Previous in Forum: The Seven Wonders of the Modern World   Next in Forum: Bearing Grease
Close
Close
Close
77 comments
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1

Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

05/30/2008 9:00 AM

Mates,

I watch the program on the Discovery Channel again, it said something about building man made trees (with NaOH) to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and pump them to the bottom of deep oceans, where CO2 would be subjected to huge pressure, turn to very dense and become heavier than water, remain there for hundreds of centuries!

I am disturb as we all know that cars of consuming oxygen to produce this green house gas, the CO2, taking them out of the atmosphere is great but, put the away permenantly is to say removing those consumed oxygen permenantly away from the atmosphere. Do I miss out something? Would that meaning a process of depleting the atmosphere with oxygen? Are we jumping out of a pan into fire?

Appreciate you all help telling me more about this!

Cheers,

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
3
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 32049
Good Answers: 838
#1

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/30/2008 9:19 AM

OK. So, where does the energy needed to make NaOH come from (rhetorical question, for illustrative purposes)? Thermal power stations?

The only way forward is to rely on the planet's energy income instead of its reserves.

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#2
In reply to #1

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/30/2008 1:47 PM

Hi PWSlack,

Energy is also a concern, the worst thing is, with millions of cars growing in the developing countries, oxygen is continuously being consumed and converted to CO2, and these people were saying removing these CO2 and hence the originally used O2 permanently away! What are we going to breath eventually?

Do they know what they are doing or do I miss out something?

Cheers,

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#17
In reply to #2

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/31/2008 9:09 PM

Do they know what they are doing or do I miss out something?

No, you didn't miss anything. If they said that they are plain nuts...

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#29
In reply to #17

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 10:25 AM

Thanks! I am clearer now!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 32049
Good Answers: 838
#44
In reply to #2

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 5:17 AM

Quite.

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply
Guru
Australia - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 1098
Good Answers: 23
#5
In reply to #1

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/30/2008 11:44 PM

The only way forward is to rely on the planet's energy income instead of its reserves.

I like that so simple so obvious

__________________
Dont get on to the roundabout if you dont know how to get off
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Connecticut shoreline
Posts: 67
Good Answers: 5
#3

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/30/2008 4:02 PM

Before working on a solution, I'd want concrete proof that there is a problem to begin with.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#18
In reply to #3

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/01/2008 1:21 AM

May be you can prove it like what are described in the following:

Lock yourself in a sealed room with a large jar of sodium hydroxide (NaOH), which can be obtained by dissolving sodium metal into water. Burn something inside the room until this burning stuffs extinguished itself because oxygen is used up.

Right after the carbon dioxide is so generated, they would be absorbed by the NaOH you brought along with. Pressure inside the room drop, as about 1/5 of the total volume of air inside the room were removed (they are oxygen).

What would happen to you?

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#19
In reply to #18

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/01/2008 1:23 AM

Oh, this is only hypothetical, don't do it! It would kill yourself!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
2
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#4

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/30/2008 4:04 PM

The left over product from NaOH absorbing the C from CO2 is soda ash which is used in a lot of applications. Most of which today is mined. Question is can we use all the soda ash this process will produce is making a dent in the CO2 levels of our atmosphere?

I think a better way to reduce CO2 levels would be to seed with trees the land held in permafrost to the north as the temperature increases and it recedes.

Trees for the future.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Anonymous Poster
#7
In reply to #4

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/31/2008 12:30 PM

Just curious-- What kind of trees do you propose? How do we know the water will remain after released from ice phase? What of the initial fertility of any reclaimed permafrost soil? If permafrost is converted to bog, won't it stell be too cool for mangroves? Once forested, what about the decaying trees that die? Etc?

Just something for thought. Not meant to support or refute.

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#10
In reply to #7

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/31/2008 2:26 PM

How about the type of pines that are dieing off due to the bore worm infestation because the winters are too warm to kill the bore worms.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#16
In reply to #10

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/31/2008 6:45 PM

Okay. So we take seeds from where the pine bark beetles are making mid-latitude temperate pine and mixed forests die instead of making them healthier, burn them so they'll germinate, leap frog over the spruces, and plant pines in thawed permafrost soil. Assuming we solve the soil infertility, low soil oxygen, and dry climate/low-water resource problem to achieve viable pine stands...what about the pines lost in their normal biome, due both to infestation and to poleward advancing heat/drought?

Would we not still have no net gain? Or, still, a net loss? And who knows? Maybe the borers (and fungi), losing their pine niche, will adapt and go after the northern needle leaf's (spruce).

I guess the point is, if there's a "natural" solution, it might be a very long time in coming...maybe too long. Or, if the temperate forest wild fire trend continues at present rate, perhaps we'll get enough sun blockage to lower global temperatures to counteract greenhouse warming. People probably won't live as long breathing such an atmosphere (mortality and fertility rates will reverse), but a reduction in population seems to be in the offing anyway...and living less long might be preferable to dying of starvation at any age.

Just some musings.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#21
In reply to #16

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/01/2008 1:40 AM

Does this mean, we are actually introducing something to kill human being to thin out the need for oxygen consumption, instead of improving the condition for us the live in?

Taking oxygen off would then instigate the thrive of anaerobic breathing human, or non-human?

Really a point!

AC Wing

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#14
In reply to #4

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/31/2008 3:20 PM

CO2+2NaOH-->Na2CO3+H2O, in the first place,

CO2+Na2CO3+H2O-->2NaHCO3 when excess CO2 reacts with sodium carbonate, Na2CO3.

I don't know if my O-level Chemistry is still staying with me, that is as far as I can remember and as far as I know.

They were saying that they are going to sink these to the bottom of deep stable Oceans.

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#20
In reply to #14

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/01/2008 1:28 AM

My apologies, they said the ground the CO2, not Sodium hypo-carbonates. I was really exhausted last night. So, I believe they reverted the processes before grounding the CO2, probably by warming.

Of course, this is energy not sound, and it deprive us from the oxygen we are breathing, as many of you pointed out!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 32049
Good Answers: 838
#45
In reply to #14

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 5:20 AM

<...going to sink these to the bottom of deep stable Oceans....>

...thereby "sweeping the dust under the carpet", perhaps?

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#50
In reply to #45

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 12:29 PM

Very very true!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey U.S.A.
Posts: 1114
Good Answers: 38
#6

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/31/2008 8:15 AM

Okay! So we put all the CO2 at the bottom of the ocean? All the trees that use CO2 and release oxygen DIE from lack of CO2. We all DIE from lack of O2? Sounds like a bad idea. Unless your a cockroach and plan to outsurvive all other creatures.

