Can You Sequester CO2

I believe Shell just abandoned the project in Norway.

I think the better question is; can you 'sequester' yourself from the environmental BS being passed out, unless you want to patent a workable process and grab your money before it dawns on the idiots that mother nature will slap you on the behind for playing with her. People with a hell of a lot more money than you and I have decided that it is not doable, why drain your resources? Life as we know it depends on CO2. Plants obsorb it, and emit oxygen. Well DUH.

I love Australia, but maybe just maybe some of the fine folks in power believe that the population has more sheep than herders. Canada, well, Canada is Canada, eh. The old 80/20 rule is alive and well! The 'experts' can't even tell you the weather one month from now, so why in the name of 'science' would you believe the current BS? The earths' temperature regulator is the weather. You stand a better chance predicting an earthquake, because it is localized, even though the forces involved are to a degree global.

Can anyone out there tell me how to sequester GW BS? We could use it as a biofuel and simultaneously reduce the emissions.

The bigger problem is that people are like sheep, hang a bell around the neck of one, and the rest follow. Thank God for the 80/20 rule. I guess there were not as many boys in the scouts as I thought there were. In our case, here in Arizona, all we have to do is look closely at the walls of the Grand Canyon to see the "severe" changes in the formations in the rock, as well as looking at the rings of big trees. Yes, we could probably do better that we do to not dirty up the environment. the problem is, it is not about the environment, it is about the money. I think it is called the bend over theory. Sadly enough, 80% of the people blindly follow stupidity. But then there are 20% of us that do not bend over and grab our ankles. I have worked on cleaning up our mess in Steel Mills, Coal and Gas fired power plants, as well as nuclear. It ain't quick, and it sure ain't cheap. The problem is, the rest of the world expects us to pay for it, and in the meantime badmouth the hell out of us, while trying to sneak in the back door to take advantage of what God has bestowed on us, in addition to what we have built up, which is plentiful.

I think the PC folks effected a stop to visibility reports we used to get on the radio, comparing LA to us. Our visibility, typically, >90 miles, LA <2 miles. Give Mother Nature her dues, most of the problem in LA is the basin it sits in, and the mountains west of it. "Smog" has hung over LA for as long as there has been written history, and it will always be, short of cutting down a very wide path through the mountains to change the wind currents. But then it would excerbate the Santa Ana wind problems. That is why I say the GW issue is smoke and mirrors, and we don't, nor will we ever have enough money to satisfy the idiots.

I have worked on cleaning up our mess in Steel Mills, Coal and Gas fired power plants, as well as nuclear. It ain't quick, and it sure ain't cheap.

Agreed. Btw, what the heck ever happened to Chernobl near Kiev. Has that mess ever been cleaned up? I never hear about it anymore, now that there is GW?

Getting good info out of Russia is about as easy as pulling hens' teeth. As we did not see things in the same light when I was in 'Nam, it is difficult to get accurate info, the buzzards know my name. shame on me. Reliable info is very hard to get, especially anything that has to do with their whoops. I have been told by very reliable people that it is still hot in the area. Dasvidania as far as living there.

The Russian authorities may not be able to help as Chernobyl is in the Ukraine.

We are applying for a grant to demonstrate that we can 'recover' carbon dioxide and use it to accelerate plant growth. Plants that can be used as renewable fuel - to replace fossil fuels and/or make ethanol.

Can you give more information on 'storing carbon in silicate-based rocks, and then making bricks from the result?' How are the bricks made?

George Fryer <geofryer@earthlink.net>

I agree: how the CO2 is captured into "rocks" is a huge question.

One key question is what by-product streams are produced? As a terribly simplistic example, making CaCO3 from CO2 and CaCl2 (e.g., from sea water) leaves a lot of Cl & oxygen ... . (Calcium carbonate is also a very soft mineral.) So I'm sure the research here is a lot more sophisticated than this. (I'm not an inorganic chemist, so I can't speculate further.)

Another is the energy cost of the conversion - how much additional CO2 do you have to generate (in the process of creating the energy that drives the capture)?

Also, this process had better not rely on any other raw materials that aren't about as cheap and definately as abundant as dirt and seawater. Otherwise, the trillions of tons of CO2 to be removed over this century alone would exhaust said raw material.

What is so exciting about this process though, is that is promises to create a stable captured form, which is even desirable as a building material. Of course, we need to hear more to know if these "rocks" would in fact be stable, and not something that would dissolve gradually in environmental contact with moisture, especially acid rain, or salt water.

As for the knee-jerk nay-sayers above, I suggest doing some research rather than just preaching doom for any who dare overturn Mother Nature's Great Plan. Respect for complex ecological systems is absolutely critical. But intelligent respect, not superstition.

For myself, I would like to hear our best geologic impact predictions from deep-well injecting compressed liquid CO2 into oil deposits. I'm no geologist, but I'm concerned about at least a couple ugly possibilities: 1) lubricating lesser-known slip plates, creating more frequent or more severe earthquakes (though more frequent might well mean much less severe); & 2) compressed CO2 working its way through geologic formations to have other unanticipated effects, like dissolving basic mineral formations, or converting harder minerals into softer ones, or even getting eventually up into the water table ... it might seem cute to have carbonated water on tap, but the ecologic impacts could be nightmarish.

I have also heard noodling about sending the same compressed liquid CO2 down to ocean depths where it would stay compressed (and denser than water) ... but wonder how long it would take to dissolve into the seawater above, leaking away back into the atmosphere, and possibly acidifyng the oceans far far worse than they have been so far. Acidic total collapse of ocean life is a "worst case scenario" I don't want to ever see.

Compared to these two options, making bricks sounds pretty intriguing !

Grow and use more Bamboo everywhere possible.