Slashdot Mirror
Storing Liquid CO2 in the Oceans?
Roland Piquepaille writes "One of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to capture carbon dioxide at its source, when it is emitted from power plants for example, and to store it in other places, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs or even the ocean after liquefaction. But, according to Youxue Zhang, a professor at the University of Michigan, there are pitfalls in this last plan. If the carbon dioxide is not injected deep enough, it can come back to the surface and return to the atmosphere, which is obviously not the desired goal. But, even worse, the liquid-to-gas conversion could happen too suddenly, which could cause a potentially dangerous eruption. So Zhang has developed a model which shows that liquid CO2 would have to be injected to a depth of between 800 and 3,000 meters to keep it from escaping from the ocean."
And this site kindly points out the following:
Not to mention the environmental effect of millions of farting & belching sea creatures. I think we should keep a close eye on this man :)
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Recycle, don't trash!
Today was a great day in the history of coca-cola production.
OTOH I failed science.
Wouldn't it be easier, safer, and more intelligent to just protect and encourage coral growth? Coral pretty much does everything we need, if we could just give it an environment to 'do its thing' none of this would be a problem. The entire strategem is rife with deadly pitfalls and screams of huge opportunity to burn energy that produces more CO and CO2. Think about it.
kulakovich
Considering that the vast majority of oxygen production takes place near the surface of the ocean, I would be rather worried about ocean life thriving unexpectedly on what could only be called a fresh breath of CO2.
Or you could just dump some iron into the ocean to supercharge plankton growth. Probably cheaper, easier and a tad more of a natural way to do it.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
didnt anyone tell him that carbon dioxide can dissolve in water to make carbonic acid?
does he honestly think that acidic seas would be better for the environment?
I love this kind of thinking. It's just like burying our nuclear waste and unused chemical weapons. Gee, nothing bad could EVER come of that.
Maybe... eventually... people like this will come to the realization that you can't hide everything when you only have a limited amount of space. This is just another example of short-sighted solutions that lead to future generations problems. Sweeping everything under the rug doesn't solve a damn thing except letting corporations get away with being more environmentally unsound because they can claim, "Hey, it's no problem. We took all of our waste products and stuck 'em in the ocean!"
You store the liquified CO2 into giant plastic bubbles that are held down by weights at the bottom of the ocean. That should work. Unless the Navy uses the bubbles for submarine target practice.
Sigh... Another beautiful theory ruined by an ugly fact.
I remember reading an article a few months ago about large amounts of CO2 being trapped under lakes and being released all at once due to being disturbed by an earthquake or some such. Anyways, all of this CO2 came forth and being such a heavy gas, it lingered in the populated area and sufficated whole villages/towns.
If we just bury / submerge the CO2, this could happen all over again. Thus wiping out any life in the area it occurs.
As a side note, if someone out there could find the article I'm referencing and post it, it would be appreciated.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
When CO2 is dissolved in water, the substance is known as "Carbonic Acid" This is already measurably happening to our oceans naturaully (due to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere), and accelerating the process could have severe impacts. Maybe we should just enact an exhaling tax. If people exhaled more conservatively, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Here's some BBC coverage of one of these lakes in Cameroon. Terrifying.
Here is the Link to the story I was talking about.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
In addition to allowing CO2 to recombine with the system in a more natural way (next to the O2 in the water that makes up the C), this offers the side benefit of transforming ocean life dumb enough to swim through the layer to freezer-ready seafood.
However, it is important to note that fluidic injection of a medium density liquid between two light density liquids is neither the safest nor most effective method of obtaining a clearly-delineated stack. Anyone who has mixed a layered drink will tell you that you go from highest density to lowest density, pouring each layer of liquor against a spoon so as to prevent gravity from making an environmental disaster of your nightcap. Pumping liquid CO2 into the sea thus begs the question of what sort of sludge should go under it to replace the water (and where to find a spoon that large.)
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
What????? People drink frothy carbonated water all the time and they don't drop dead. It's slightly acidic if anything. It's not this uber chemical of doom.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
The resulting biomass could even be feed back into the energy cycle.
By the way, it was John Wyndham who first popularised this concept.
Exhaling Tax would never pass. The people who make the bills would suffer the most as they blow hot air full of CO2 all day for a living.
Poison the ocean...
Good plan guys. Keep up the good work!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Roland must be paying /. even more now, since not only their posting his shit like crazy, but they let it stand as top news item for a long while.
Subscribers must be pissed...
Myself, I can only join the rest of the Roland Piquepaille Watch squad in a unison Nelson-like laugh: "HA-ha!"
And no, mods, this ain't offtopic. Look at the submitter and his submissions history to see what I mean.
Plant life makes a great carbon sink. That's how all that carbon ended up in fossil fuels in the first place.
Anyone know how much energy it would require to collect the CO2 and pump it a mile underwater?
I'm not exactly sure, but this is what I think:
When you breathe in air (O2 with some other minute elements), you exhale CO2, right? You took a certain amount of air and turned it into energy, which then gave off CO2 (or something like that). That CO2 is then recycled by plants back into O2.
Now what if we took that CO2 and launched it into space? The plants have nothing to recycle. That CO2 that would be turned back into air has now left the planet for good, and isn't coming back. By doing this, you turn O2 into a limited resource, since it can't be recycled since it is just launched off into space. Eventually you'll just run out of O2 and all HELL will break loose.
-Eric Smith
Does any one think that this is a bad idea. Let's trap vast amounts oxigen at the bottom of the ocean as liquid CO2 or as carbonates. This way it can't be matabolized by plants and released into the asmosphear as O2 where it will certianly contribute to the green house effect.
The green house effect has plaged our fragile Earth since before the extinction of the dinosaurs. If we want to survive we must start a zero tolerance campaign against anything that causes the green house effect. Obviously we can start by burning all the green houses. But we must not stop there. We must contunue our efforts by removing all green house chemicals from the environment not just CO2 but N2, O2, O3, CH4, and most importently the dreaded DHMO. To do this we need to remove the gutless politicians from both parties and elect a leader who will impose marsian law. Yes only the iron clad law of the red planet will allow us to take these steps and make this planet a fit place to live.
Since when did we ever stop to consider the long-term effects of our actions? It appears like the human motto has always been, "Out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to waste that needs to be disposed. For example, each week, I put all my trash in a bag and place it on the curb. Then, there's no more trash. Who's to tell me that trash I just disposed of will take thousands or tens of thousands of years to decompose? What trash? I don't see any trash.
...
We pay people to distance us from the filth we generate. It gives us peace of mind to be rid of our rubbish. And so we continue to find ways of not eliminating pollution, but rather just finding methods of distancing ourselves from it. The garbage man takes my trash. The nuclear power plant stores its waste in a concrete bunker. While we're at it, let's just suck all the CO2 we pumped into the air we breathe and pump it down 3000 feet into the ocean. Or, if that's too expensive, let's just package it and release it in Mongolia. I mean, I don't live there, so as far as I can tell, I won't have to worry about it anymore.
Ever stop to wonder for a second how our world might change if EVERYBODY was required to have their own landfill in their own backyard?
What the AC is talking about is a situation like this:
At high pressures (great depths) CO2 will remain in solution. All is well. However, if conditions change, this CO2 can suddenly release to the surface killing animals/people.
look at this for more info on how deadly it can be
This normally isn't a problem with lakes because of the temperature change with the seasons cause the water to cycle, and CO2 on the bottom will be released subsequently. (This happens because water density changes with temp, and if the top layer is denser than the bottom layer, it will sink and the bottom layer will rise.)
Now, when the water doesn't cycle because the surface temp doesn't change- such as near the equator, CO2 buildup can reach extremely high levels. Thus, when the CO2 is released, it's a deadly concentration.
The fear is that if the oceans suddenly change and CO2 will be released making deadly concentrations.
Grump
Univ. of Calif. Riverside,
Environmental Sciences (senior)
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
The idea of dissolving CO2 in oceans is incredibly reckless. Look at the consequences of degassing of a small lake and you can dismiss this silliness out of hand. The earth's natural mechanism for CO2 removal is limestone formation. Perhaps would be wiser to imitate that.
an ill wind that blows no good
I'm not a horticulturist, but from my understanding plants take CO2 (1 part carbon and 2 parts oxygen) and with the power of the sun break it down into carbon and release the oxygen.
The released oxygen actually comes from water that has been split using energy from the sun. The hydrogen from the water is combined with CO2 to produce sugars, etc.