Slashdot Mirror
A Modest Proposal For Sequestration of CO2 In the Antarctic
First time accepted submitter Alienwise writes "Judith Curry reports a scientific concept of an atmospheric CO2 sequestration plant. It would be based in the Antartic to profit from the cold weather, which would facilitate the creation of CO2 snow — which would then be buried. The plant could be powered by windmills." The lead author has agreed to let Curry link to a copy of the final manuscript, if you'd like to read more.
Summary suggests wind. Makes sense.
Your reading ability will one day be the stuff of legends.
the sweep-it-under-the-carpet method of trash removal
works great for the inlaws, the planet? not so much
Well, given that most of the newly minted CO2 that we are concerned about is produced by digging up carbon that was swept under the carpet and setting it on fire(with a side of deforestation), I'd say that under-the-carpet storage is a time-proven part of the carbon cycle.
Now, techniques for sweeping it under the carpet without titanic amounts of energy and in less than geologic time... that's still in progress.
This doesn't involve eating babies, does it?
#DeleteChrome
Not quite. The CO2 maybe sweeped under the carpet, but if you would actually read the paper, page 21 shows that there may be a significant amount of excess heat produced by the process, which needs to be release to the environment. The CO2 is not the problem. The heat is?
So, in order to combat global warming, we install 400+ heaters on Antarctica? I'm sure the science behind it will work, but my initial response is: uuh... what?
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
This actually seems like a feasible plan.
It plans not just for the extraction of atmospheric CO2, but the long-term storage of it. The power source is wind, so it doesn't fall into the trap of generating more CO2 than it generates.The choice of location makes sense for both the temperature and for the political neutrality. They don't list an actual cost, but it would likely be only in the tens of billions, hundreds of billions in the worst case. Which is a lot of money, yes, but not the trillions or quadrillions some plans have required. And it calls for a demonstration plant first, which would be just a few dozen million.
The only thing I see stopping it is politics. In particular, America and China. Europe seems to at least recognize the need for action, and they're willing to work together to try things. China is generally too selfish and shortsighted to worry about the environment, but you could probably convince them if you could make it somewhat-profitable for them (just have the wind turbines and such made in China, that should satisfy them).
But then it falls on to America. And you're going to need America at least not fighting this plan, because if the US decides to actively fight it, it's not happening. Period. You'd also need them to at least chip in a good chunk of the funding if you're going to do the full plan, make a serious dent in CO2. Problem is, denying the very existence global warming is a political *requirement* for half the country. They'll fight it just on principle, and I can't see the rest of the country fighting back for a project that doesn't have any immediate gains for the US specifically. While some sort of "compromise" could probably pull it off, or with luck it could be swept under the rug and never become a political issue, that's not guaranteed.
Still, it's the best plan I've seen so far.
Hm... the abstract appears to convert 1 B tonnes (1 billion, I assume) into 1012 kg. It also omits a lot of words and is generally difficult to read because of it. They appear to use the coldest ever recorded temperature as their working temperature. They also don't talk about how they're going to keep all that CO2 frozen, or how much energy that's going to cost. Or what you do with the plant after five years when it's surrounded by CO2 dumps.
You've heard the explanation from a few other people, so I'm here to tell you the really important thing that most people won't tell you:
Please kill yourself.
Firstly, read the article as others have suggested. Secondly, even if you didn't read the article, did you really, really think that the real scientists (I make the distinction in case you think you're one) who came up with this idea hadn't thought of those things? Or were you hoping they'd drop by Slashdot, see the holes you've ingeniously managed to poke in their scheme in 30 seconds when they've spent months coming up with it, bow before your mighty intellect and pop a Nobel prize in the post?
Scoffing at something you don't understand is not an intelligent response. Asking questions (or in this case, simply reading TFA) is.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It takes energy to make CO2.
Err, actually no, the reason we're in this mess is because CO2 is a by-product of our favourite way of liberating energy.
That energy will probably come from burning fossil fuels
If the process was (possibly magically) efficient enough, you could run it on fossil fuels as long as you put away more than you create. You may also be fascinated to know that the back of your fridge is hot.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
uuh... what?
It's Judith Curry
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Um, you do realize that no human activity *creates* carbon, right? It just moves it around; in the case of global warming, we're moving it from in the ground (where it's not a problem) to in the atmosphere (where it is a problem). This moves the carbon back into the ground. How does that not work?
The amount of heat produced directly by all human activity combined is tiny compared to the heat applied by the sunlight the earth receives. The contribution of all human direct heat production is so small that no large-scale analysis of global heat retention even bothers to include it. Global warming is effectively entirely the result of increasing CO2, which increases the amount of incoming solar heat the Earth retains. Removing significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere would relieve global warming regardless of how much direct heat the process generated.
When he calls it a modest proposal, does he realize he is copying another title, which essentially indicates he is being completely sarcastic, and not serious at all in what he proposes?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Michele Bachmann, is that you?
...heat produced directly by all human activity combined is tiny..
Even in election years?
I am amazed at how many people can't figure out that the dude is joking.
If you are saying that you need to create a power source to convert the CO2 from the atmosphere into a form that can be buried, then the logical choice is why you can't simply use this power source to eliminate CO2 producing power sources in the first place.
His 'modest proposal' should have tipped you off. Apparently, it was far too subtle for Slashdot.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
1. Build plant in really cold place
2. Profit from cold weather
3. Pull CO2 from atmosphere
4. Bury CO2 snow
5. Mankind benefits
You must be new here, because you've got this all out of order. Here's how it's supposed to go:
1. Build plant
2. Pull CO2 from atmosphere
3. Bury CO2 snow
4. ???
5. Profit!
If profit is not the end goal, then fail. If "mankind benefits" is the last item on the list, then fail. Go back and try it again. You don't have to be evil to get this right, but it helps.
A big point of this proposal is the strong, constant katabatic wind currents around Antarctica, which make the generation of large amounts of power feasible. But that power is in Antarctica, not New York, so you can't do much with it.
And, yes, you can extract much more CO2 from the air with a unit of power than is produced generating that power, even from Coal.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
With the appropriate farming techniques, which have pretty much been forgotten in the age of high-volume industrial farming, carbon sequestration can be greatly increased.
It frustrates me beyond measure how our society tends to want to solve things with big, sweeping high-cost measures, and then when that becomes a problem, add yet another layer of over-engineering on top of that. Modern farming is one of the biggest problems in the carbon debacle. Cows are kept on bare concrete and fed a steady stream of grain, and the waste is just sloughed off to be turned to muck and eventually dried. Meanwhile, farms that grow produce tend to focus on only one crop (corn, wheat, whatever), thus progressively depleting the soil of resources for that crop, necessitating the high-volume production of fertilizer. Simple measures that can both increase the yield of farmland and create much healthier food, also happen to increase and thrive on carbon sequestration. If this were done on a major scale, I suspect our carbon problems would start to reverse.
But I know... promoting wholistic measures like this make one seem like an old hippy. Honestly, it's too bad. There are so many ways to save effort and improve things, but instead we focus on the dramatic high-effort, high-risk solutions.
Use orbiting shades to shade much of Antarctica so that it is dark most of the summer. This should make it cold enough to form CO2 snow, removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It also would increase H2O snow accumulation, but that's ok as it would bury the CO2 and also tend to counteract sea level rise.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Global warming is moving in from the seas over 100-300 years. Nobody dies.
More hurricanes, droughts, floods.
We are saying that the observed variations in the Sun's output in the last 50+ years have had a negligible impact on the Earth's temperature. But we still know that the Sun is essentially the only* source of energy driving the Earth's temperatures and any significant change in the Sun's output would be reflected on Earth.
* The other sources of energy are so small relative to the Sun that they can be ignored in first order calculations.
It's Judith Curry
Now I'm confused. Are you suspecting me of being a skeptic?
Either way, I simply just don't understand the logic. Antarctica is being threatened by melting ice, and now a scientist (who I'm sure is very intelligent) comes up with an idea to install huge heaters in that area. I'm sure they will remove co2, but won't the side-effects be worse than the medicine?
(honestly, not trying to troll here).
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I had wondered about artificially creating methane hydrate crystals ... it'd involve mostly pumping CO2 into the deep ocean.
No, methane hydrate is formed from methane (natural gas), not CO2. Pumping CO2 underwater will not make it turn into methane (first law of thermodynamics, etc.).
Am I the only one ... to think that this is a really terrible idea.
It sounds like a great way to enable massive CO2 release just by any heating accident or lack of maintenance.
I was about to post something similar but was checking whether anybody had beaten me to it. You came close.
This looks like a DANDY way to set up a runaway-positive-feedback event:
1) Make gigatons of dry ice by freezing CO2 out of the atmosphere.
2) Bury it in Antarctica.
3) Pray that it stays cold.
4) If the temperature of the burial site rises above â'78.5 ÂC (â'109.3 ÂF) the dry ice starts sublimating, releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
5) The released CO2 increases the greenhouse effect, which captures more heat, which raises the temperature, which sublimates more dry ice.
6) Rinse and repeat.
7) Prophet!
Even if the global warming observations aren't the sign of an oncoming anthropogenic overheating disaster, THIS could create one. Artificially sequestering the CO2 would retard natural sequestration mechanisms (such as increased photosynthesis stimulated by higher CO2 levels). Then suddenly (in geologic time) releasing the stockpile back into the atmosphere could leave you with a substantially higher CO2 level than if you hadn't run the project in the first place.
Oops!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Not only that, but this guy says if we don't have more CO2 we're not going to be able to grow enough food for the planet.
http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf
I hate to state the obvious but do you suppose there's a chance that the balance of trees to CO2 got a bit messed up when we cut them all down?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
Maybe... put the trees back? If everybody on the planet planted 10 fast growing and 10 slow growing trees... well, do the math.
Or maybe a lot of C4 plants, the ones that use crazy amounts of CO2 and do really well when CO2 is high (the historical maximum is 7000ppm, we're at about 400ppm now).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
"Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[13][9] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[10] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy. Present-day C4 plants are concentrated in the tropics and subtropics (below latitudes of 45) where the high air temperature contributes to higher possible levels of oxygenase activity by RuBisCO, which increases rates of photorespiration in C3 plants."
And no excess heat. The plan in TFA sounds to me like introducing cane toads to Australia.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Because clearly this plan is well thought through and has no obvious but overlooked side effects?
I feel a bit uneasy about storing megatonnes of frozen CO2, that has to be kept refrigerated below -80C, at least 20 degrees below ambient, indefinitely. Makes storing nuclear waste for centuries look simple and safe by comparison.
As you're in a nitpicking mode, you might note that a question mark normally terminates a question; your sentence is simply a statement.
Global warming is moving in from the seas over 100-300 years. Nobody dies.
More hurricanes, droughts, floods.
And wars over farmland and fresh water.
Not quite. The CO2 maybe sweeped under the carpet, but if you would actually read the paper, page 21 shows that there may be a significant amount of excess heat produced by the process, which needs to be release to the environment. The CO2 is not the problem. The heat is? So, in order to combat global warming, we install 400+ heaters on Antarctica? I'm sure the science behind it will work, but my initial response is: uuh... what?
They aren't really talking about introducing any additional energy into Antartica. They said the power supply would be local wind turbines. So the only real heat difference will be the heat taken out of the CO2 and released into the remaining atmosphere. That should create small, localised heat bubbles in the atmosphere, which would probably be fairly rapidly dissipated by winds. And even if it does have a noticeable effect during the summer, the Antarctic interior winter atmosphere has relatively little moisture for trapping heat radiated back towards space, and very little incoming sunlight. I imagine it would all start being radiated out to space easily enough come April every year.
I saw a counter-argument there that this was an issue / bounding limit for human growth / use of energy:
``Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist''
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
``Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years.''
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
On a global scale, maybe, but many cities have become what is known as "heat islands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
That is not because of heat directly generated by human activity, but a change in the heat retention properties of a large area of land due to human engineered changes in the landscape.