__________________
The last fight was my fault. My wife asked "What's on the TV?" I said "Dust!"
Register to Reply
2
Anonymous Poster
#8

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/31/2008 12:35 PM

An interesting riddle, given that most of the Oxygen is presently not in the atmosphere. If it's a genuine (as in valid) problem, then can a way be thought of to release oxygen from Earth's crust (where most of it resides) as atmospheric oxygen is stored underseas?

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#13
In reply to #8

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/31/2008 3:05 PM

If that doesn't cause any other problems!

Cheers,

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
2
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#22
In reply to #13

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/01/2008 10:56 AM

Anything that we do as an effects. It may or may not be considered a problem depending on the point of view. Nature doesn't have any problem with doing whatever it pleases because life always adapts. When a volcano erupts, it can destroy many life forms and change the environment. In our short term vision, it is a catastrophe. But in the long term, the most fertile pieces of land are former volcano.

The problem with human is that we are looking for a status quo. We assume that the present environment is the best their can be. Nature changes. Sometimes very quickly. Lives are destroyed to make room for new life. The strongest and best adapted survive.

Are we wasting more energy trying to avoid the inevitable than it would cost to adapt to the new environment and maybe help other species to thrive?

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany 49° 26' N, 7° 46' O
Posts: 1950
Good Answers: 109
#9

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/31/2008 1:59 PM

Hi,

this shall get a medal for most ridiculous suggestion.

If a large amount of CO2 is accumulated and a gas from below (volcanic or other) is seeping through then some upwelling of water, gas and liquid C02 will start.

Oxygen, nitrogen or noble gases will expand with going up. CO2 will begin bubbling when pressure is low enough: below 32bar or above 3200m deep.

With expanding gas more water plus liquid CO2 is driven up.

With crossing the minimum pressure where CO2 can be liquid there will be a dramatic increase in upwards driving force.

In total a big fountain of CO2 driven water will burst at the surface.

This will kill there any animal life including poor stupid? humans.

This has happened to the natural CO2 deposit in a deep crater-lake in a West-African volcano. This is now artificially vented to prevent a new burst.

RHABE

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Anonymous Poster
#15
In reply to #9

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

05/31/2008 6:03 PM

Give'm a medal.

Register to Reply
2
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#11

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/31/2008 2:46 PM

Based on what has been written on other threads an this one, the best solution we presently have is to help plants do their work. This way they will use the solar energy to convert the CO2 into O2 and fibres that will eventually be buried. This is a slow process but it has worked marvelously for millions of years.

Presently we are destroying millions of Km2 of forest all around the planet. This increases the desertification which participates in the heating process. There is nothing like a forest to cool down the earth. Forests also act as sponges and reduce flodding problems.

I am personally planting as many trees as possible on my property and municipal park nearby. I try to open up people's eyes to the de-forestation problem. Hopefully that will compensate for the CO2 that I produce.

One immediate result, my little area of suburb is more pleasing to live in year after year. Birds and some wild life have returned. The cost? A little bit of work to spread the small trees that now come up naturally around the established ones.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#12
In reply to #11

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

05/31/2008 3:02 PM

I love this idea far more than the man make tree (NaOH). Wonder if there are other idea, love to read them!

Cheers,

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
2
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#23

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/01/2008 12:31 PM

Unfortunately, most people try to solve the symptom without solving the cause. CO2 comes from so many sources that are not human produced that we are not the main contributor. Right now, the Medias, politicos, NGOs are stuck on CO2 because it brings them money and power over the masses. Just look at the stupid CO2 credit exchange bourse. Just another way for a group to make money on our back. Human as a group can only handle simple problems. The "leaders" have chosen CO2 as the bad guy and all the efforts are concentrated on it. Meanwhile the real cause of the problem goes un-noticed.

The CO2 "problem" can easily be handled by nature. Let the forests grow back. Plant trees in the cities, stop de-forestation, let the ocean life grow again. To do this, we all need to make multiple small changes in our lifestyle. The various industries have to change their mentality. This is where it is difficult. We are looking for a little pill that will cure it all. Nature uses diversity to solve problems. It always works. Who are we to believe that we can do better?

One of the root causes for the situation we are in is the over-consumption at all level coupled to the lack of waste recycling process. Nature has been consuming the sun's energy for millions of years but has also put in place recycling facilities. Every life form waste is another's food. This way, the sun's energy that is almost the only source of energy on the planet (geothermal and nuclear have only a small effect on life) has been accumulated and re-used for millions of years. This is why there is so much energy stored in life forms. It all comes from the sun.

Human have extracted themselves from this cycle. We consume more than our share of energy and most of our wastes are lost or un-usable to other life forms. We are a net drain on nature's living battery. Eventually the battery will be too low and life as we know it will collapse.

We need to change our ways to become a user / transformer of energy just like the other life forms on earth. This doesn't mean returning to caves. Many other animals do adapt their environments to their needs. The difference it that their work usually benefit the environment on the long term. Take a beaver family. They build a dam on a small stream and create an artificial lake. This destroys a field and kill trees but also create a place for ducks, fish, frogs... Eventually, all the trees are consumed and the beavers move somewhere else. The lake returns to a stream, this destroys the environment again if you are looking for a frog population status quo. But it doesn't matter because this creates room for new trees that will grow very well in the fertile ground that was accumulated at the bottom of the artificial lake. At the end, the beavers have destroyed the environment twice but the end result is a more fertile plot of land with a gain in life energy and an increase in diversity. Same thing apply to termites, ants colony, bird nests...

Nature doesn't mind destruction and transformations as long as the energy is still accumulated, more life will come out of it.

If you really want to make human contributors to nature's energy battery instead of the abusers we presently are, without returning to caves, we need to do the following:

1-Stop using inert plastic and make it biodegradable in a way that it will become a fertilizer like compost. This way nature will extract the energy left in it and return it into the life cycle. Energy lost in the days of the dinosaurs will be back in the loop.

2-Let the forces of the market generate new ways of using and re-cycling energy. Subsidies to make ethanol are as bad as gasoline price subsidies in most of Asia. If Asian had to pay the real price, the oil consumption would be reduced by about three millions barrels a day. Yes it would slow down Asia's growth curve but it would give time for alternate solutions to emerge. Electric cars per western standards are a difficult problem to solve but electric scooters are not. The electric scooters would be very popular in Asia if they paid the real price for gas. This would promote new industries for electric locomotion and help reaching the critical mass needed to make these technologies viable. This would help electric car development. But because the gas is artificially cheap there, they will continue to use polluting two strokes scooters for a while longer.

3-Reduce government sizes. They cause more problems than they solve anyway. They just use up some energy. If half of the gouv. employees had productive jobs; we would have much more capacity to solve real problems. We could live with less consumption.

