Scientists Consider Burying CO2 in Cold Storage

CO2 isSO VERY useful for rapid curing of Cement Fibre Boards, Precast Cement Concrete!

WHY COULD NOTthe world stop Burning of Bricks altogether(that much CO2 did not happen)---and instead built all walls out of Precast Lightweight Concrete cured fast withCO2?

Won't this be a double (GREEN)whammy?

Dear all, Dear Mr. Gore,

Why bother putting CO2 away, in any form (ice, pressurized...)

Our economy needs carbon. Everything made out of plastic and paper and even gasoline and diesel contain carbon. Why not use CO2 to regenerate Carbon? Why not use photosynthesis to transform CO2 into valuable hydrocarbons?

Algae can do this and produce up to about 34.000 liter of hydrocarbons per year with open ponds. When additionally fed with CO2 (from burning waste, from powerplant exhaust gases etc) they produce up to 140.000 Liters of hydrocarbons per hectare per year. On top of this Algae do not need agricultural land. This is important as we don't know where we are going with changing climate, flooding (meaning less available fertile land) and big droughts. Algae grow in ponds that can be put in many places and do not need deep water. Who knows : Louisiana and BanglaDesh may become the biggest algaefuel producing nations in the world :-).

So, we have a choice to use these hydrocarbons for making plastics, carbon fibers, biofuel, whatsoever. This is a much better solution than storing CO2. Putting CO2 away as ice contains risks as are finding out russian scientist today. When local temperatures change the CO2 could eventually (in 1000 years perhaps, who knows) be released. The current melting of the russian permafrost is releasing important amounts of CH4 which also has greenhouse gas effects , but much stronger than CO2 and this is also something to worry about. I still am trying to lay my hand on hard data , excuse me for not giving them here.

When we use algae for hydrocarbon production we solve the CO2 problem by getting it out of the atmosphere. But if we decide to do this production in underdeveloped countries we also give them a chance to develop their economy. Eventually they will be able to buy products from the rich countries. This economical model for hydrocarbons already exists! Economical development of the Gulf states has worked fine for the last 60 years and perhaps we are exagerating by still continuing this economical developement as they have become richer than us. (They buy products from rich countries like Mercedes', BMWs, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Caddilacs, Ford GT40s, Bugattis, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Dior etc and even more than they really need actually.)

As algae can grow virtually anywhere as long as there is water and the right temperature, most countries can become energy self sufficient. Then we also become independent from Oil producing countries that are at war or politically unstable and thus partly responsible for high fuel prices.

Africa and South America could be the next regions to be economically developed on the basis of hydrocarbons from biofuels. This creates jobs over there and it would in turn reduce illegal migration to richer regions such as NAFTA and Europe.

Of course we can also develop this economy in our own countries. There is plenty of space available in the USA and in Europe.

I am truely convinced that being smart with CO2 can solve many problems.

I hope this message can help you and the leaders of the world make the right decisions.

Yours faithfully

Randolph Toom

"Algae can do this and produce up to about 34.000 liter of hydrocarbons per year with open ponds."

The problem is in scaling such an application to have any significant effect. However, MIT researchers have developed a way to use this approach to capture the CO2 at the source. http://web.mit.edu/erc/campus/index.html

One issue with this approach is that it is near-neutral only in the secondary stages. If the primary combustion is from fossil fuels, then that stage produces a positive contribution to the CO2 budget. This all points to how important it is to use a systems approach that accounts for all of the variables and consequences.

WELL SAID!

If we could just reclaim/recycle a small % of our industrial CO₂ emissions at least once, it could make a great difference.

"Algae farm" siting adjacent to the CO₂ sources will be an interesting challenge based on most developed countries' land use strategies.

The algae farm should not be close to the CO2 source.

The CO2 source should be integrated into the algae farm system.

The carbon should be cycled within the system as should the water and the oxygen.

This is what I call a Photo-Bio-Voltaic Reactor.

How does it work?

An algae pond absorbs the CO2 from the CO2 source. The algae absorb the CO2 from the water. The photosynthesis reaction transforms CO2 in hydrocarbons and O2 under the influence of sunlight. The hydrocarbon containing algae multiply and continue this process. Meanwhile algae are extracted from the pond. The liquid and solig hydrocarbons are extracted and prepared for use in a combustion engine. The liquid fuel can be stored in a buffer (TANK). A combustion engine runs on this fuel and drives a generator but also emits exhaust gases with CO2 content. Electricity is taken from the generator and sold to the grid. The CO2 rich exhaust gas is injected into the pond to feed the algae and to stir the whole for better photosynthesis. Carbon thus runs in closed cycle. The oxygen in the reaction also runs in closed cycle. Between the air above the pond and the engine. The water is not taking part in the reaction but should not leave the system by evaporation (put transparent film or glass above the pond)

In a way you transform sunlight into electricity, with a biologic intermediate step. This has an advantage over pure photovoltaics that the electricity production can continue during night time at NO EXTRA COST and generator output can be easily adapted to peaks in demand.

