Global Warming/Climate Change

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:07:34 -0800, delboy wrote:

On 13 Jan, 13:42, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:00:11 -0800, delboy wrote:
This is interesting as well:

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/
post_1262880533072.html

Deforestation not only reduces CO2 capture from the atmosphere (and
Oxygen release), but if the wood is burnt much CO2 is released (and
O2 consumed). A case for building log cabins perhaps?

Another implication is that 'offsetting your carbon footprint' by
paying to plant forests is pretty much garbage. The tree is only a
temporary CO2 store because the carbon it captures is released when the
wood is burnt or the tree dies and rots.

Which was why I was suggesting building eco-friendly log cabins (or
houses), which would tie up carbon for a further period. Much better
than burning the unwanted trees.

The problem I was trying to point up is that fossil fuel is putting CO2
back into the air that has been locked up for geological ages, while
wooden buildings have a miniscule life by comparison: there will be
almost none in the USA that are over 250 years old. The oldest wooden
building I know of in the UK is roughly 1200 years old. That's the Saxon
church in Greensted, Essex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensted_Church
and even there much of its structure has been replaced since it was
built, releasing the CO2 from the replaced bits back into the atmosphere.

Carbon sequestration by pumping it back into the ground at high pressure
is a really bad joke almost every way you look at it:

- maybe the CO2 from oil will fit back into the wells, but will it
stay there? How do we know that extracting the oil hasn't cracked the
impermeable dome that kept it there?

- Coal mines were never impermeable in the first place, so howinhell are
you going to fill them with high pressure CO2?

- What about all the coal from open cast mines?

IMO 'carbon sequestration' has all the credibility of Bliar's Iraqi
Weapons of Mass Destruction and, like them, is merely spin for ignorant
sheeple.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

IMO 'carbon sequestration' has all the credibility of Bliar's Iraqi
Weapons of Mass Destruction and, like them, is merely spin for ignorant
sheeple.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

I am sure that you are talking about yourself. Wooow, what a self
criticism. It looks like you are comparing The Weapons of Mass
Destruction issue to the forged climate data from The University of
East Anglia Climate Research Unit?

Jacek
Pasco, WA

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:14 -0800, jacekkobiesa wrote:

IMO 'carbon sequestration' has all the credibility of Bliar's Iraqi
Weapons of Mass Destruction and, like them, is merely spin for ignorant
sheeple.

--
martin@ Â* | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org Â* Â* Â* |

I am sure that you are talking about yourself. Wooow, what a self
criticism. It looks like you are comparing The Weapons of Mass
Destruction issue to the forged climate data from The University of East
Anglia Climate Research Unit?

Read what I wrote a little more carefully. I have not mentioned the CRU
anywhere in this entire thread: feel free to check.

What I am saying is that the various schemes for sequestrating gaseous
carbon dioxide can be seen to be quite unlikely to do anything useful: do
the research and the math and you'll see that suitable storage simply
can't hold anything like enough CO2. However playing round with it will
probably be quite lucrative for some people and undoubtedly has coal
mining money behind it. IMO anybody who claims carbon sequestration can
absorb useful amounts of compressed gaseous carbon dioxide and store it
with guaranteed zero leakage for hundreds or thousands of years is being
as economical with the truth as were those who said the Iraqis had WMD
ready to rock and roll.

Where did you say the CO2 from open cast coal was going to be stored?

Now, if anybody had come up with a scheme to convert CO2 into a
relatively inert, dense solid such as limestone or marble I'd say it had
a good chance of working, but none of the schemes have proposed that. All
those proposed so far either plan to compress gaseous CO2, and hope it
won't leak, or dissolve it in water, which needs huge volumes of water
and/or high pressures with the associated risk of leaks.

May I remind you that even President Bush, with his fossil fuel
extraction connections, saw that carbon sequestration was a losing
proposition: he cancelled funding for FutureGen on the 30th Jan, 2008,
though I see it got revived in June, 2009.

See: http://www.futuregenalliance.org/


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie wrote:

Now, if anybody had come up with a scheme to convert CO2 into a
relatively inert, dense solid such as limestone or marble I'd say it had
a good chance of working, but none of the schemes have proposed that. All
those proposed so far either plan to compress gaseous CO2, and hope it
won't leak, or dissolve it in water, which needs huge volumes of water
and/or high pressures with the associated risk of leaks.
I've emailed you some info on studies the company I worked for before
retiring is doing to store CO2 in basalt rock, where it turns to
carbonate. We've got lots and lots and lots of basalt here in Eastern
Washington State! Makes good thermals where is exposed.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly