Carbon Sequestration

An Anonymous Coward writes "Yesterday the Boston Globe printed an article about 'carbon sequestration' techniques - an example of which involves injecting carbon dioxide into the ocean as an answer to greenhouse warming. The Bush administration is supporting this as the preferred alternative to emission controls."

Comments

algee problem..

[thorgil]

...didn't have the time to read the article but anyways....

Every greenhouse grower is aware of the fact that carbon dioxied can be used as fertilizer in some cases.

If carbon dioxide is solved in the sea this will probably act as fertilizer for carbon fixing algees (the ones that produce all the oxygen for us).
This will probably mean more algees in the oceans.

Problem is that if we get to much algees near the coastline (where all the emitted carbon dioxide is) we might get problems like anaerobic conditions on the sea ground (created by dead algee degrading on the the sea ground)

this will result in:
* dead fishes
* corals, bye bye.
* a lot of trouble

(same thing happends if we flush out to much phosphates and other nutrients from industries, agriculture and cities.)
I nice (bad) example of this is the baltic sea witch has low waterexchange to the rest of the world sea. Surrounded by Russia, the baltic countries, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden (YES! we went to the playoffs) and Finland.
Result:
Dead sea ground,

I don't know what to think....
.... and who is right?

Re:YeeeHawww!

[Verne]

It's the classic western medicine solution. Cover up the symptoms, no more problem!

However, this is a good idea along with reducing the cause, because stopping the cause now won't reverse any of the damage already done.

We don't even know what global warming will do

[dunedan]

My last phyical science teacher(hes got a Dr in fromt of his name, I don't) mentioned that back in the good old days they said we'd raise the tempature by like 10 degrees by 2020 or something like that. the kicker is that there current estimate of tempature rise is something like one tenth what it was at first

And there are other scientests that think that the whole thing is one long cycle and we just haven't been watching long enough to see one complete period.

So until we know if Global Warming is happening I say we relax

Ignorant people want representation, too.

[Futurepower(R)]

"injecting carbon dioxide into the ocean as an answer to greenhouse warming"

I think it is a safe guess that this idea did not come from a fish.

One way to get elected is to go around to all the rich people and tell them that, if you are elected, you will do anything they want. Such a candidate will get a lot of money to run a campaign; if he can avoid showing the average person the truth, and if the other candidates aren't extremely attractive, it is possible that he will win.

This method works even for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the issues. Selling the government to the highest bidder only requires the intelligence necessary to know that one number is bigger than another.

The Department of Energy says they support it

[chascarrillo]

Leaving beside the logic of authoritatively referring to an article that you deride as poorly written, it looks like the Department of Energy is in fact supporting oceanic carbon sequestration. Here's a few links:

New Projects to Explore "Breakthrough" Ideas for Capturing, Storing Carbon Gases: http://www.fe.doe.gov/techline/tl_sequestration_ba a2002.shtml

DOE Carbon Sequestration Reference Shelf: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/re fshelf.html

Statement of Robert S. Kripowicz, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy to the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate Change, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, January 29, 2002: http://www.fe.doe.gov/events/testimony/02_krip_sen environ.shtml

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Financial Assistance Program Notice 02-11: Ocean Carbon Sequestration Research Program: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/20 01-4/122101b.pdf (page 2)

And yes, there's more. If the Bush Administration isn't supporting oceanic carbon sequestration, then there's a lot of money that the Bush Administration is wasting by studying how to do it.

Re:Huh?

[jerkface]

As it turns out, the most important growth-limiting nutrient for algae is usually iron. In fact, the sprinkling of iron filings in the ocean has often been proposed as a way to reverse or slow down the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Apparently the total potential CO2 removal from iron "seeding" could be enormous.

Ocean Splash keeps ya warm, Get it now!

[SEWilco]

The largest cause of the Earth's greenhouse effect is not Methane. It's water vapor. Much more than 90% of the trapped heat is due to water vapor. Without it we'd be an iceball -- and this is probably what happened when Iceball Earth occurred.

You'll have to find an atmospheric science web page to get the numbers, as any mention of water vapor is quite hard to find on anti-technology web pages (that's an ironic use of technology).

wrong...

[cryptochrome]

Growth of any living organism is ultimately limited by the growth requirement in shortest supply. Algal growth in the ocean is typically limited by the availability of soluble iron, nitrogen, phosphorus, or silicon, wheras carbon dioxide is readily available. Also, pumping up the CO2 level in seawater will a) increase the acidity of the water, b) decrease the partial pressure of oxygen. All of these factors can adversely affect the balance of the ecosystems in a variety of ways.

P.S. They've tried (expensive) fertilization of the ocean in the hopes that all that fixed carbon would end up in the sea floor eventually - but there was no evidence that it did end up there.

But wait, there's more!

[Spamalamadingdong]

Actually biggest problem is Methane (CH4) and then comes CO2.

Don't forget little man-made beasties like perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6, commonly used as an insulating gas in high-voltage electrical equipment). Pound for pound they are mighty potent, they hang around for a long time due to their stability and we are using (and losing) more and more of them.

If I had an industrial plant on Mars, I'd gear it up to make and dump SF6 and CF4 with any capacity I wasn't otherwise using. That's one way to melt and unlock all that ice!

What about "black water"?

[Noel]

I suppose it's naive of me to think that the left hand and the right hand ought to communicate once in a while...

Why don't any of these articles mention the black water problem in Florida? Current explanation seems to be a "plant plankton bloom" or "algae bloom", and it has resulted in the death of many bottom-dwellers, including sponges, corals, and starfish. It also resulted in an almost complete lack of fish in the area, which is bad economically as well as ecologically.

So far, we don't know what caused this bloom - suggestions range from industrial waste to disturbances of the sea floor.

<rant>
How can anyone seriously propose tampering with the balance of the ocean without even mentioning the possible dangers? Until we have a good idea what causes blooms like this, and whether introduction of huge amounts of CO2 into the ocean would increase the risk, we have no business considering it as an option.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. As long as the short-term savings favor corporations, we must *never* think about long-term external costs!
</rant>