This system could even function in the middle of the desert. Some scientists calculated that it would require only 10% of the Sonara desert's surface to supply all USA fuel needs... Delocalizing would be best of course so that the electricity grid would be quite homogeneous and not suffer from overloads and reduced efficiencies.

According to one of my sources the whole open pond system including fuel processing equipement costs around 40000 USD per hectare to which should be added the generator set. Annual operational cost are about 12000 USD These figures should be adapted for enclosed system (blocking evaporation)

Fundamentally we can distinguish two different systems using photo-bio-voltaics.

The open pond system can capture CO2 from the atmosphere and can thus be used to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hydrocarbons become available for plastics and other industries but for vehicles with IC engines as well. The capture of CO2 is an advantage over photovoltaics. But only if we decide to use the carbon as a solid somewhere and not burn it again.

The closed system does not capture CO2 from the atmosphere but offers higher power output (relative to 140.000 liters of biofuel per hectare per year). I would like to see new powerplants built on this system instead of those running on fossil coal or fossil gaz that dig up carbon from underground and emit CO2 into the atmosphere, whatever their efficiency may be. This system is in direct competition with photovoltaics.

As an alternative to Waste-to-liquid systems, burning our daily waste that contains a lot of carbon can be used to feed the photo-bio-reactors. This low end technology can do the job all over the world.

The open and closed photo-bio-voltaic systems together can help us solve the energy problem and the CO2 problem. AT AFFORDABLE COST !!!

"How does it work?"

Interesting. Can you provide links to furthur explanations of these processes?

Hmm, spend energy to convert CO2 to a useable carbon source, to recover and save energy and reduce CO2 in atmosphere. This would require more energy than would ever be derived from the process, so i guess the question becomes where do we get the huge amounts of extra energy?

The added energy comes from the sunlight. It is transformed into chemical energy by the photosynthesis process.

Isn't algae just a temporary trap for the CO2, not as good of an energy source. So it is just a way to slow the transfer of Carbon from the soil into the atmosphere. Much of the Carbon on earth is sequestered as a form of rock, e.g. dolostone or limestone. Geologic sinks are very long term sequestrations in terms of millenia, plants squester for typically the period the live and decay (except if the are in a swamp and get buried. It sounds like you are just looking at attenuating (slowing) the rate of carbon transfer back to the atmosphere by a very small amount. Remember plants of any form trap relatively small amounts of the all the CO2 present around them, and the are only effective when they have sunlight (at night they function like any other higher life form)

Algae is not a solution. Even thick foliage and new forests cannot.

You rightly said --Limestone-Dolomite-Coal-oil-gas all seqesteredhuge CO2 since planet Earth solidified.

Now mismanaged lifestyle is upsetting every balance-and humanity is heading for disaster--unless they quickly Stop & Reverse.

That is why I suggested the Double whammy in my earlier post.

One of the main reasons that we burn fossil fuel is for its energy content. Coal and gaz in powerstations, gasoline and diesel in cars, kerosine in planes are all for energy. Energy that you consume as electricity through the grid and energy that you dissipate when driving a car or taking a plane.

Other reasons why we dig up fossil fuel, oil but also coal and gaz, is to make things, usually solid. Plastics, cosmetics, asphalt, tyres, furniture, parts for cars, boats and other vehicles, the housing of your computer, bottles, isolation material, and so many things etc.

When these "things" are taken out of service and then destroyed, we very often burn the material (waste incinerators). Another option is a discharge where the material will heap up and stay for thousands of years. In the case of burning we can still make use of the residual energy content with city heating systems however. But the carbon goes into the atmosphere as CO2...

When we use algae to make hydrocarbons and put the carbon into things that last, the carbon originates from the atmosphere and not from deep wells. Thus it reduces CO2 level in the atmosphere. So it is just a matter of stopping to dig up carbon and putting atmospheric carbon back into solids/liquids that we use and store on the surface or underground.

An additional advantage of some high performance algae is that they can also convert NOx into N2 and O2 during nighttime.

I am aware that stabilizing and later also bringing down CO2 level in the atmosphere will take some time.

BUT IF WE DON'T START DOING IT, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN... HA