"Sequestering" Carbon Dioxide

It would seem that there is a political hurdle to overcome, in that Australia might be seen to be investing to solve a global issue.

Technically, it seems quite straightforward. An environmental assessment about what to do with all the biomass generated by it would be worth reading.

There's a bit of a problem when it comes to trying large-scale photosynthesis down a coal mine ...

[Edit - but I prob'ly got that all wrong - I guess open-cut is the same as open-cast. J.]

How much more wonderful would it be if algae in those mile-long pits produced biofuels (they do exist) so we wouldn't have to burn so much of that coal?

Well very simply, algae farms can be grown to consume the carbon dioxide and then be recycled into ethanol for fuel. The Green Fuel Technologies company does that.

However, that is good for strictly carbon dioxide in the air approach and not very environmentally sensible as a reason for burning new massive chunks of coal.

Our view is simply reflected thus:

About the GreenFuel Technology project: Nothing with respect to Global warming is contributed by it, unless it is being interfaced with waste gases of Biofuel Power Generation System, otherwise the technology simply delays the release [into the atmosphere] of the exhaust carbon dioxide of a fossil fuel waste. In the technical details of it, the net effect is that it will have simply used the CO2 to enable the algae capture and store solar energy in the for algal oil and cellulose for the production of biodiesel and ethanol respectively. That this technology contributes nothing to Global warming concerns is readily reflected in any Total CO2 Lifecycle analysis.

All the same the technologies exists to enable the prevention of the digging of the pits being dug in your neck of the woods.

I am just scared that that thing that happened in camaroon, bubbles, will happen on a much bigger scale. I think sequestering is stupid. We have to leave the coal down there and use less energy.

I hope that pits are open and horizontal and not vertical, don't forget for photosynthesis you need large surfaces to be exposed to sunlight.

I understand that a University in Hawaii is doing something to increase the growth of plankton in the pacific ocean by pumping the nutrient's rich water from 1000 ft down in open ocean to the surface to feed the plankton and to increase the conversion of CO2 to O2 and trap the carbon depositing it on the ocean floor at the end of the planktons life cycle.

Plant crops, which could feed the million's of people still going without food. I would suspect this will capture an equal amount of CO2. But then again wheres the money in it? I wonder how many BTU's a dollar bill gives off.

Rudimentary, very rudimentary! You have got to do better than that.

We are producing way too much CO2 than the plants needs to produce crops, and when the temperature gets too high even the plants will die notwithstanding how much CO2 is produced. When the oceans levels rise enough, some of the lands will sunmerge and then the crop plants on those lands will not produce any food so that you can eat.

You have really got to be serious.

cirreb217-

Spot on. The untold tons of biomass could be converted into fuel and the resulting CO2 recycled back through the system.

CO2 is not the problem anyway, it is the energy from the Sun and natural climate change. The politicians on the Left have found a new cause they can blame on people which will get them more power and the soft-headed have swallowed their line. I feel that excess CO2 from industry and waste heat could be used to produce both fuel and food. Nature is a great teacher, even to engineers, some of whom want to fight a losing battle rather than working with Nature.

But that is the whole idea, stop using net-positive ghg emitter fuels and start using net-neutral ghg emitter fuels in the worst case which is the situation you have just presented: covert the untold quantity of biomas to prodcuce the oil then recycle the CO2 to produce more biomass from which to produce fuel yet again and again and again. The whole idea seems to obvious. Or is it not?

Even better yet, use solar power and do not produce any inordinate quantities of CO2 and let nature balance itself throug the Ecosystem dynamic. May be you need to perform an ecosystem analysis. Actually a Prof of UC-Berkeley did just that, you may be able to find it.

Then, of course, the question for all rational minds is this: "What is so wrong with being wrong on the side of safety and caution?"

editorgbanalysts-

"use solar power and do not produce any inordinate quantities of CO" that is the ideal, unfortunately we must first make cheap, small, high energy batteries for portable power and storage for nights. Until then we will have to make do with whatever technology is available and is cost effective. A steam-electric hybrid plug-in EV would be able to use any liquid or gaseous fuel to keep the batteries charged beyond a 50 mile trip, would be cleaner, would be more fuel efficient and about 80% of the time would use no fuel other than electricity, yet would be able to travel 400 miles on a tank of fuel and initial charge if needed. That is an example of a way of using existing technology to do better as we research the improved batteries and give us some time to invent them.

I feel that CO2 is a harmless, non-toxic gas which is emitted when breathing and is not any great danger. GW supporters are wrong and it is just a matter of climate change which is almost entirely natural. There are some nasty pollutants that are far more important to deal with. Most of the suggested ways of sequestering CO2 are risky, expensive and unproven schemes which will raise the cost of energy and lower our standard of living. Most of the schemes benefit the far left politicians and their business cronies who have built GW fears into an hysteria.

"I feel that CO2 is a harmless, non-toxic gas which is emitted when breathing and is not any great danger. GW supporters are wrong and it is just a matter of climate change which is almost entirely natural". Lets pretend as you do that excess CO2 does not cause global warming. What about the acidification of the oceans? Fine for jellyfish, a total bummer for bony fish, corals and shellfish. Also, that extra CO2 affects every living creature on this planet. I forget the toxic limit for humans (it is quite low) but just imagine what it does to plants. Some plants will soak up extra CO2 readily and outcompete those that do not. Some plants will soak up the extra CO2 and build lots of tissue and suddenly boom! No more water! That extra CO2 that we dump in the air affects EVERYTHING. There is about 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was 150 years ago. That must have an incredible effect on ecosystems that have never seen those levels. Perhaps it is part of the cause of the mass extinctions that are happening? Brian

The climate is getting warmer or cooler, depending on which set of guessers you want to believe. The climate changes very well all by itself without any help from Man. The amount of CO2 in the air has been higher and lower long before humans had anything more than a few wood campfires. Plant life on Earth has already shown an increase, which provides more food for the animals and more prey for predators. That may explain why there are almost twice as many polar bears now as there were 20 years ago. If rampant plant growth uses too much water, then those plants which use too much will die off as other plants take their place that use less water. And that will not be sudden, one day lush jungle, next day wilted and dead becoming a desert. For the some 10,500 years since the end of the last major Ice Age, a majority of 7,500 years were warmer than now, then there was a cooling and another warming during the Viking period. The Vikings had settlements in Greenland and grew wheat there. When the beginning of the Little Ice Age began about 1100-1200 it got too cold to grow wheat and the Vikings abandoned their colonies. Greenland is still too cold to grow wheat. The Little Ice Age was coldest in the 1600's and Earth has been gradually warming up since then with some cooler periods, but trending upward. CO2 is less than 4% of the atmosphere and one volcano can put out more CO2 than all of Man's activity. What is 35% of 4% and how much is produced by nature. GW supporters love to quote the high CO2 levels at Mauna Loa observatory right next to a volcano spewing CO2. Doh! Of course it is higher there.

What mass extinctions? The attempted mass extinction of anyone who disagrees with GW maybe. I know we disagree. We aren't about to change each others minds. I am not alarmed by climate change, you sound hysterical. So be it.

Well, my attitude is simply this, I shall work wholeheartedly for the protection of the earth while I am alive and also take into consideration that there are people as you who are still on the self-destruct path, so that my efforts can sufficiently negate your actions with the result that in the worst case, my efforts and your actions will yeild net-neutral ghg emission accounts and in the best case yeild net-negative ghg emission.

I say this in acceptance of your recognition that "We aren't about to change each others minds." So by all means do your thing and we, who prefer to err on the side of safety and caution, will also do our things. Roger and out.

" What is 35% of 4% and how much is produced by nature. GW supporters love to quote the high CO2 levels at Mauna Loa observatory right next to a volcano spewing CO2. Doh! Of course it is higher there. What mass extinctions? The attempted mass extinction of anyone who disagrees with GW maybe. I know we disagree. We aren't about to change each others minds. I am not alarmed by climate change, you sound hysterical. So be it". In terms of chemical activity 35% of 4% is lots. Also, much of what man produces CO2 wise acidifies the oceans. If you do not know you are in the middle of a mass extinction, then you are only listening to what you want to hear. Duh yourself. CO2 levels are measured all across the world. there are well known seasonal fluctuations and an overall trend up. The hockey stick. Yes indeed CO2 levels were higher in the past. But we are not dinosaurs. We are not designed for high levels of CO2. and it says on wikipedia that we are producing 130 times as much as the volcanoes. (with a reference). and your figure of 4% is wrong for CO2 in the air. It is just over 0.035%. 4% is enough to kill some people! "Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%)" So what are we going to do folks? How many years before we all have to stop working? Maybe someone on this board could calculate it? Or maybe we will just have to carry around oxygen tanks? As it is, aparently 1000 ppm (3 times todays levels) causes discomfort in 1/5 of people! So way before it gets to that level, lots of people will have to be sleeping outdoors to avoid breathing back their exhaled air! It is a way more serious problem than you pretend it is. Brian

"CO2 is less than 4% of the atmosphere" which is a true statement. You stated "and your figure of 4% is wrong for CO2 in the air. It is just over 0.035%." I was unsure of the exact amount but was sure it was less than 4%. You have looked up the numbers and it is much less than I had even guessed, only about 1/3 as much and far less than dangerous levels. We could have more than 3 times the level of CO2 before it became dangerous

"it says on wikipedia that we are producing 130 times as much as the volcanoes.", fine, if you trust wikipedia. I don't because the articles there are easily influenced by the agendas of the writers. I go with articles written by professional scientists.

"Yes indeed CO2 levels were higher in the past. But we are not dinosaurs." You don't have to go that far back to find differences in CO2 levels. We could breathe the same air as the dinosaurs, even if we found it unpleasant. You also leave out the effect on plant growth which increases oxygen and reduces CO2 which is already occurring as plants are increasing in number. I very much doubt that Nature will get that far out of balance.

I do not think we need to produce more CO2 than is needed to keep our present level of civilization and I do support research into forms of energy that do not produce it. But I will not allow hysteria and fear to push me into risky and expensive schemes that are not likely to work and probably are not needed if we just used some sense about things. I also object to schemes that will drive my energy prices higher and thereby lower my standard of living.

I believe in conservation. We need to plant and protect trees so we can have oxygen, and furniture and houses. We need to protect wildlife and it's habitat, because they taste good and are fun to hunt and catch and I want many generations to enjoy that.