Slashdot Mirror
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."
Bush wants to dump something that has been PROVEN to work in favor of a theory? Besides, industrial pollution is the SOURCE of the problem, so why not just fix that? Its like fixing a security hole by tking all valuable files off the server, instead of just patching the hole.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Oil baro^H^H^H Democratically electe^H^H^H Dubya advocates dumping tons of toxins into the oceans over more responsible action (Kyoto protocol) to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions"? Isn't that like building a bigger toilet to cure an over-eating problem? Or declaring a war on drug...oh, never mind.
I've been farting into the couch for years. I have yet to get caught.
Now if only we can get the beer companies to dump thier excess hops in too... I can't believe it, my ultimate dream is so close to coming true!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Yea, but think of the ready supply of carbonated water for Coca Cola & Pepsi :-) Who needs fish when we have Coke !
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
...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?
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
This is a good idea, but it needs more development -- studies need to be done on the possible side-effects of storing CO2 in water.
People are reacting prematurely paranoid about this. The best one in the article was a criticism of the plan to reforest with genetic modifications so trees can take up more CO2: "What if there's a fire in these reforested areas?" Gee, brilliant comment. Back in the Jurassic period, when more of the world was covered with forest than ever before, there didn't seem to be much of a problem from a few local forest areas burning.
Natural forest fires are often a good thing -- they often occur in regions with many old, dry, dead trees, which are blocking out light and preventing new trees from sprouting up.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Well, actually, the carbonic acid would quickly be consumed by algae, as carbon is probably the growth-limiting nutrient in ocean environments. We would have massive algae blooms, which would hopefully be consumed quickly by plankton and other critters. Assuming the algae wasn't one of the many highly toxic varieties. Hopefully it won't cause massive red tides and kill off huge populations of... wait, never mind. It still beats having multiple gargantuan hurricaines circling the globe because of global warming. Boy, all this stuff stresses me out. Think I'm gonna take the wife and kids up to the mountains in the Suburban for some fresh air.
include $sig;
1;
"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.
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.
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.
--
Ikaruga scoreboard (supports netranking)
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.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
"More responsible", in this case, is like limiting your speed to 90 MPH on icy streets in a school zone instead of 100 MPH. The hilarity of the Kyoto protocol is that it would only require (some) nations to cut back their greenhouse-gas emissions 10% from the levels of 1990. Never mind that stabilizing the atmospheric levels of CO2 needs something close to a 70-80% reduction. The Kyoto accords are thus exposed as a political mountain superimposed over an ecological molehill.
Ironically, the USA could probably get that 10% in short order and without a lot of hassle. Simply replacing the SUV as a commuter vehicle with something similar to this Volkswagen supercar would cut total vehicular emissions by roughly half, or total emissions by about a quarter. Another large chunk could be slashed off consumption by over-riding state laws on overall truck length and allowing truckers to put aero gear (boat tails and such) on their rigs and trailers; streamlining can cut drag (and power requirements) by more than 75% over what it takes to drag a square-cornered box through the air.
We could take other large pieces out of fuel consumption (and emissions) using technology such as co-generation; wherever heat is required, burn fuel in an engine instead of a furnace and use the engine's heat emissions for the original purpose, while diverting the engine's power output to some other purpose and replacing the fuel that would have gone to that. As an example, if you need 100 KWH of heat (I'm using KWH throughout here; if you want to convert to BTU, consult an engineering book) you could burn 103 KWH worth of gas in a 97% efficient furnace. Or you could burn gas in a co-generator; if it yielded 30% out the crankshaft and 3% heat losses, you'd burn 149.3 KWH of gas to get your 100 KWH of heat, and also yield 44.8 KWH of work out the crankshaft. If you turned a generator, your 44.8 KWH output for the extra 46.3 KWH of input is 97% efficiency compared to a typical 30% at the average steam-cycle powerplant or 60% at the best combined-cycle gas turbine powerplants. The electric load could be supplied with between 1/3 and 2/3 the fuel, at least while heat was required.
To the dyed-in-the-wool cynics and curmudgeons, the insistence of our "America First" regime that more oil is still The Way To Go, and the technophobia of the opposition, are screamingly funny. Neither one of them has even half a clue, and neither one is ever going to get where they claim to want to go unless they're dragged, kicking and screaming, against the special interests who keep them in office.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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>