A nuclear battery is used to refer to generation by spontaneous decay, rather than forced fission.
No, it's not a new use of the term. It's been used for reactor designs that have essentially a single fuel load that runs for a long time. A single use 'Battery' if you will.

Both the Hyperion 25 Mw and the Toshiba 10 Mw with it's 30 year fuel cycle are essentially single use systems and are not designed to be refueled. They are designed for remote power supply and don't seem to be economically competitive with large reactors. The 4S is projected to have operating costs of 10 cents a Kwh, that does not even include the capital costs of the plant and installation.
They are also paper designs and I'm not aware that even prototypes of these designs have actually been built.

No. It depends on the neutron flux within the reactor. Even in a normal LWR, you'll break 20% within a fuel rod's normal lifetime, and with some designs, you can achieve substantial 240Pu poisoning within weeks, long before significant quantities of 239Pu have been generated.

Yes it does depend on the neutron flux. However you are making several mistakes. One is comparing the 30 year fuel cycle of a 4S to the 18 month fuel cycle of a LWR. Clearly the 4S experiences a much lower neutron flux and therefore takes much longer to build up Pu240 levels. The second mistake is comparing the LWR which is a thermal reactor to the 4S which is a fast reactor. The fast neutrons spectrum in the 4S greatly increases the neutron capture cross section of Pu240 which slows down the buildup of Pu240.

All that aside you can still make a bomb even with reactor grade plutonium (20% Pu240), although it's a bit more difficult, the physical size needs to be larger, and handling problems increase. The US has successfully tested a bomb made from reactor grade plutonium.

RE: Disagree
By snorlaxorl on 2/17/2009 4:43:35 PM , Rating: 5
I sure hope these guys realize they are burying twice as much oxygen as carbon.....

RE: Disagree
By parsley on 2/17/2009 7:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
If there's even a possibility that global warming is being caused by CO2 emissions, and might have worse consequences than we currently realise, it'd be nice to know that we could do something about it. Even if like the previous poster intimated (I think) we have to build nuclear stations to reduce emissions and power the capture of CO2.

Companies can store gas happily in partially depleted wells as winter reserve without worry of losing it, which is probably a good sign for CO2

RE: Disagree
By parsley on 2/17/2009 7:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the economics would be a big screw up though if we take dealing with carbon seriously.

RE: Disagree
By A Stoner on 2/18/2009 10:56:14 AM , Rating: 3
We can do something about it. Poison the Ocean. In about two years we could sequester every single bit of CO2 produced my mankind buring fossil fuels by nothing more than saturating the ocean with cheap iron and other nutrients that help microbes grow that use CO2 for food.

The problem is that we would get red algae blooms everywhere from this, or that is the scare. It will also leach out alot of other minerals from the top portion of the ocean, possibly killing most of the biolife long term there. But hey, if it has a chance to avoid the potential possible harmful effects of an unknown, why not do it?

$84,000,000 plant food sustenance removal program.
By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 4:16:46 PM , Rating: 5
So, we are going to spend millions, actually billions to take/keep out of the air a trace element that is needed by every living creature on the planet in order to fight the phantom menance of disproven global warming? Plants are actually at their best when CO2 is at around 1000ppm and remains as strong up to 1500ppm. That is why greenhouse owners pump CO2 into greenhouses, not to warm it up in their, but to increase productivity.

All of the plants you see around you developed, if you are an evolutionist thinker, or were designed for the rest of us, for an atmosphere that has up to 8000ppm CO2. The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at historic lows for the last 600,000,000 years.

Every 100,000 years we go into an ice age, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the air. For about 90,000 years the temperatures remain low enough to cover most of the world in ICE and then for about 8,000 to 12,000 years it all warms up, no thanks to CO2.

Cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water, so when we come out of an ice age, the oceans start to spew out more, or abosorb less CO2 than they did for the 90,000 years in which it was colder. We had a 200 year cold period called the little ice age that cooled the planet and thus the oceans and they absorbed some CO2, giving the 280PPM that everyone likes to rant about, but that is not the historic baseline, because our earth is dymanic, along with the solar system and the part of the galaxy that it all resides in.

CO2 changes in the atmosphere are for the most part totally natural. The isotopes of Carbon in CO2 are known for the air as well as for the coal and oil we burn. The isotopes do not change very quickly, that is why we can carbon date things back hundreds of thousands of years. The CO2 in the atmosphere has not had a significant increase in the isotopes of Carbon that come from oil and coal, thus, most of the increase in CO2 is coming from another source. The ocean contians orders of magnitude more CO2 than the atmosphere.

Think about what it means to your children if CO2 is cleaned from the air, how many will starve in the famines caused by lack of CO2!!!

By bhieb on 2/17/2009 4:38:50 PM , Rating: 3
Well they are man made holes just pop the cap and adjust the ppm to whatever suits you. Think of it as a big thermostat that we can adjust, and just like any AC the husband and wife (conserv / environ) will never agree on what temp it should be :)

The moral question then becomes if we can artificially adjust the temperature should we? Most (myself included) would say no, but how is it any less natural than detecting an asteroid collision and diverting it? Both are natural processes that have been occurring since the planet's birth so why not? If we can detect a global warming/cooling phase should we not try to control it, if it suits us?

By A Stoner on 2/17/2009 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 3
We are not changing temperature of the earth, we are changing temperatures of areas of the earth by land usage. not CO2. Take all the water out of the aquifer and the lack of evaporative cooling causes higher temperatures in that area, and maybe less rain further away. Cut down the trees here and you change the environment downwind of the lost forest. It is nothing about CO2.

By bhieb on 2/17/2009 5:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well that is another debate all together.

By ebakke on 2/17/2009 5:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
Most (myself included) would say no, but how is it any less natural than detecting an asteroid collision and diverting it?
An asteroid collision (of any significant size) is guaranteed to kill humans (which, let's be honest, are far more important to us than any other organism). The same can't be truthfully said of "climate change".

Modifying the temperature of the earth is something that literally every thing on the planet contributes to. It all interacts with everything else constantly. Those changes are neither good, nor bad. They're merely changes. To assume that we (humans) know the ideal state of the planet and that we have the power to somehow keep ourselves in that state is both incredibly arrogant, and incredibly naive.

By LostInLine on 2/17/2009 5:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is that we really do need to pump C02 into the ground in case we have a future shortage in the atmosphere. Then, we can just release it and fix the problem.

BTW, I was under the impression that at 8000ppm C02 was lethal to humans.

By masher2 on 2/17/2009 6:24:54 PM , Rating: 3
At 8000ppm? No. The astronauts on Apollo 13 were breathing over 100,000 ppm (10%)...enough to cause problems with mental concentration and risk of blackout -- but no one died. NIOSH sets a safety limit of 30,000 ppm, but that's a very conservative standard.

By HollyDOL on 2/18/2009 2:13:04 AM , Rating: 3
They would do more good planting forests for those $84M. Not only it continualy consumes CO2 and exhausts O2, but it's also reusable source as well - wood, paper, fuel...

Carter... you idiot.
By therealnickdanger on 2/17/2009 3:35:40 PM , Rating: 3
The DoE is the biggest joke in the history or government invention.

"Durrr, I have an idea, let's bury carbon underground, ground that already releases tons and tons of carbon naturally into the atmosphere!"

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By cscpianoman on 2/17/2009 4:04:03 PM , Rating: 3
It's like many other gov't programs, "Let's see if we can hide it!"

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By freeagle on 2/17/2009 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 1
The idea to pump pressurized CO2 into caverns and such is a total BS, and I really can't put it differently. Do they really think millions metric tons of the gas will just sit there and do squat? That it will have no effect on the potential micro-flora/fauna in the caverns and that these micro-life systems are somehow not connected to the life on ground? Or that it one day erupts, or causes local earthquakes? Normally, I prefer solving problems with words than violence, but they really deserve a kick or two.