4-Food production has to be done in a more harmonious way. We don't need to return to horse drawn plough to do this. We simply need to combine different crops and activities on farms. This sounds less efficient on the short term but do save a lot in energy, soil losses, waste management, diseases control... Example: Have a wide strip of trees around fields to reduce wind and water erosion. Use commercially viable trees that can be harvested to supplement the farmer's income during low seasons. The trees will transform some CO2, and separate fields limiting diseases and insects contaminations from field to field. Yes some growth might be lost from the shade they will make at the edges of the field but they will reduce the peak temperature in the middle of the summer and keep a bit of heat in the spring. Less water will be needed to obtain the same production because of the reduction in evaporation. There are thousands of others things that can be done to make industrial agriculture viable.

5-Animal food production can also be improved by combining different specialties. I saw a pisci-culture that was growing lettuce on floating racks on top of the fish ponds. They had it to the point where the fish fertilized the lettuce, and the lettuce cleaned the water. The green house was better used and the farm was viable with very little impact on the environment.

I could write a whole book about this as so many good people have developed solutions but are not promoted because "WE" are stock on CO2.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Anonymous Poster
#26
In reply to #23

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 9:27 AM

We are paying US$7.9+ per gallon in Asia, what are you paying? Cars are still the most popular transportation here.

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#31
In reply to #26

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 11:00 AM

There are a few threads on gas price. Do a small search on this site and you will get more answers than you hoped for.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#34
In reply to #31

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 3:50 PM

Agree with many of your visions and proposal. Just be curious, where is the place that have the maximum CO2 emission per person in the world?

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#35
In reply to #34

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 4:35 PM

Refineries, power plants, volcanoes, naturallly degassing tar holes, etc... They combine to much more than the mass of CO2 we exhale or burn with our cars. If you want to do something other than planting trees, start by cleaning up these high mass, high concentration sources. These are where you will have a cost effective impact.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#38
In reply to #35

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/04/2008 9:50 AM

I agree with all the plantation and using natural sustainable energy, better recyclable ones.

What I am trying to say is not just cost effectiveness. US has about 0.4% of the world population but emits about 25% of the total carbon dioxide! I don't know if US government subsidises the gasoline, it is obvious, there should be market force in the US for electric car, but are they popular there!

I am working and driving in this part of the world where petroleum is among the most expensive place in the world, not only the Government does not subsidise gasoline here, tax actually double the price but internal combustion engines using either natural gas or petroleum are monopolising the market! Why? The answer would be then controversial. Anyway, availability of technology in affordable form is the key solution. Many governments (not all) in Asia subsidise gasoline are mostly because of it is too expensive to most of their general public, they just could not afford this "commodity" in its applications in their very basic needs, lighting, cooking... If electric car would thrive in the absence of gasoline subsidies, it should be so in places other than Asia, right? Without speculation, oil price bound to be very different and subsidises may even not happen at all!

Actually, Canada is one of the most enjoyable place to live in among cities on Earth. I wonder if you all aware there are places in the world that a single 1 square of foot of land costs up to US$3,000, which is well over a month's salary of many of their inhabitants. Yes, a single square foot. They cannot even afford a single title to live in (they cannot buy them, but leasing them), let alone to say finding places for planting more trees! Governments do that, but only to very limited extend!

In any case, as many pointed out, human are emitting CO2 far fast than natural mechanism can restore it. I have no objection to other means that help and does not cause other troubles, or we are just are jumping out of the pan into fire, we get even worse than where we started. Absorbing CO2 and sink them to bottom of oceans is definitely finding us more trouble to deal with!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#54
In reply to #38

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 5:04 PM

Electric cars and reduced consumption will thrive when the price of energy will be in balance with its real cost.

The biggest problem with oil is that it is dirt cheap. It is too easy to get. We certainly think that it is expensive these days but consider that most animal (and third world people), spend most of their's life work just to access a fraction of the energy that we spend in the developed world. If you had to pay $50 to $100 per gallon you would ride your bicycle to a much closer job place. You would use public transportation to go on long distances. You have your own car because energy is cheap.

Look at lions. They live on a strict energy budget. They don't sleep twenty hours a day because they are lazy. They cannot afford to spend energy in futile activities. They need all their energy for the hunt and reproduction. It is often reported in documentaries that a large predator as just enough energy for about five tries at catching a prey. If it doesn't succeeds at least once, he will die. That is what you call surviving on the last penny.

Oil has allowed us to live like kings while depleting nature's battery. If we were to pay a just price for energy, it would be most likely ten to one hundred times as expensive as we pay these days. We do not pay for reserve depletion, waste processing, and conversion into something usable by another life form. These costs are being added to the bill that will be handed over to our children. They will be given a world with very little cheap energy sources and tons of pollution problems to solve. Expensive energy will mean expensive food and little leisures.

Because of the development of the third world, there will be many times more people competing for the same resources. The easy life is coming to an end. We will have to adapt by consuming less. This will probably be a good thing for the human race if we survive the transition.

To minimize the impact, we have to reduce our consumption now! It is easy to do because we waste so much. This will delay the crisis and minimize its intensity. The longer we can delay the shock, the more ready we will be. Many of the solutions have been discussed in this thread. It will take time to implement them but eventually we will be OK. Life will be different from today. It is up to us to make it better instead of worst.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#56
In reply to #54

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/06/2008 8:44 AM

Yes indeed!

It is be efficient with energy in one way, and be creative to find genuinely helpful new source on the other!

BTW, electric cars in the form of hybrid is getting really popular as they help in cutting the gasoline bill. Yet, it is still consuming fossil if we track the energy source back!

There are people pressing car manufacturers to put out electric vehicle, that can be charged from domestic main and uses petroleum as a backup source. Although the energy source is still carbon based, this technology would be a step forward toward switching to alternative energy source!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 32049
Good Answers: 838
#46
In reply to #34

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 5:22 AM
__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#47
In reply to #46

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 10:22 AM

Attention is therefore drawn to the emission per head (Divide the emission data with the population), it gives a very different story!!!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#28
In reply to #23

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 10:00 AM

I heard bees were perishing in America for some years, then it spread to Europe and then Asia! There is no clear reason for that. It can be virus, it can be EM wave from mobile phones that upset the navigation abilities of bees, it can be e-coli,... No definite sure root cause yet!

Coming back to the CO2 problem, I suppose the Earth is under sever load as the population is really huge! Relying on nature force to tackle the increase of CO2 concentration is one definitely sound solution. It may not be adequate as the pace of CO2 emission is far too much now.

I suppose if clever people wants to offer help, then we better think of solutions that do not create other troubles, as so many are named by CR4 participants. Man behave in the way you measure them (Can't remember who was the management guru said that) and I definitely remember someone, probably the CEO of Airliner Virginia said that he put up some kind of reward to whoever can lower the CO2 concentration in atmosphere, but this is it, lowering the concentration of CO2 in the described way would just create troubles you all mentioned, that would only help to endanger the human existence!

