Carbon Storage Stymied

There has been some discussion of another method. I like your idea better, and so do others in the linked thread.

Well wait a second.That 28 billion tons per year has to go somewhere. It was taken from underground deposits and then put into the atmosphere. We're swimming in it.

28 billion tons per year x 20 years (assuming no increase, which is not realistic) adds up to 560 billion tons total in a system containing 390 to 520 billion tons. That's a significant increase!

Extrapolate for 100 years further fossil fuel use, and we will have added 2800 billion tons to a system of 390 to 520 billion tons. THAT is the path we're on. CO2 levels this century could rise from ~380 ppm (we were at 280 ppm 100 yrs ago) to 500 or 800 or over 1000 ppm quite easily as many other countries ramp up to our American CO2 emission levels and we increase as well.

The CO2 doesn't magically disappear. About 2/3 remains in the atmosphere. The rest is nicely absorbed by surface ocean water which already holds about 1500 billion tons. The deep ocean water that takes hundreds of years to turn over holds 38,000 billion tons, but it will take hundreds of years to absorb it.

What are the affects of increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and surface ocean water levels by 50% to 100% or more? I don't know. But it will cause change. And people don't like change. Are there more pressing emergencies? Probably. But the risk of very significant change exists, though no one knows the probability level of its occurrence.

Can we inject that much CO2 into the ground safely? Probably not since the number of sites are just too limited and the risks mentioned by others are very real. Right now, if we pumped all the CO2 from power plants around we would move 500% more liquid CO2 than we move oil in the USA today. That's insane.

So what's the practical answer to removing CO2 from the atmosphere? Don't emit it in the first place. I propose: 1. increased efficiency, 2. renewable energy, 3. nuclear energy, and 4. Bio-fuels from non-food sources for liquid fuels as required (airplanes, ships, cars) as the only long term solutions.

One way or another, in 100 to 200 years, these finite fossil fuels will be gone anyway. They will either have been consumed or outlawed. Just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

If it were to turn out that per area, asphalt could sequester more carbon than forest--then the thing to do would be cut down trees and pave more area....

--Joni Mitchell

CO2 is NOT a problem or, its a "problem"...looking...for a EU-taxing "solution!" You act like CO2 can't be separated, moved around. Drop the "C" from the CO2, and you have more O2, which will support more humans (--horrors...NOT!). Where do you GET the idea that oil is finite? Oil is a distillate of Methane, under very high pressure, in the abscence of an oxidant. OIL IS LIMITLESS, because its being formed as I type. There are billions of years of oil around. Many times, oil wells, having been dry for years suddenly (over months & years) fill-up. Oil is NOT a "fossil-fuel"! Carbons and Hydrogens can be manipulated, almost any way we desire. Need oil & have Methane? Pressurize the Methane, and oil distills from it, just as it does in Nature. Need gas and have coal? Water & coal & high-pressure will product hi-octane aviation gas, if needed. WWII would NOT have started, but for the 1926 New Jersey Standard Oil Patents given to the Wiemar Republic, that, under Hitler, became Nazi Germany. Those patents were a "recipe" to make hi-test aviation fuel from coal. From the mid-30s to the end of may, 1945, Germany was making over 50,000gals of aircraft fuel from coal. Free-ranging allied fighter-bombers kept that gas from getting to Luftwaffe airfields, where the Me 262s could shoot-down over 10% of our bomber force per raid. Most of them(262s) were strafed on the ground, landing/taking-off. Once they were in the air, we could only catch them if we were in a dive. At the losses we were taking when the 262s attacked, in 10 raids, the 8th air force would have ceased to exist, all our bombers would have been shot down. Need H2, can crack coal, oil, etc. The World is AWASH...with oil. In California, Greens hate oil, but don't mind it being pumped-up, so the natural seepage doesn't ruin the surfing. The USA has more reserves than all the middle east oil, but the Greens have locked it up. The USA could be an OPEC nation. Hemp seeds can be processed to glean the hydro-carbons in Jet fuel, so if we ever DID "run out", BIO-MASS... would allow hundreds of millions of cars, trucks, Jets, and motorcycles to have all the fuel they need. with all the supposed TONS of Co2, the air's getting cleaner, more breathible. One can park a ULEV Honda coupe on a California mountain-top. Start the engine, leaving it there, and the air coming out of the exhaust pipe will be cleaner than the air coming into the Honda's engine. Plants LOVE CO2! I envision enhanced "grow-rooms" where high levels of Co2 will produce great plants, flowers, edibles, & fuel.