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By SectionEight on 2/17/2009 4:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
These are not caverns like Carlsbad Caverns. The Mt. Simon Formation is a sandstone, and doesn't form caverns like limestone does. These underground storage 'caverns' are just the pore spaces between sand grains and have rocks above that can prevent fluid flow upwards and favorable structure to prevent lateral flow. This type of 'cavern' is essentially the same concept as, and may possibly have been, an oil reservoir.

The pores aren't empty waiting to be filled up, though. They are usually filled with hypersaline water, though the deeper you get the more compaction has occurred, so minerals will start filling in. Occasionally you get good stuff like oil or gas in there. CO2 will readily dissolve in the brines that fill the pore space, but I wonder if the DoE took into account the fact that you will at some point saturate the brine, or if they ran their calculations as if the pores were filled with air.

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By freeagle on 2/17/2009 5:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
The dissolving CO2 will make the underground waters acidic. Can it have any negative effect?

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By SectionEight on 2/17/2009 7:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not much, the grains and the cement in the rock are both quartz (silicon dioxide), which is resistant to most acids.

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By Spivonious on 2/17/2009 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
I bet if they did a study they'd find that humans and other animals are the biggest producers of CO2. Time to start cutting down on the population.

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By freeagle on 2/17/2009 4:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
Ocean and is the biggest producer of CO2.

RE: Carter... you idiot.
By mmntech on 2/17/2009 4:22:49 PM , Rating: 5
They already have been saying that. If you choose to have more than two kids, you're the devil apparently according to the eco-nutters.

I say we spend the $84 million to bury Al Gore, David Suzuki, James Hansen, and the members of the IPCC instead. Problem solved! We could put them in some kind of vault and leave them there to wait out the "apocalypse".

$84M = massive??
By thornburg on 2/17/2009 3:55:47 PM , Rating: 3
Since when is 84 million dollars massive? In the days of .8 trillion dollar bail-outs and stimulus bills, $84M is a drop in the bucket.

That would buy what, half of a jet fighter?

RE: $84M = massive??
By HostileEffect on 2/17/2009 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 5
Depends on the plane, older fighter maybe five of them, B2 bomber, about half.
I think the whole carbon scare is one big joke.

This is my trolling for the day, rate it whichever way.

RE: $84M = massive??
By mindless1 on 2/17/2009 9:12:28 PM , Rating: 4
It's not the 84mil, it's the precedent. First we have pseudo-science, then alarmist tree-huggers, then speculators looking to play an angle for profits, then a movement where people are seen as evil if they aren't sheep with ever-deep pockets to pay for nothing but feel-good sentiments by others who don't want to change their way of life instead of thrusting more burdens on others.

In a recession, do we really want to put money into burying gas, building up more infrastructure that will need repaired in the future, and buying lots of solar panels? We've taken a turn for the worst and the recession was early evidence of what we are still continuing to do wrong.

Instead of stop-gap measures we have to start thinking decades in advance like Japan et al.

Plant a tree?
By Steve1981 on 2/17/2009 3:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be curious to know if we spent that money just planting trees how much carbon that would deal with versus this project...

RE: Plant a tree?
By Kazairl2 on 2/17/2009 10:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
The environuts seem to dislike wood use and tree farms, but that seems to me to be a rather practical way to sequester carbon. You take a bunch of saplings, let them grow to maturity and soak up a lot of carbon, then harvest them when they reach maturity and they aren't taking up as much carbon dioxide. Then the wood can be used for buildings, furniture, and other things that will take the carbon out of circulation for a long time.