Stop this please, find an all round solutions please! There are so many suggestions in this forum that are sound and practical than the artificial tree, that absorb CO2 but does not release oxygen!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 32049
Good Answers: 838
#36
In reply to #23

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/04/2008 8:50 AM

6- (the controversial one) reduce the population.

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#37
In reply to #36

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/04/2008 9:27 AM

Sure, it's controversial, but what's the alternative?

Keeping business as usual and let (our) nature deal with it, presumably killing people by starvation, wars, illnesses? Or are we going to do a bit of "fertility engineering" to reduce population to some sustainable numbers in a civilised way.

Any option you consider is never the ideal solution. So yes, "fertility engineering" is controversial and will encounter powerful opposition (mostly religious), but as far as I can see, there is no other relevant option.

We"ve come a long way in this discussion, I'm checking this one as "possibly off-topic".

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#40
In reply to #36

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/04/2008 10:06 AM

Then CO2 Sequestering is really a way, that would take away oxygen in the atmosphere and when the concentration goes so low, human would start dying until the demand for oxygen could be met by those left in the atmosphere!

Is that what you mean? Or start nuclear war?

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#41
In reply to #36

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/04/2008 6:28 PM

It was not listed as a "to do" item because it happens of its own accord...in fact is already going on, both by mandate and by "natural" forces. (Including in the "industrialized" nations.)

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#48
In reply to #41

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 10:26 AM

Appreciate that, and this is why we need scientists and engineers to solve problems! Right? (Not introducing more like Sequestering CO2)

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
2
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#24

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/02/2008 2:05 AM

There's only one simple and sustainable answer to all the planet's problems:

Less people, more trees.

6.7 billion people are on the globe already, we can only afford about approx. 1.5 - 2 billion (max.) as with the current numbers biodiversity is under immense pressure.

Want an indication? The bee population in South East China, there isn't any left according to articles I get to read. This is due to manmade pollution and manmade biodiversity degradation. Now people there are manually using brushes to fertilise apple and cherry trees. An indication of our future??

(Dead) trees are the only plausible way to sequester CO2. And in the process, all bonded O2 is released back into the atmosphere. While doing so, it cools the planet too by converting 20% of incoming sunlight into sugars and other carbon-filled compounds.

Sequestering CO2 in the oceans or in the earth's crust is again an example of human arrogance towards it's place in the earth's ecosystem. And adding to that, it simply won't make that much of a difference.

Mankind really has to make a big step back and let nature restore itself. Otherwise we have a global case of "overshoot and collapse" regarding our own species.

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask a biologist.

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#32
In reply to #24

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/02/2008 11:04 AM

GA.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
2
Guru
Australia - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2169
Good Answers: 253
#25

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/02/2008 2:32 AM

Please everone go back and read post #9 by RHABE and give it a GA.

And now please forgive my following rant which is obviously personal opinion as my qualifications in this area are rather modest.

Trying to lock CO2 away is fraught with dangerous consequences if the proposed containment fails. I've read in the past of whole townships near lakes being suffocated when the lakes went through a temperature inversion that brought the CO2 rich water to the surface, allowed the gas to escape and "pushed away" the normal air.

Once the process started, the upwelling caused by the gas movement continued to bring the CO2 rich water to the surface, releasing more gas.

And what if we do that in the oceans. CO2 introduced to the depths would probably destroy whatever ecosystem is down there. We can't see it, but I bet there are some prety wild things happening way down below.

What's the effect of adding that much CO2 to the oceans. Would it then become acidic? Would that mean stronger chemicals required to protect ships from corrosion?

The solution must be such that balance is achieved. A balance that must be measured over thousands of years, not just our own lifetime. It seems that mankind has become so selfish that in around one century we have "discovered" and completley destroyed the world's oil resources merely to move around at a frenzy pace so we can consume more than other individuals or societies.

The downfall of many civilizations was that they consumed the conquered resources faster than they could find more resources to conquer. Look back at Rome, the Khan dynasties, Napolean. What they all lacked was a "sustainable" level of progress.

I'll pause here. Don't want to rant too much.

__________________
Just an Engineer from the land down under.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Associate

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 30
Good Answers: 4
#27

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permenantly away!?

06/02/2008 9:58 AM

If these so-called sceintist that propagate these ridiculous theories knew even a tenth of what they were talking about, they would be extremely dangerous and would need to be institutionalised. Mankind has become so arrogant in the quest for more knowledge that we have overlooked the obvious and chosen the ridiculous. We are on the short side of enough trees to keep up with the output of C02. The solution would require a serious effort and a little self sacrifice. Even then it may still be too little, too late for what may come. We have shown ouselves to be poor stewards of the abundance of resources given to us. We are gross polluters, doing this in the quest for profits of the few at the peril of the many. This approach to sequstering C02 is the most outlandish poop that I have ever heard of next to the Roswell poop.

It is time to get serious about planting trees. I have begun my own project of around 20 acres of newly acquired property. Everyone can do something. Here is some good info that was posted earlier, right here on CR4. http://10ba.org/?gclid=CMKQmq659pACFUaPOAodjkoh1w

We must start to rethink of what defines progress. The perpetrators of destruction will have to be dealt with. We can make a good start with real facts about climate change. Can we make a difference? It is something that is going to happen and we must fiqure out how to live with it. We can do better than this. Stop pouring concrete over valuable farmland. Stop burning forest to produce renewable fuels. Start electing officials that know something valuable to give to society. They are supposed to be public servants. They all have forgotten this one.

We as humans, may or may not be the cause of climate change. The earth has went through many cycles before man showed up, but it is likely thet we have contributed to the rate of change that is taking place.

Plant trees, as many as you can afford too.

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#30
In reply to #27

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 10:57 AM

GA. One point for you. And it doesn't have to be limited to the country side. I am doing this in the suburb. Each tree helps with the CO2/O2 and improves the quality of life. When the neighbor complains about the leaves that he has to rake, I let him suffocate in his own stupidity.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#33
In reply to #27

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/02/2008 3:50 PM

Did you realize that there are far more trees now in your part of the world, than there were at the onset of the industrial revolution. Planting trees, including in urban forests, then, can only be one part of a more comprehensive approach. And part of any approach will need, it now seems likely, to include adaptation to changes in environment, including urban environs.

It is probably the adaptation part where "engineering" has the most to offer. For example, one might envisage NYC becoming an inundated city with upper floors of buildings being the "dry land"; bridges between building towers being the "dry roads"; tunnels with viewing ports (into the ocean "aquarium") accommodating the mass transit system; canals between buildings being, both, transport corridors and recreation venues;... and the spaces below sea level, including basements, being "reclaimed" for "natural" habitat (daylight to be piped from above)...and food supply "production."

