Carbon dioxide storage

Possibly the Chia Coat?

Well I counted at least 10 times you said pay so that let's us know your political affilliation-there are mountains of CO2 trapped in Colorado that are being piped to Texas to be used no costs involved-the biggest user of CO2 is the worlds Oceans and the second biggest user is plants (including the big ones called trees). How do we tax them?

Your reference to cost and paying is very sophmorish in a society that benifits from a product the costs are paid by the consumer and if the costs are too high then the consumer has the right not to buy that carbonated beverage . How do you propose to save the world when it can correct it's problems better by itself than with human meddling!!

There is no need to produce CO₂ deliberately to then sequester it - that is totally counter-productive.

Plants and algae use CO₂, so the best method of reducing CO₂ levels is by increasing the amount of plant life on the planet. Tax the products which produce/contain CO₂, and use that money to vegetate areas where no plants can currently grow.

No-one will agree to another 15-25% if their income being taken in order to sort out some company's pollution - The Polluter Pays.

My problem with sequestering CO₂ is that we are also sequestering O₂, something that many of us find to be quire useful.

Composition of air includes <1% CO₂, and oxygen ~20%, so even if we were daft enough to remove ALL CO₂ from the air, and used the same amount of oxygen to do this, we would still have 19% oxygen to breathe - not a problem, as humans can survive on that.

...if we were daft enough to remove ALL CO₂ from the air...

then plants could not photosynthesise and would die out, shortly followed by animal life, including humans.

Oh, I think there'd be a few bacteria and fungi around to munch on the remains.

Let's hear it for anaerobia!!!

Indeed, but not for lack of oxygen.

I agree...with the plants story...we should pass a law...every tree or bush removed in commercial or civilized movements...govt or industry or individual must replace with three of the same items...creation physics say we must do so! lol

But serious...do the plant replacement law...thats what I suggest...all countries!

In a free market system the seller cannot force a buyer to buy the seller's product. In a socialist/communistitc/leftists system we are all forced to buy the seller's product whether we want to or not. The seller has such a bad idea or product that he must get the government's army, which is for the protection of individual inalianable rights, to force that invidivdual to buy their unwanted product. The unwanted product is really just a vehicle to hide the actual theft or transfer from the poor individual via taxes to the connected elite and the empire they stand on top of.

As for co2, the more we produce up to 1200 ppm the better and greener the planet will be. Co2 is the fuel of plants and has value. Would you bury gold in the ground? of course not! We should actually pay people to make co2 and increase the concentration in the air, if such were even possible (it is not). All coal fire plants should be next to farms, and the co2 injected into the crops during watering to increase co2 locally. This would alone produce so much food as to feed many times (2-3) the current human population.

The only reason for co2 storage is to use it later. It has real market value. Co2 is not a poison or harmful gas. It is central to life on this planet and is the "throttle" of life itself. If you want to kill life, remove co2. If you want to increase life produce co2 cleanly with a controlled and accurate burn.

You cannot achieve a clean and accurate burn in an engine that has a classibcal crank. It is not possible, without preheating, to go from cold to normal opeating temperatures without large smog being produced when a crank is used.

"Co2 is not a poison or harmful gas" - but it is dangerous to human health above ~3% (3000ppm). Even at the current levels, people have medical problems due to various toxins in the air - the level of CO₂ being a contributing factor.

The rate of increase IS important, as we need time to acclimatise to increased levels, and the ways most things are burnt production of other, more dangerous, chemicals.

You state that 1200ppm is the ideal, but think that it should be reached as soon as possible. Try this experiment:

Get in your car and rev the engine to 5000rpm - as quickly as possible, BUT never exceeding that value, and then keep it at exactly that value for 5 minutes.

Please feel free to report back on your findings.

Was your instruction complete? It appears you forgot to specify something in your 5 minute 5,000 rpm engine rev test. Where would you suggest he direct he the exhaust?

That IS the question.

Planting thousands of millions of endemic trees all over the world, that is the obvious solution to the green house effect. ¿Why All Gore does not even mention this obvious solution?

This solution must be assumed soon by humanity before Mother Nature does in a much violent manner, because it is predictable that above some CO2 % threshold level a new irreversible carboniferous period will be triggered, because it has an hysteretic behavior, and will self feed to escalate very fast to a new equilibrium point.

After the carboniferous period is triggered, the CO2 % will be droved to a new stable point lower than current level, but temperature will continue rising due to the direct absorption of solar heat by the increased biomass.

Looking the Earth from above, it is evident that forests reflect less solar radiation than deserts. Right now in Brazil some trees have reached heights never seen before.

Carboniferous forest are not a yoke, they are so dense that you may not travel through a carboniferous forest unless you can fly, and a number of animal, insect and bacteria species that are waiting for their glory moment will come up, and we will not be prepared to adapt ourselves at that fast pace.

Jaime Soto Figueroa

http://www.matharts.cl/

Hi Anonymous Poster,

Your comments are great. Please do get an avatar so that we may recognise you by it. I agree with many of your observations. By the way the CO2 content of the atmosphere is around 300 - 400 ppm. They say it is on the increase. Over 100's of million of years it has been much higher than this. Indeed it has been much higher at various phases of the earths' history.

Regarding extraction of CO2 from the air, there is an ambitious company in the UK that has a pilot plant for doing precicely this and they currently have a pilot plant that successfully produces around 15 litres per day of synthetic liquid fuel. They are looking for venture capital to scale up to semi-commercial level. I have no doubt that the process works. My concern has been the economic feasibility of such a venture. They have publshed considereable material on the internet on this project.

So far I could not find huge flaws in their economics. But I must say I have not yet done a full investigation thereof. On the other hand, I wonder why they simply do not use CO2 from Coal Power Stations. This is availbe in more concentrated form.

This whole concept could really be categorised under the banner of CO2 Recycling. Do note that the overall process is quite complex in the sense that it requires linking of several industrial plants.

One thing that the CO2 Antagonists have not had a serious look at is this: What is the minimum level of CO2 that nature needs in order to sustain itself? Does anyone have an Idea?

How about you and your children and your children's children get to live without the effect of global warming, you money grubbing simpleton.

Extra CO2 = more biomass grown and larger plants = higher steady state CO2 turnover. Yields are indeed higher due to this.

I am interested to see the results of the lower sunspot level we are entering versus global warming, as they are countervailing trends. It may end up moderating things and when the sunspot cycle ramps up we will reap the benefit of additive factors.

Should be interesting

Apart from the jokers , this is a very interesting subject. Has any one knowledge or is actually working on the use of lime as a CO2 absorbant ?

I am told by a fellow Engineering Associate that this method has a great deal of merit and potential for the control of excessive CO2 emission from coal fired power stations. I am not a believer in its undergound storage though have heard of its under water potential dissipation at great depth. Is this an idea that will pollute that area as well ?

It is only with the open debate that is taking place that a solution will be found.

So lets paraphrase the Philosopher and : get it done !

Any comments?

As previously stated the worlds oceans are the number one user of co2 and producer of o2 if co2 is injected what will be the final outcome keeping in mind that algae blooms in the wrong place can produce "El Ninos" and if the wrong kind of algae blooms then you can have a red tide. Funny how such a simple idea can become so complex if ALL parameters are considered.

how not to store CO2!

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