Actually, I found an May 19, 2008 article in Wired that says basically the same thing:

RE: Plant a tree?
By masher2 on 2/17/2009 11:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
Assuming sequestration is even necessary (a rather large and dicey assumption), there's an even cheaper method of so doing. Just pay farmers a small fee to take their agricultural waste, char it into charcoal, then plow it under and let the soil naturally sequester it.

Environmentalists don't wish to consider such biochar methods, however, because AGW is simply being used as a proxy to reduce what they believe is man's unwarranted impact on the planet. A cheap, simple solution prevents them from lobbying for what they really want -- less industrialization, manufacturing, and other activities that use energy.

RE: Plant a tree?
By Steve1981 on 2/18/2009 9:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming sequestration is even necessary (a rather large and dicey assumption)

I personally view AGW as something akin to Pascal's wager.

I don't expect everyone to turn into priests because they may face judgement some day, nor do I expect everyone to give up technology because we may raise the temperature of our planet.

However, if there are activities whereby we can reduce the spectre of AGW economically, if not generating a return on our investment, be it through nuclear power, biochar, tree farms, etc, I've got no problems doing it.

burying plant food
By TheDoc9 on 2/17/2009 3:37:52 PM , Rating: 3
At this point we can expect unlimited lawls from the people of the future.

RE: burying plant food
By TSS on 2/17/2009 5:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
i don't think they will be laughing more like crying or beeing very angry.

in the event this doesn't work and we aren't responsible for climate change, we've wasted piles and piles of money they could've used to pay off our debt.

in the event that it DOES work, and global warming is stopped.... what happens then? the temperature will drop.

last month i saw the same snow on the ground for 4 days for the first time in a decade or 2 here. it was freezing, not pleasant at all. we stop global warming, and that will be the future.

in which case we'll release the build up CO2 again, effectively making everything again a waste of money.

i really don't see how this could help us either way. why don't we try using all that money to irrigate a desert or something, plant crops there, use them to reduce CO2 and feed the populous/use themfor biofuel?

RE: burying plant food
By ebakke on 2/17/2009 6:02:52 PM , Rating: 3
Just like how we look back on the medieval medicine only to think, "What?! Leeches? 'Bleed it out'?? Yeah, drain a sick person of their blood...that'll work!"

Is this journey really necessary?
By zozzlhandler on 2/17/2009 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
Might we not spend 84M to help find out if CO2 is really a problem, before we start doing things like this? Its not yet settled whether we are warming, cooling, or just stewing in our own juices. While it is not wise to run an uncontrolled experiment of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere (pretty much what we are doing today), there is no convincing evidence that it is harmful, and it may even be beneficial. CO2 as a component of (putative) warming is unlikely to be a significant or controlling component (H2O vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). We might as well warm ourselves by burning money as undertake this sort of project without real knowledge of how planetary systems work.

By EglsFly on 2/17/2009 5:04:15 PM , Rating: 3
Global warming "caused by us humans", actually warming the planet to any significant amount is just a big bunch of Pelosi!

Why it's happening.
By mindless1 on 2/17/2009 9:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
Those in power want token gestures that address topics made popular by the media. They want to look busy doing something that takes little thought and at worst, appears to be a neutral-risk experiment.

Why? Because they don't have answers to our real societal problems, were not suited to their positions. Fundamental in the problem is we elect people based on saying something popular instead of demonstrating a track record of especially productive, useful, results.

In our last election we had Obama and McCain. What did either of them do, to suggest a high degree of competency in the areas that actually effect the majority of the US?

Post cold-war, we reached a point where diplomacy didn't matter as much anymore, we have to get beyond the current methods of selecting our leaders. Perhaps good old gradeschool tests with known correct answers to questions relevant to our issues. The best score on the test is the elected official for the position.

By vapore0n on 2/18/2009 8:15:29 AM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of the Futurama episode, where they throw the trash into space and let future generations worry about the problem when it comes back.

I think this will eventually bite us in the ass, big time. But by the time it does Ill be long dead. So I guess I shouldnt care. Right?

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki