DailyDirt: Carbon Capture And Sequestration Schemes
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) efforts are an important part in the mitigation of global warming, but unfortunately, progress has been rather slow, and at its current pace, the world won’t be able to meet climate change targets by 2020. There are only eight active CCS projects worldwide right now, and most of them involve pumping waste carbon dioxide down into oil wells to flush out hard-to-reach crude oil, while also storing 23 million tons of carbon dioxide underground each year. Here are a few other CCS ideas.
- Researchers have discovered that ocean plankton actually take up almost twice as much carbon dioxide than previously calculated. They also found that plankton living in warmer, nutrient-starved areas tend to take up higher levels of carbon dioxide. [url]
- Direct extraction of carbon dioxide from seawater to make zero-emissions synfuel may be cheaper than extracting carbon dioxide from the air. This is because the concentration of carbon dioxide, which is very soluble in water, is about 140 times higher in the ocean than it is in the atmosphere. [url]
- A “rogue” American businessman reportedly dumped 100 tons of iron sulfate into the ocean off the west coast of Canada to promote the growth of carbon-dioxide-absorbing plankton. His ocean fertilization experiment, which may have violated two UN conventions, has resulted in an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometers. However, scientists are still debating whether this is a viable long-term solution for carbon sequestration, and they’re concerned that it could end up irreparably harming ocean ecosystems and eventually worsening global warming. [url]
If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
Filed Under: carbon dioxide, ccs, climate change, greenhouse gas, iron, plankton
Comments on “DailyDirt: Carbon Capture And Sequestration Schemes”
plankton will saves us... yay!
if only we can figure out a way to create a sustainable cycle of genetically modified plankton that can both sequester CO2 AND create biofuels….
plankton already does that, no need for genetic modifications.
A “rogue” American businessman reportedly dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate into the ocean off the west coast of Canada to promote the growth of carbon-dioxide-absorbing plankton.
Not “reportedly, he actually did it, and filmed it” it’s perfectly valid and poses no environmental threat at all, 100 tones is nothing, when you consider the Hawaiian Islands are made of IROI OXIDE, and you could fit 100 Mt Everest’s in just the mountain that makes up the main island of Hawaii.
You want carbon capture and sequestration ?? Grow a tree.
pumping carbon into mines is a very, very bad idea, it has not been shown to permanently remove the carbon from the system, most oil deposits are surrounded by lime stone which is alkaline and carbon mixed with water makes ACID (Soda water) acid melts alkaline rocks, and all that carbon you have stored away could easily be released back into the atmosphere ALL AT ONCE… and that would be very bad..
Just only use bio fuel and NOT use fossil fuel, it’s just that simple, with bio fuel you remove the carbon from the atmosphere before you use the fuel..
That is a carbon neutral process, and is the only sustainable process. Nuclear is far cleaner and far safer than fossil fuels will ever been or has ever been.
as far as health and safety using Nuclear, thousands of times more people have died or been killed in the mining and processing of fossil fuel and in fossil fuel power generation than has ever occurred in all the nuclear accidents and nuclear bombs have ever killed.
there is simply nothing to compare or even come close to the benefit and reduced risk and environmental impact that nuclear power provides over fossil fuels or bio fuels. Nothing safer, nothing cleaner or more sustainable.
where's the outrage over deepwater horizon spill?
at around 4.9 million barrels. But 100 tons of iron is far more serious politically…..
The plankton study is interesting, but I don’t know enough on the subject to say much. I do know that CCS gets touted as an important part of mitigating climate change – whether it actually should be gets very debatable. From what I’ve seen its more of a convenient diversion and way to keep the carbon dream alive.
Just remember the East Anglia emails and hide the decline.
When the warming stopped it became change, what’s next?