What do you think about the possibilities for carbon capture and storage?

Question

http://www.co2capture.org.uk/

http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/Feb-09-2001.html#_Hlk506342102

http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/Feb-23-2001.html#1

Answer 1

Stupid idea CO2 takes up three times as much space as C alone like in coal, IF the CO2 is solid.   Otherwise it will take up hundreds of times the volume.   Burn a cubic foot of coal and it would take up the space of a bathroom to sequester the co2.

Answer 2

So, instead of putting it in the air, we'll put it in the ground..which will seep out, since it's a gas, and get into the atmosphere anyway.

Sounds like a great money making scam!  :D

Answer 3

If you do it by any other than the natural means of letting the plants reabsorb the CO2 for growth I think we could have unintended consequences that could have even worse implications for our environment.

Answer 4

Have you ever wondered where all that CO2 came from??  Well, it was originally in the atmosphere... :)

Carbon Dioxide levels during most of the Jurassic periods were as much as 5 times what they are today... Meaning, today we are at about 380ppm on average, where it was well known to be as high as 1800ppm during these times.  We also know that plant life trived during these times, which probably contributed to the size of the reptiles...  Also, did I mention that plants grow considerably faster in 1500ppm than they do in our standard environment??  Greenhouses have known about this for decades, and use it to their advantage...

In short, try to keep the global warming argument in perspective.  Yes, we definitely want to take care of our environment, but we really should not apologize for our existence as well....  

I Hope this helps...

Answer 5

The best way to capture carbon is to not release it in the first place!

Turn off that computer, TV, cell phone, eat raw foods, don't refridgerate, wash cloths, only bathe in cold stream water, loose the car, bicycle, and any manufactured mode of transportation, turn off the heater/ac system...

Let's all become stone age hunter gatherers again!

Answer 6

I have heard in Israel they have developed a technology that would feed algae smokestack CO2 and then could be utilized as bio-fuel. Funny thing is the final product is actually green in color. I am much more for this option than simply storing it which among other things brings up worries about containment and cost.

Ultimately we need to get of fossil fuels and use solely clean energy like solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal. This is the best lasting solution there is that not only will help stop GW in its tracks but will more equitably disperse the monies generated. Ideally the owners of such technologies would be the local governments, home, and vehicle owners who would give space for many of such technologies to reside and network back into the system.

Answer 7

The best way to capture and store carbon is to grow plants.

Seriously.  Forests are growing faster these days and are greatly depleting the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Answer 8

Carbon capture, is only the latest lunatic idea for people to jump onto the 'Exploitation Bandwagon'!

Please stop treating CO2 as an enemy rather than the life giving force that all life requires to survive!

Since CO2 is NOT a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas', this is not only counter-productive and costly, but will only make a few more people rich at our expense.

Don't you think that we are already being ripped off enough as it is?

Answer 9

Nonsense that i believe is created by oil companies and their managers with the collaboration of their lap dog scientists that they finance.Instead of changing our greedy,lazy and foolish ways and stop using fossil fuels that will lead to a dead end sooner or later[literally],we are trying to sweep the CO2 under the carpet or under the earth to be more exact.There are too many unknowns in cramming a huge amount of CO2 under the Earth surface because we have never done it before.Not in the planned magnitude in any case.Who knows.The CO2 underground could increase the ground temperature even more then the CO2 in the air if injected into the ground in large amounts and that could cause even more problems.The only way to stop or reduce global warming is to stop burning oil and coal.It seems that humanity needs to suffer a very painful consequence to finally change its foolish ways.The world wars were not enough it seems.Stupidity still persists.

The best way to capture carbon dioxide is to plant as many trees as possible[and stop cutting them otherwise it is pointless] and to return the oil and coal where we found them.Under ground where it belongs.Humanity has built its society with the help of dead organic matter.We took silent death from underground and released it into the air causing death above ground.

Answer 10

We need not just to put less CO2 into the atmosphere but actually to take some out, in order to prevent a potentially catastrophic change to the climate.

The capture methods you quote might do some good but I am a bit concerned about the stuff escaping, and of messing up the ocean chemistry even more.

But if we go on producing surplus carbon dioxide we are just creating a bigger and bigger heap of CO2, like having all your garbage dumped in your back yard. We need a system where we don't produce more gas than can be dealt with naturally, in a cyclical way.

Very promising is the biochar or terra preta approach, where organic matter is singed to stop it decomposing too quickly then incorporated into the soil, where it has the added bonus of improving fertility and reducing leaching of nutrients.

Answer 11

I think it's a decent stopgap measure while we convert to renewable energy, and that's about it.  The problem with carbon capture and storage is finding places to store it.  Generally the proposed storage areas are stable geologic formations, but there are only so many of those available on the planet.  There's also the danger that if a bunch of stored CO2 were suddenly released, it would displace the oxygen above and suffocate everything.

It's certainly not a long-term solution, but something we need to explore to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions until we can convert to greener energy production.

Answer 12

So long as there is a quick release button and I don't have to pay for it, go right ahead.

Bear in mind though,

Plants suffer unspeakably and die in agony below 180ppm.

:)

We are, geologically speaking, at a co2 low point.

Answer 13

The problem is getting a high enough concentration of CO2 to capture it. Otherwise you could make a useful product by freezing it and selling it as dry ice.

Answer 14

Trying to emulate nature on a large scale would surely be a failure. The carbon cycle,water, and energy all have the capabilities to balance out any man made environmental influences. It's the interim that is difficult to tabulate. There are no standards set down on a stone tablet for natural balances. This doesn't mean that moderation should be discarded, but it's still unknown as to what any outcome will be. Throw a few scientific facts and some speculation into the pot and anything becomes possible.