Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Planting Carbon Deep In The Earth-Rather Than The Greenhouse

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:07 PM
Original message
Planting Carbon Deep In The Earth-Rather Than The Greenhouse
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 06:08 PM by RestoreGore

I am sure that carbon sequestration will play a role in how corporations deal with the climate crisis. And while I do agree that we need some way to scrub carbon industrially I do have questions regarding pumping it into the Earth. How deep could we go without causing earthquakes? Would it hurt groundwater supplies? Just where would it be buried and how would that effect living space? And would it eventually become a bandaid to corporations which would only permit them to continue to spew out millions of tons of GHGs daily knowing that they could just bury it underground? Should not the sole purpose of changing mindsets be to actually cut down on the amount that is actually emitted to begin with, with or without sequestration? Of course, there are also economic questions that go with this and just how corporations would make up for using such techniques in either passing on the cost to consumers, or in cutting other unnecessary operating costs without it affecting the cost of goods. On the whole I think it is one method that is viable but not as a sole way to mitigating carbon. In my view carbon caps and placing a monetary value on carbon would assure that levels would be kept in check to begin with. What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think you hit on all the relevant points.
Not sure about earthquakes and, if they're actually sequestering the CO2, who cares how much they burn? However, it's not, nor is it EVER going to be inexpensive to "pump" CO2 underground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. there is a process available right now, coal gasification, it removes the CO2 and it is pumped deep
below depleted oil wells, this forces more oil up into the old well. the relative carbon to the recovered oil is 3 barrels pr each recovered

problem: the coal companies want the taxpayers to pay for the system, after being gouged by them


google: coal mountain topping the worst environmental disaster presently in the united states
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. IMHO, pumping gaseous CO2 ANYWHERE is not "sequestration".
A better name would be "sweeping under the rug".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Like letting a kid pour a pint of fizzy pop down their throat ...
... you just *know* the CO2 is going to come out at one end or the other ...
... but when Gaia farts, *everyone* will know about it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Carbon Sequestration" should be illegal.
In my humble opinion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
necso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Re CO2,
here's an interesting pdf.

Near the end, there's a short segment on the use of iron and water to reduce CO2 and produce hydrogen (and FeCO3: siderite). About halfway through, accelerated weathering of limestone is addressed.


Some fragments:

Biofuels are generally an inefficient way to harvest sunlight (which is where biofuel-"crops" generally get their energy from), and they typically require other inputs like (usable) water and something resembling soil (at least); and they typically must be planted, harvested, transported and processed (at least).

Also, topsoils must be maintained, even where fertilizers are used; if only because subsoils typically don't produce nearly as well as topsoils even with modern farming methods. Otherwise we'll end up "mining" (depleting, possibly exhausting) soils like we do oil.


To better exploit wind and solar power (and intermittent production sources generally), we need to move away from a keeping-ahead-of-usage model for electric generation and closer to a use-what's available model. (Implicit in this model is the ability to boost baseload, since it won't be wasted.)

As part of this model, electrical/intermediate-product storage (typically "filled" when production exceeds usage) is necessary for times when usage exceeds production, but overproduction could also be used for other purposes (hydrogen for vehicles, water purification, industrial applications, etc). Industrial scale storage (like storing heat for thermal-voltaic applications) has some role in this, but end-user storage has significant benefits for the end-user, like being able to buy electricity when it's cheap and sell it back when it's expensive, saving on electric costs even when not a producer. (Such storage capability would also be a property improvement, and allow for uninterrupted power even when network-power fails.)

(I've also read of PVs that store electricity.)

Of course, this demands a smarter electrical network (network interfaces, and desirably, appliances), but this is a natural progression.

However, efficiency and thrift will remain the major tools available to the consumer, and even in an era of abundant energy (whatever resource), consumers should be conscientious in their usage.


Limitless growth in resource use is impossible. The only question is when the various limits will be reached (which is often later than predicted, because those making the predictions don't allow enough for efficiency improvements, new technology, etc -- and because they don't look at the limits of the more ulterior/broader resources: eg, sunlight lies behind most food production).


Even if the "developed" nations change their course significantly as regards CO2 production (and do so in ways that do more good than harm), the "developing" nations may more-than-offset any gains made in this manner.

(This applies to resource use, environmental degradation, more generally.)

Trade, investment, technology transfer, etc, should have been made contingent on adhering to certain environmental (etc) standards, since environmental degradation is a universal concern. Moreover, trying to "retrofit" these standards to existing agreements (and more importantly, existing systems/constructs/currents) presents a great hurdle; indeed, a seemingly insurmountable one, given the historical course, certain cultural perspectives and other circumstances.


We've undone many balances in nature, and there's some risk that we will undo some balance or balances that are of such magnitude that the results will be catastrophic for mankind.


* If energy production is done at (or near) the site of "fuel" (that which is directly used to make energy products) production, this minimizes transportation of such fuel;
* If the energy produced is in the form of electricity, this is typically usable on site and also easily, cheaply "transported" (transmitted) over the existing network;
* Byproducts should be those able to be used as feed/fertilizer, or for some other economic purpose; and
* If this byproduct can be well-utilized on site (nearby), then byproduct transportation is also minimal.

However, largescale biofuel production facilities (also largescale feed operations) typically require significant transportation (physical hauling) of the fuel and (as applicable) the products/byproducts -- or less-than-optimal byproduct use -- and greater organics loss to the original feed/fuel-production environments.


Speaking of weird coincidences, I turned on the tv tonight, and there's Bill Murray playing a hit song from The Shadows of Knight, a group my buddy was in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC