Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Stopped By Adding Lime To Sea
Antiglobalism writes "Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today."
"First, you heat limestone to a very high temperature, until it breaks down into lime and carbon dioxide."
"Then you put the lime into the sea, where it reacts with carbon dioxide dissolved in the seawater."
"This has the effect of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It also helps to prevent ocean acidification, another problem caused by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If done on a large enough scale it would be possible to reduce carbon dioxide levels back to what they were before the Industrial Revolution.
The first step of the process - breaking down limestone into lime and carbon dioxide - seems counterintuitive as it uses a lot of energy and actually produces carbon dioxide. But this carbon dioxide can either be safely stored away or used to help grow crops in very dry areas." http://www.cquestrate.com/the-idea
Nope... Me thinks NOT. Remembrances of my chemistry classes tell me this is not practical...
Anyone ever look into HOW MUCH energy is required to strip the CO2 (and water hydrates) from raw Limetone to produce Lime? ALOT!
FYI: "Quicklime, or burnt lime, is calcium oxide (CaO) produced by decarbonisation of limestone (CaCO3). Slaked lime are produced by reacting, or "slaking", quicklime with water and consist mainly of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Slaked lime includes hydrated lime (dry calcium hydroxide powder), milk of lime and lime putty (dispersions of calcium hydroxide particles in water). The term lime includes quicklime and slaked lime and is synonymous with the term lime products. Lime is, however, sometimes used incorrectly to describe limestone products which is a frequent cause of confusion."
"The lime industry is a highly energy-intensive industry with energy accounting for up to 50% of total production costs. Kilns are fired with solid, liquid or gaseous fuels. The use of natural gas has grown substantially over the last few years."
"The main releases from lime production are atmospheric releases from the kiln. These result from the particular chemical composition of the raw materials and fuels used. However, significant releases of particulates can occur from any part of the process, notably the hydrator. Potentially significant emissions from lime plants include carbon oxides (CO, CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and dust." http://aida.ineris.fr/bref/bref_ciment/site/pages/anglais/bref_chaux_2_1.htm
Unless this is done with Nuclear Power (or solar/hydroelectric/wind/tidalelectric), this is a net CO2 loser. Anything else will pretty much fail if the Goal is to cause CO2 reduction.
Try to imaging the transportation of VAST Quantities of Lime around the oceans without the burning of fossil fuels... nope..
This smells of a big grab for venture capital/government grant money, nothing more...
Besides, the tree-huggers will cry foul about how we are wasting billions on turning the Oceans into cement... save the 'Spotted-Owl Crabs' and such...
I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale too, let me od get the deed, I keep it in the back seat of my Fiero... Also, I'll go fill out that personal check on the dash of myu car to cover our extensive bar tab... Be right back...
I hope they try this and that it provably reduces atmospheric CO2 levels. And when that doesn't change our climate by even the tiniest bit, then I will be happy to say, "I told you so."
Hint: Global Warming is happening on Mars too.
I once worked for a guy that has already solved the problem of global warming: Nuke Iran and create just a touch of nuclear winter :-)
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
Here's another useful article:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
I tend to label anyone who jumps on the usual tired and thoroughly disproven arguments against controversial scientific topics while asserting their argument as fact. If they honestly didn't know, a quick Google search would turn up an answer, and they wouldn't be adamant about their position.
No attempt to learn = no desire to know = possibly just disinterested or lazy.
No attempt to learn + adamance = desire to not know.
I've dealt with plenty of GW deniers and creationists before, those equations are very good at identifying them.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yeah well just because this process sequesters CO2 it will lead to a global cooling cycle that will kill us all! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
God I fucking hate kittens.
Right now the ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2. RIGHT NOW. It does that naturally. This is causing ocean acidification (mostly due to carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate) and will pretty much cause all the bad things that you're describing without any further intervention from us.
What is being proposed is to dump a bunch of lime into the ocean, where it will react with the overabundance of CO2 to produce calcium carbonate, thereby removing the CO2 which is ALREADY THERE, and AT THE SAME TIME sequestering it on the bottom of the ocean where it will eventually sediment back into limestone, which probably won't be dumped into anyone's gas tank for a few million years AT LEAST.
Next time, read the fucking article, or alternately, have some faint fucking clue before you shoot your mouth off.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
His arguments against anthropogenic global warming have all been disproven.
No, they've just been denied. Projections from computer models are not facts, they are hypotheses. Real-world data will show over time whether Lindzen is correct or not.
it seems that he keeps harping on the same disproven points over and over again.
Perhaps he's convinced of his position, and refuses to back down in the face of witch-hunting by people like you.
Anyone who keeps harping on disproven old ideas as if bringing attention to them can give them any validity deserves vilification.
Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
You claim that your position is scientific, but your rhetoric shows that it is emotional.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You're a moron. 'The cultists, as you call them, have not given this article any credibility. And far from 'the cultists' wanting to stripmine the desert and haul it to the ocean, it is....*drumroll*
Exxon! Who wants to abuse the tax breaks intended for real solutions in order to subsidize their *drumroll again* drilling for natural gas!
The fact that your drivel was modded up is proof enough that all the whining about 'those liberal slashdotters' is nothing more than that. Baseless and stupid.