Just one way that expanding seas, carbon sequestration (both plant and animal), and self-limiting human populations might be brought once again into harmonious balance??

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#39
In reply to #33

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/04/2008 10:01 AM

How then is the removed Oxygen to restore? We are continuously consuming oxygen to produce CO2, carbon dioxide sequestration is also removing the consumed oxygen, what balance this is?

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#42
In reply to #33

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/04/2008 10:26 PM

You said "Did you realize that there are far more trees now in your part of the world, than there were at the onset of the industrial revolution". Where did you get this distorted idea?

There used to be large forests covering most of the Saint-Laurent valley around Montreal. Most of these forests have been cut and replaced by farmer fields, villages, and cities. This also apply to most Canadian cities and I will venture to extrapolate to most of the world cities. We have also destroyed a good part of the Borealis forest. These threes take generations to grow in the colder climate. If you want a good documentary look-up "L'erreure boreale". It is in French but the pictures get the message across.

I don't think that we have more than a fraction of the threes that were here before industrialisation.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#43
In reply to #42

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 3:00 AM

The question whether or not there are more trees in a particular area than before the industrial revolution is completely irrelevant for two reasons:

1. Global warming is a global issue, as is the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (of course).

2. 25-30% of the manmade excess of CO2 is due to deforestation (tropical forests etc etc), the rest is due to the use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas...). This fossil fuel has its origin in plants and animals that have been collected and decayed during a period of millions of years. So actually, that already was a slow procedure of carbon sequestration. Mankind however managed to release a parts of this sequestered carbon in just over 2 centuries and still does so in staggering rates.

Of course there is CO2 release that is not directly linked to human interaction, as in permafrost regions (also releasing large amounts of methane in the process), but that's beside the point in this matter.

Storing carbon in the form of CO2 (albeit compressed) in soil or at large depth in the ocean can never be seen as a viable option for carbon sequestration. We have to take the CO2 back to where it came from: bonded in solid or liquid material, far away beneath the surface.

This requires a lot of energy, possibly all energy we have used during these two centuries. Now that's the real challenge, it's even more challenging than reducing the world's population. But both are required to establish a sustainable future.

And then there also is another issue. Fossil fuels consist of carbonhydrates. So next to the release of CO2, there is also a release of H2O (water). When talking about global warming, people are often not aware that moisture is a far more aggressive greenhouse gas than CO2. I would like to know how much water has been created by burning fossil fuels and what impact it could have on sea level rise (if any) when condensed.

What I am getting at is that it is possibly not plausible to create graphite (containing a lot less hydrogen than oil) out of CO2, as that leaves the excess of H2O at the earth's surface (and thus remain a greenhouse gas potential or origin of sea level rise).

Whether or not those water effects have been researched or not, I don't know. It merely a question I asked myself lately.

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#49
In reply to #43

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 12:24 PM

I don't know if I got it wrong, my understanding is bit different to yours.

As far as energy source is concern, hydrocarbon, i.e. CnH2n+2 (Saturated Hydrocarbon, Alkanes), CnH2n (Unsaturated Hydrocarbon, Alkenes or cycloalkanes), or CnH2n-2 (Triple bonded unsaturated Hydrocarbons), and aromatic hydrocarbons, are the main sources of burning fuel we are using. Burning hydrocarbons therefore is actually an oxidation process of:

e.g. 2CnH2n + 3nO2---> 2nCO2 + 2nH2O + Energy(exclusively entropy or Heat )

therefore always consume Oxygen. Yes, you are right about the emission of H2O are always ignored by environmentalists, because H20 actually traps heat underneath, while it also reflect heat from the Sun, or other outer spaces sources, back to space. The effect depends therefore, if there are more heat generated underneath of not, generally taken as near neutral.

Another factor that people normally neglected is the Heat. We are actually turning the cool oil underneath our feet to hot hot water vapour and gaseous CO2. When cooled, these steam would finally poor down again! The more heat we generate from the cool oil under the thick blanket of CO2 covering us, the more they are trap and hence the Global warming! People use 3000 cc engines for 2 seater does not actually go proportionally further than a 2000 cc engine 7 seater, or a 1000 cc engines 4 seater. All the heat generated are just for the feeling, excitement of the driver concerned, doing no useful work at all! except paying those luxury car manufacturers decent revenue, hence they advocate for the usage of those cars.

Organisms do use Carbon Hydrates (like sugar, starch where oxygen and hydrogen are present in the ratio of 1:2, ) in there metabolism for energy transactions, usage or deposit. Heat so generated are limited.

There are people now converting carbon to Diamond, as diamonds are actually giant structure of carbon atoms locked together in covalently bonded lattice. Theoretically, converting carbon to graphite, a polymorph of element carbon is therefore possible but there would be nothing associate with the generation of water, or hydrogen, or oxygen.

It is the burning of fossil fuel, the oxidation of hydrocarbon that gives out water, heat and CO2.

A almost reversing process (not on the exact same path) is photosynthesis, that absorb light energy and converse CO2 and water back to Carbohydrates, and gives out O2. It is not exactly the same thing because the chemistry are very different and heat as a form of energy, is not useful for the processes and must therefore be let escape out of the Earth to avoid Global warming. The good thing about photosynthesis is it takes away CO2 that thins out the green house blanket from our Earth, and this is why a lot of our mates here suggest us to plant more trees and trees do help.

Cutting long story short:

1. It is possible to make graphite out of carbon,

2. but turning CO2 to carbon, just like making graphite and diamond with present technology is very energy consuming, (I might be wrong, any input?)

3. In the production of graphite, water is not a necessary product!

4. Hydrocarbon is different to carbohydrates. They are also use in different places.

5. Actually if we can make artificial trees that does not ONLY absorb CO2, if it can also carry out photosynthesis at a faster rate, than we would have the problems solved!

You might have already known the aboves and I may be wrong. If that are the cases, pardon me for my innocence. Appreciate experts in this forum to help. No matter what, Your idea of taking carbon dioxide away by converting them to things like graphite is ingenious! I give you a point for this. It is much better than the CO2 sequestering. This would at least release the O2 back for us to breath.

As far as I know, there are practical ways that would help in our current situations. As many have already input,

1. Growing more green plants or plants that photosynthesize,

2. There are weeds that grows and photosynthesize much faster, hence absorb carbon dioxide and give out oxygen much better than other plants. We can grow these in a control fashion to avoid upsetting the food web and hence the eco-system.

3. Carbon footprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint, while the associated calculation on human related activities carbon footprint is controversial, its finding on associated carbon dioxide emission using different power generation methods (Vathernfall 2004, Forsmark EPD for 2002 and Swed Power LCA data 2005) like nuclear power plants (around 3.3 g/Kwh compared to 950 g/KwH of coal, 900g/Kwh of oil), wave, Wind and Hydro energies give the lowest figures, is clear indication of which source of power generation would be greener). Use these kind of energy for national grids and encourage domestic use of solar energy, solar radiator, solar panels for examples. Continue to research on how best to deal with nuclear waste. Before alternative is spotted, we can send them in mass scale to store on planets near by where life is proven asbent . I know there are controversy in using these kind of power sources, but we have to give and take, we can only chose to use the least suffering option.

4. There are discussion on the use of hydrogen fuel (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/19899#newcomments) and we believe that it is another trouble source than help. If we have to rely on fossil fuel, the emission of heat is actually an indication of how inefficient we are and we better monitor this rather then just the RSP (Respiratory suspended particles) and other pollutants in the car industry. The least heat is emitted, the more efficient they are. Once putting this on, the industry might move in the direction that reward them, hence producing cars/engines of much higher efficiencies!

5. There had been advocation of building houses and sky-climbers with energy conserving features, the advancement is limited. There are many reasons for that, but the predominate reason actually attribute to the fact that, building houses and mansions in traditional way still reward them. More have to be done on these.

6. There are a lot more on research, reward those people with breakthroughs rather than letting solicitors to take away the fruits of these hard work researchers, we might have very good results SOON!

We are actually still wasting a lot and much a lot can be done!

7. Your proposals!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#51
In reply to #49

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 2:59 PM

I think we're on the same train of thought here, but I want ot point out a few things:

1. Do not reflect on heat that much. Excess heat by our own inefficiencies (some might claim incompetence) is very rapidly lost into space by radiation. Our own energy production is less than peanuts compared to the solar radiation that the earth's surface absorbs and radiates away.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumption, the world's energy consumption is about 1.5*10^13 W on average, but the sun radiates about 1.75 * 10 ^ 17 W in and radiates it back out at 5.12°C (I'm a European, so I'm less familiar with Fahrenheit, it should be around 41.216 °F). Thanks to greenhouse gasses which tamper the radiation out, the average temperature is higher of course. But then again, I'm trying to point out the scale effect of solar energy versus man made heat.

With the given energy consumption, earth's temperature would only rise about 0.005°C, which is 0.009°F and thus quite neglectable.

If you want to do the math yourself: I calculated with an earth's radius of 6400 km (a bit to large) and 1360 W/m^2 incoming solar radiation.

So we're doing close to nothing compared to the sun's power, but that's also the big issue. By blowing CO2 in the air, we're tinkering with the earth's atmosphere and prevent radiating out the heat the sun put onto our surface. But now I'm back on familiar grounds for the readers here.

2. The reason why I mentioned graphite is because to my feeling it's the most compact and synthetically affordable way to sequester carbon from CO2.

This implies however that producing graphite uses less energy than burning hydrocarbons with the same mass amount of carbon give. If that's the case, then the following makes sense. If not, the following is complete BS.

By synthetically affordable I mean that less energy might be needed to bond the carbon back into a solid substance without the use of other elements like hydrogen and oxygen. Most energy we use out of fossil fuels comes from binding hydrogen (ripped from its "carbon container") to oxygen, giving water. CO2 is just a by-product and also responsible for some of the energy, but not primarily. So if you want to reverse the cycle completely by producing crude oil and pump it back into the earth's crust, that's a near-impossible task. Graphite could therefore be less energy consuming and cheaper.

Why solid? It's more compact and thus less prone to organisms that can eat carbon to produce methane or CO2 using anaerobic metabolisms (whether or not this is a disadvantage over CO2 sequestering at depth or pressure is another question I have, I'm a mechanical engineer, not a biochemist).

Using graphite, we're also obeying the first and second law of thermodynamics. We've used the energy in carbonhydrates, but we're using part of the energy back to create graphite.

This also points out another problem I have with biofuels of both first and second generation. None give a possibility to sequester carbon at long term, so we're chasing our own tails, again and again and again until we get to bite.

And that hurts.

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3
#52
In reply to #51

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 4:42 PM

Check out Terra Preta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

Burn biomass with too little oxigen, burn and use the energy of mainly the hydrogen part in the biomass and leave as much as the carbon unburnd, forming charcoal, put it away under ground, improving the soil. Some condensates can be obtained as by products in the proces.

seems like a win-win to me. is real carbon sequestration in stead of CO2 sequestration.

Then suppose burning oil in the same way, and fill up the coal mines again.

Stop burning coal. Stop producing/using electricity without carbon sequestration.

Comments welcome.

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#53
In reply to #51

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/05/2008 4:46 PM

Adding to this, I want to emphasize that a synthetical approach like graphite is not the way to go, too expensive.

The cheapest way is to grow vegetation and store high-carbon volume back into the crust. And a lot of it is needed.

Again, storing CO2 as such is no viable option.

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#55
In reply to #53

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/06/2008 8:30 AM

Yes indeed!

Back to the heat we generated, if they can escape freely, then its peanut. But, if they can't or trapped, then it is a serious problem as they accumulate and eventually lift our temperature on Earth.

Also, the less heat generated, the better we are using the fuel, whether they are carbon based or not, and the less we are consuming them! That also help.

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - Specialized in power electronics

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada.
Posts: 1369
Good Answers: 80
#57
In reply to #55

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/06/2008 8:48 AM

Generated heat can be reduced dramatically with co-generation or symbiotic collaboration. Many large industries produce a lot of waste heat. This heat can often be used by another industry to produce something else instead of sending it in the atmosphere with cooling towers. A good example is the combination of fish farm or green houses with a power utility. The farmer get almost free heat for his crop and the utility saves on cooling tower usage. This can also reduces the water consumption of the combined entity. One must be wary of possible contamination bet the overall benefit is enormous.

We can start by fixing the large producers as it is presently cost effective to do so in many cases.

__________________
Experienced is earned, common sense is taught, both are rare essentials of life.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#59
In reply to #57

Re: Putting Carbon dioxide permanently away!?

06/06/2008 9:46 PM

Exactly! Although in some cases, heat cannot be used as said, then efficiency must be improved!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 30
Good Answers: 4
#58

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/06/2008 9:29 AM

Which may lead us right back to a re-forestation effort which addresses all of the long term issues being related here. Forested areas while providing a CO2 sequestering effect also have the added benefit of additional atmospheric cooling and oxygen generation. No man made process can improve upon this.

We simply must get enough of mankind's attention to get the process started. If we continue to debate and wonder about possible solutions that one day may be, we will have missed the opportunity of "NOW" and have to start later when matters may indeed be worse. We do not even need "permission" from anyone to do this. Have we learned so much in the past 100 years that we have become "ignorant" of life's simplicity? Cause and effect still apply.

