Putting gases under the ground??

Question

I read in an article of a magazine our school has called Current Science and it was saying that to get rid of some kind of gas, they were going to seal all of these gases that are causing the green house affect into the ground in vaults. Don't you think that they are nuts and that maybe all we have to do is slowly quit using technology that isnt needed in our daily lives and stuff, instead of putting the gases underground, where they say that it might cause an earthquake!!!!!!

Answer 1

Just another goofy idea by the global warming crowd. See how silly they are?

Answer 2

Really, one of the prime carbon sinks is the south pole. The ice contains million of tons of CO2. One of the problems is that as the ice melts it releases CO2, raising the atmospheric levels.

Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 3

I see the article left you with a few misconceptions.

The gas of interest is carbon dioxide; there are other greenhouse gases, but they are either produced in places which are impractical to capture or they can be destroyed rather than just stored away.

There are no "vaults".  People would have to dig the vaults, and we're not about to do that.  Rather, there are places where rocks are porous and can accept liquids (including liquid CO2):

- Old oil and gas fields

- Porous rock containing saltwater

- Coal seams  which are too thin or deep to mine

In the case of old oil fields, adding liquid CO2 can bring up oil that would remain stuck in the rock without it.  If the USA is looking for a way to reduce oil imports, there are a lot of old oil fields we could use!

If you want to quit using technology which involves burning coal and oil, I'm all for it.  I'm working in that direction myself.  But half of all electricity used in the USA comes from coal (first link).  I'm not sure we can shift our energy use fast enough, and I'd rather have a bunch of CO2 buried in the ground than an overheated world.

(FWIW, there are places where CO2 comes out of wells; the earth is naturally full of it.  In Texas, there are pipelines to move this CO2 to oil fields to help produce oil.)

Answer 4

these people are not nuts, it is a solution. they find stable rock formations and inject the CO2 inside under high pressure so that it stays down there as a liquid. they also make sure that it is stable As that we have no catastrophes.

the problems with this are the cost. it will take large amounts of energy to inject the CO2 into the rocks also this technology is currently unavailable. some nations are holding out for this technology because it will allow them to keep selling coal but at best it is a band aid solution. the best way to minimize greenhouse gas emissions is by using renewable such as solar which are getting cheaper every year.

Answer 5

we cant put it back in the ground faster than we are taking it out of the ground as fossil fuels, so it wouldnt solve the problem.  We would need to pump 24 billion tons of co2 back into the earth each year supposedly.  Thats what the agw propaganda said.

Answer 6

Well good luck to that I say, but knowing the government they won't follow through with that plan.  I t would take too much time, energy and money too follow through with it.  If they are so concerned about the environment then they should have prevented the gasses in the first place.

Answer 7

yeah, your right. they're making only thier own problems...