Gases could be stored 'under sea'

They would be smarter to inject hydrogen in with all that carbon and see if they could not make oil.

tina anne wrote:

They would be smarter to inject hydrogen in with all that carbon and see if they could not make oil.

Add a little nitrogen and a few traceelements and maybe we could get a well making chocolate fudge sundaes..

Or maybe not.

Problem with CCS is the need for efficient extraction of CO2 from flue gasses. Currently takes about 20%-25% of power output. Not a winner. And possible release of carbonic acid eats through caprock.

Easier to crush magnesium silicate rock to enhance 'mineral sequestration' over time from CO2 in the air

I agree the carbonic acid could be a problem but I thought high undersea pressures tend to reduce the occurrance of the carbonic equilibrium, I'm sure they have considered that. Some think that you can simply store CO2 deep in the ocean without the need for anything fancy like rock injection, tere is an inversion of density the deeper you go. At about 150ft CO2 liquifies but is still lighter than water but way down it gets denser than water and fairly immiscible with it so it just kind of stays down there. They found such a "lake" of CO2 just naturally "hanging out" down there.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerende...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerende...

oops both those links are the same, here is another one

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/dod/pdf/0...

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Problem with CCS is the need for efficient extraction of CO2 from flue gasses. Currently takes about 20%-25% of power output.

That is pretty close to the thermodynamic limit of the efficiency of the process.

Not a winner.

Actually, coal is so cheap, that it is still a winner, even after this 20% hit. That is why people are still talking about "cheap coal", despite the intense criticism of the very concept of "cheap coal".

This is such BS! What a waste of time, money and resources.

What's to stop all this "stored" CO2 from leeching out through the sea floor and into the water?

What if there's a earthquake and all this gas escapes into the water or worse yet back into the air?

Just another way to waste tons of taxpayer green on a HOAX!

Wake up you f'ing idiots!

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS wrote:

This is such BS! What a waste of time, money and resources.
What's to stop all this "stored" CO2 from leeching out through the sea floor and into the water?

Miles and miles of rock. The articles says "ROCKS under the sea".

What if there's a earthquake and all this gas escapes into the water or worse yet back into the air?

If that big an earthquake takes place, we will have much bigger problems. You are having trouble appreciating the scale involved.

Just another way to waste tons of taxpayer green on a HOAX!
Wake up you f'ing idiots!

I have doubts and misgivings about "carbon sequestration" too, but I certainly do not believe it is a hoax.

Here's an idea to cut carbon emmisions by half.

We sew Al Gore's mouth shut, that gas bag has been spewing CO2 and methane in the form of ::BULLSHIT for years now.

The one kind of carbon sequestration that appeals to me; diamonds. Wouldn't it be nice if we could collect all that carbon and make a diamond as big as the Ritz?

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Add a little nitrogen and a few traceelements and maybe we could get a well making chocolate fudge sundaes..
Or maybe not.
Problem with CCS is the need for efficient extraction of CO2 from flue gasses. Currently takes about 20%-25% of power output. Not a winner. And possible release of carbonic acid eats through caprock.
Easier to crush magnesium silicate rock to enhance 'mineral sequestration' over time from CO2 in the air

Even eaiser is to plant fruit trees and other food crops to convert it into O2 and eatable foodstuffs.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
That is pretty close to the thermodynamic limit of the efficiency of the process.

Power output, Matt, not 20% of power input. Basically it takes off 6%-10% of thermal efficiency which should un around 40% of input values.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Even eaiser is to plant fruit trees and other food crops to convert it into O2 and eatable foodstuffs.

How long must this myth continue to fool people? We are emitting SO much CO2, even if everyone were to plant ten trees, they could not absorb all the carbon.

Besides: you forget that plants have a respiration cycle in addition to photosynthesis. Not to mention: when the leaves fall, when the tree dies, the carbon goes BACK into the atmosphere.

Not if you harvest the wood for books and furniture. You just don't like any solution that won't ruin our economy. It’s not like AGW is real science, where problems get solved, instead of yelling stop, like a child.

Brian_G wrote:

Not if you harvest the wood for books and furniture. You just don't like any solution that won't ruin our economy. It’s not like AGW is real science, where problems get solved, instead of yelling stop, like a child.

No one in this forum yells as childishly as you do, Brian. YOU are the one "yelling stop like a child". No one else is doing it.

The problem is that what YOU want us to 'stop' is too important to stop. But you refuse to admit its importance, even when ALL the major National Science Academies around the world have agreed that we must do it.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
No one in this forum yells as childishly as you do, Brian. YOU are the one "yelling stop like a child". No one else is doing it.
The problem is that what YOU want us to 'stop' is too important to stop. But you refuse to admit its importance, even when ALL the major National Science Academies around the world have agreed that we must do it.

Yes, we must do it.

So use RF to break the bond between the C and the O2 -- then we'll have enough carbon for ta and B_G to do a nice black face show as well as plenty of oxygen for the rest of us to breathe

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Cousin Jethro wrote:

So use RF to break the bond between the C and the O2 -- then we'll have enough carbon for ta and B_G to do a nice black face show as well as plenty of oxygen for the rest of us to breathe
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Cute. And where were you going to get the energy for the RF? From AGW denialists running on treadmills?

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Cute. And where were you going to get the energy for the RF? From AGW denialists running on treadmills?

By burning old SOA torture manuals

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
By burning old SOA torture manuals

SOA? Service Oriented Architecture? Sarbanes-Oxley Act? I can at least see why the latter would be considered torture;)

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
SOA? Service Oriented Architecture? Sarbanes-Oxley Act? I can at least see why the latter would be considered torture;)

Don't play so stupid or we may have you taken in for questioning:

http://www.soaw.org/

We'll get tina anne to tickle your soles and Brian_G on the electric genital stimulator (powered by Exxon trolls)