Should the federal government jump-start a national network? Absolutley NO! I have yet to see any one come up with a viable way of capturing Co2 to store it, hide it away for some future release/storage. Dumb idea, all it is: Smoke and mirrors, and Cha-Ching$$ the tax payers once again funding stupid projects. Only Mother Earth can handle this issue to a point. When do we cross the line? Can we get a do over?

Dear Friends: The EPA had better watch its step, because it is likely to be DEFUNDED,if it tries to implement the STUPID, MORONIC, "capture" requirements, that industry experts say is DESIGNED to destroy the REST of the Energy sector of the US. The EPA has COST O'Bama 20-50K union votes(--easily, a victory margin in many states) by obstructing drilling and mining. O'Bama & Hillary, both attended a Bilderberger meeting, before his election, slipping his press entourage for the first & ONLY time since, so no reportage of their attendance would be reported to "embarrass" these presumed "LOGAN-offenders". In that meeting, O'Bama was reportedly TOLD to crash the US economy/dollar, and with his political "Idiot-ology" of taxing AND increasingly-regulating businesses, businesses continue to sit on BILLIONS of cash reserves, until they can figure out a way to avoid a doubling/tripling of the costs of doing business. Most businesses, are operating on a miniscle margin of 1.5-2.0% profit, and if they aren't garanteed that much, they know they're just throwing good money after bad,--that ALL will be lost if those minimum levels of profit can't be depended on. The costing of a business is also made MORE problematic with the addition of O'Bama-Care, because health-care costs would double-triple over current plans. CO2 sequestration is no longer necessary, because "climate change" is NOT anthropomorphic, as temperature levels on Earth have been warmer in the past in the ABSCENCE of: electric generation, cars, factories. The EPA is a "Terror-organ", imo, and if it doesn't "behave" it WILL be defunded/its budgets slashed,--its staffs sundered to the wind in other bureaus, IF...they're lucky. AEP is NO VICTIM, but is unwilling to assume other mandates that would tie them to a stupid concept, that if implemented, will NOT make a significant change in climate change. AEP is being a "responsible citizen in its community." Just because a sum of money is AVAILABLE, does NOT mean it should be used! We might as well engineer "screen-doors" in the pressure-hulls of deep-diving submarines! That way, with the pumps working full-on at all times, the subs could be easily located & sunk by the enemy, due to the cavitation-DIN trying to maintain water-tight integrity!

Is "O'Bama" some Irish dude from the State of Alabama?

I don't think you should be applying the words STUPID, MORONIC to other ideas and/or persons.

Read post 3 again! That's how it's done. Rude on your day off are we? Come on mate, pull your self together.

I DID like #3.

Boy, you sure know how to jump to unjustified conclusions.

OK. So it's captured. It's stored. "Sequestered", or something similar-sounding.

What happens next?

Unlike nuclear waste, CO₂ doesn't have a half-life!

Oh quit going and asking reasonable questions again. It just screws up the whole debate.

Its sort of like how basic math can completely ruin an otherwise highly profitable political scam/scheme.

Mr Slack: Don't you wish to buy a horse to pull your car around, saving gas? Being from Britain where gas is already expensive, you're probably getting 40mpgal or better. A horse would be totally UN-NECESSARY! But if you HAD, a horse, the Bleeding govt. could charge you all sorts of additional fees, so they'd have another revenue-stream,--another source of money. That's the idea with Sequestration. Like a horse for your car, it isn't necessary--its merely a way to steal more Euros out of your pockets. Climate change is NOT proven, anthropomorphic (man caused),so WHY should YOU be taxed for schemes that "capture-carbon"? Schemes which won't CHANGE the atmosphere a bit, except if you are made to feel guilty over this new fraud, maybe giving-away more of your money will be a type of therapy. CO2 is no where NEAR as deliterious as nuclear waste--you don't have to "worry" about CO2, if we have more CO2, the third world will be able to grow more crops and feed themselves.