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#60
In reply to #58

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/06/2008 9:53 PM

True and sure. Yet, more than just forestation, we have to do additional things carefully as many have pointed out in this thread that human are out-pacing the nature in many ways!

I have been growing small plants at home. More than that, as just pointed out Marcot, any suggestion that we can motivate big guys like power utilities to act sooner?

This is exceptionally important in places where emission is high or efficiency is low! Ideas please!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3
#61
In reply to #60

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/07/2008 1:18 PM

Yep, stop buying electricity from them. Choose an other supplier that sells only the juice you prefere. Consumers have power.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#73
In reply to #61

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 3:23 PM

Agree. But, In many places, these suppliers are either monopoly or oligopoly, then we haven't got much choice!

And, be ware of though, your answer would lead to encounter of fighting back from commercial powers!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#62
In reply to #60

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/07/2008 2:54 PM

All we have to do next to reforestation is STOP BREEDING!!! No matter what impact this has on economic scales (insurances, pensions...), nature cannot be fooled and WILL have its vengeance.

Using fluorescent lights in stead of incandescent light bulbs, insulating houses or switching to other (green) energy suppliers is only a tiny effort and not sufficient, not even by a long shot. And that's only a mild statement.

A very modest target for world population is 2 billion entities, but I think even that figure is too high. I'd settle for about 700-800 million.

It's a simple as that, folks.

There is no technology available, not now nor in the far future, that allows us to feed, energize and entertain 7 billion people at the current standards and distribution of welfare in a sustainable way, let alone future standards.

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#72
In reply to #62

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 3:16 PM

Let's stop and take a step backward, back about 20 years ago when the world population is not far away from it is now, but style of life was very different. Communists all led a very natural style life and we just did not have much of these problems we said. They used donkeys and carts, they have simple agricultural lifes... All so environmental friendly! Although air was once very bad in LA, California, the rest of the world was relatively very good!

Let me make this crystal clear, I am a capitalist down to my heart! We in the west camp pointed fingers and make sure people in the communist camp reform and they did, eventually opening up these markets and they do just what we were doing, driving cars, reformed their economy to be industrialists... Then all these problems happened!

From this, I have a slight different view, that we are no God to determine if population is too high or not, but we are sure that the way of life we are leading is the main cause of our current trouble.

Furthermore, if we are can agree stop breeding, then we should have nothing to say about the Chinese one child policy, and all should agree with abortion, and...

Are we sure that we want to do this?

As engineers and technologists, it is our challenges to put things right again, in a responsible manner, not may this, perhaps that! Make sure that we are doing no harm to us and our younger generations!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1
#63

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/08/2008 2:23 PM

This is actually a very good question, and not as simple as it might seem at first glance. The short answer is that there is a lot more oxygen available in the atmosphere than carbon, so technically, if we can balance atmospheric green house gases by putting extra CO2 "away", for a while, it would probably be ok. Having said that, it is useful to examine the "probably" (are there risks?), how we might "put" it, and the unintended consequences of "away". Especially these days, it is often wise to ask at least a few questions about simple answers, and especially about technological fixes.

The carbon cycle can be seen as a system, which has been in pretty good balance for thousands of years of recorded human history. The IPCC data suggests that CO2 has varied in the atmosphere in a range of 250 – 300 PPM (parts per million) for the last 500,000 years. Oxygen, being approximately 21% of the atmosphere, would be 210,000 PPM. If all the CO2 were to go away (about 385 PPM right now), the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere would change less that 2 parts in a thousand (0.2%). Plants use CO2 and sunlight to produce more plants and O2 while animals eat plants and breath in O2, use up energy and give off CO2. This has formed a nice balanced complex system until humans started choosing which plants and animals were useful to humans, and filled up most of the earth.

During the last 150 years, humans have been affecting the system in ways that reduce the ability of the system to cycle carbon, while "dumping" extra CO2 into the atmosphere mostly by burning fossil fuels and forests. Forests (and even prairies) cycle carbon out of the atmosphere much more effectively per acre than corn fields. Having changed the system that feeds and provided us with breathable air, we are now starting to discuss how to manage this system for the longer term.

Unfortunately, applying a simple technical solution to a complex system often has unintended consequences – such systems are not intuitive. They need study, and careful monitoring, if they are to be influenced. Another complex system is the human economy. Governments have been trying to control it for decades (with mixed success). And government is rather complex, too. Clearly it is the economy and government that will have to change present human behavior even to "put" excess CO2 "away". There is a risk that the CO2 will not stay on the bottom or that it may acidify the ocean so that plants can not use the other 70% of the earth's surface as effectively as they now do. Either of these results would be good cause to question what appears to be a simple answer.

The actions necessary to balance the carbon cycle are not simple and neither are the discussions of human wants/needs which must precede the required changes in human behavior. However, if we continue with business as usual, the carbon cycle will eventually balance at a higher temperature with a lower human population and a smaller economy. Most of us do not wish to be part of that "adjustment."

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 757
Good Answers: 12
#64
In reply to #63

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/08/2008 3:50 PM

Congrats on a new joiner GA (Good Answer) vote.

Fortunately or unfortunately, "we" already are part of "that adjustment." It only remains to be seen how extreme it will be.

Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3
#65
In reply to #63

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/09/2008 5:11 PM

An other issue here is the kind of 'adjustment'. Due to the 'massivness' in the systems of carbon cycle, economy and politics, we will most likely end up with an "overshoot" most probably followed with a "collapse". nice summary : http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

Enjoy

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#75
In reply to #65

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 3:36 PM

Well presented essay. This is true with natural growth where there is no external disturbance to the ecosystem!

I am sure though, without Industrial Revolution and Electronic Revolution, we might have encountered overshoot and collapse long long time ago!

And I believe If the Easter Island scenario would happened again depend very much on how we act now!

It is right that these Revolutions helped us in resolving the resource shortage and our population grew tremendously without limiting forces, until we grew too much then another limiting factor sets in. The current limiting factor is energy! As we can predict now also, once after we solved this energy crisis, another limiting factor is lifted and we would grow again, probably to other planets until other resources is limiting us! There is always challenges that need talents to resolve problems!

A good and genuine solution would help us in lifting limiting factors like nature resources, while premature ones would just add more troubles! Which category sinking CO2 to ocean floor belongs to?

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#69
In reply to #63

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 2:33 PM

Concentration of CO2 is dynamic. There always are pros and cons, especially when economic activities is concerned.

In the Energy crisis in the '70s, experts said fossil fuel reserves would end in 30 to 50 years, now almost 40 years on, experts still are saying fossil fuels will still last for decades (NO sure figure now), The reason behind that can be many! And, there are more detect oil reserves human is going to explore.

When we talk about the removal of CO2 permanently, especially by using the word "permanently", we are concerning with the long term effect, how long would it last and so on!

As many contributors pointed out, technologists are too eager to contribute their research results, may be marketing them as soon as possible is the ultimate goal, without really looking into the side effects! This is what really worries us, experts resolve one problem by introducing other(s)! Surely, side effects are many as well!

A very hot topics nowadays is the sub-prime mortgage problem, how many experts have supported that and what we have now?

We can be optimistic for the moment, but we are sure also, as time goes on, the troubles are foreseeable!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#71
In reply to #69

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 2:58 PM

And there are people who cannot adapt and died of this "high-altitude" (have I put this right?) sickness!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 757
Good Answers: 12
#66

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/09/2008 6:38 PM

Some more specifics in you question could be helpful, for example: Can you think of some of the bad effects that might result from (as you say) added oxygen depletion from the atmosphere?

One reason I ask this way, is that, apart from what plants use to synthesize and grow, oxygen (a very reactive element) is constantly being depleted, being removed and sequestered, from the atmosphere: things man made and natural rust; it dissolves in water and can be held in oceans and ice fields...even people rust from the inside, die, and are buried. Some of this "lost" oxygen is returned relatively quickly; some is recycled only after millions of years. Even with these "natural" oxygen-removal processes, life forms have adapted and are adaptable. For example, people living at high altitude develop increased lung capacity.

So how would you imagine that the harm would come?

Aside from all that, one problem might be the power required, and the adding to carbon dioxide, to pump carbon dioxide to great depths in the ocean. Maybe more pumping of carbon dioxide into oil wells, including wells in the ocean would accomplish the same result a lot easier and cheaper. That might require more exploration and drilling for petroleum and gas. Carbon dioxide could be pumped into strike wells and dry holes alike. Perhaps, even, carbon dioxide could be pumped into (cycled through) the ground water aquifers. In places like Saudia Arabia which is quickly lossing its ground water reserves due to sea water intrusion, maybe carbon dioxide pumped into water wells under pressure could keep salt water intrusion at bay??? Just a wild thought.

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 73
Good Answers: 8
#67
In reply to #66

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/10/2008 2:21 AM

CO2 is a gas, not a fluid. You need a combination of pressure and low temperature o liquify it. And once into the soil, nobody can guarantee it will remain there in the long term.

And to what use? If in your proposal you want to prevent sea water from intruding ground water reserves, there is only one solution. Leave the ground water where it is, do not use it.

But that gives other problems of course.

__________________
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Phillips Feynman.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 757
Good Answers: 12
#68
In reply to #67

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/10/2008 3:38 AM

CO2 is a gas, not a fluid. You need a combination of pressure and low temperature o liquefy it. And once into the soil, nobody can guarantee it will remain there in the long term.

I'm not following your reasoning behind liquefaction. By more pumping into productive, depleted, or dry oil wells, the idea was to confine gas at great depths in oil containing permeable rock strata. The same with pumping into confined aquifer...in both cases with impermeable overburden, not soil.

And to what use? If in your proposal you want to prevent sea water from intruding ground water reserves, there is only one solution. Leave the ground water where it is, do not use it.

What I was trying to envisage, and hoping others might envisage more clearly, is a kind of systemic synergy...using some resources already in existance...bringing multiple resources and problems into a workable unified solution. As I said, it might be wild, but....

Not using (comparatively abundant) ground water (leaving it in place) is not a viable option for those who need water; especially pertinent and important in oil producing regions such as Saudi Arabia. And remember, ground water (done correctly) is a cycling (a renewing) process by natural recharge (either quickly or over very long time periods), not a depletion process such as petroleum extraction/mining (done correctly or not). I was envisaging that, as ground water is extracted some sequestered CO2 would return (might be permitted to return) to surface with it...for capture and recycling back down. The key (in specific instances but not necessarily all instances) would be maintaining sufficient pressure in the water bearing rock strata to prevent salt water intrusion but permit natural fresh water recharging. We would be seeking a net positive amount of fresh water to meet a portion of surface need. Maybe more than one bore hole, dispersed widely, might allow this to be done?

But that gives other problems of course.

Yes, it does. As does Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floors.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#70
In reply to #66

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 2:53 PM

This was exactly what was said in the Discovery Channel program. CO2 is pumped through oil racks to sea bed.

The rate of natural oxidation is nothing compared to that of burning fossil fuel, and as you said, it's proven in balance for thousands of years of human history!

"Maybe more pumping of carbon dioxide into oil wells, including wells in the ocean would accomplish the same result a lot easier and cheaper. That might require more exploration and drilling for petroleum and gas. Carbon dioxide could be pumped into strike wells and dry holes alike. Perhaps, even, carbon dioxide could be pumped into (cycled through) the ground water aquifers."

I found no trouble in anticipating answers like "Maybe, might, perhaps"; and the results may well be the contrary, maybe not, cannot and perhaps exactly the opposite! There can be many reasons for these kind of answers but we better be alerted and stay awake to the dangers that we'll face, or another bubble in technology would burst, just like the sub-prime mortgage!

Let's be responsible to our habitat, let's be responsible to our younger generations, and let's be genuine to ourselves! If there are may not cases, exhausting all the possibilities and making sure there is no harm to us before execution is a scientific/engineering approach! We cannot guess and end up in deep trouble!

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 757
Good Answers: 12
#74
In reply to #70

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 3:31 PM

AC, respecting all of your points (counterpoints), I would not disagree. But, whether for our sake or our descendents', the "cat is already out of the bag" and will not be put back in, if at all, without some risk taking...experimentation on less than full predictability. We can only hope to lessen those risks and, as has been the case for so long until now, that planet Earth will be forgiving.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#76
In reply to #74

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/11/2008 3:41 PM

CowAnon, agree with you on the need to take risk as well, yet precautions must be taken before we risk anything and if we know there is sure trouble, we better put that off until we find better way to do it! Right?

Nice to have your valuable inputs anyway!

Cheers,

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 107
Good Answers: 1
#77
In reply to #74

Re: Consigning CO2 to the Ocean Floor

06/13/2008 9:36 AM

"cat is already out of the bag" can be dealt with using suggestions many of us contributed, not necessarily the Man made trees that absorb CO2 only!

Cheers,

AC Wing.

Register to Reply
Register to Reply 77 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

AC Wing (25); Anonymous Poster (13); bbei (7); charsley99 (1); cottonmouth1963 (2); CowAnon (4); David E. Gider (1); Fierce Allegiance (1); garth (1); GOJ (3); Just an Engineer (1); marcot (10); ozzb (2); PWSlack (5); RHABE (1)

Previous in Forum: The Seven Wonders of the Modern World   Next in Forum: Bearing Grease

Advertisement