Easing Global Warming -Carbon Sequestration a Possible Option

[Frodo]

Scientists Looking at Ways to Trap Greenhouse Gases
Arizona Study Aims to Ease Global Warming

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 22, 2005; Page A02

TEMPE, Ariz. -- With its dented metal cylinders, rust-colored tanks and network of silver tubing, the Goldwater Materials Science Laboratory at Arizona State University does not look especially high-tech. But if an ongoing experiment there succeeds, this unassuming basement facility near Phoenix could offer a partial way out of the nation's greenhouse-gas problems.

Americans' prodigious energy use -- from the gas that fuels massive SUVs to the coal that keeps the light and heat on in sprawling suburban homes -- comes at a cost. Burning fuel spews carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) into the air, which in turn traps heat and, most scientists believe, is accelerating global climate change that is melting glaciers, altering animals' breeding and migration patterns, and boosting temperatures around the globe.

But many business leaders and top policymakers, including President Bush, reject the idea of imposing mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions because, they contend, it could hurt the U.S. economy. As one alternative, some scientists, funded by government and private industry, are exploring whether they can extract carbon dioxide from the air in meaningful amounts and trap it underground, beneath the sea or on land.

But scientists are deeply divided on whether "carbon sequestration" can make a dent in the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Advocates say it could at least mitigate the impact of humans' insatiable hunger for cheap fossil fuels, which provide 85 percent of the globe's commercial energy. Critics say it is an unrealistic and shortsighted response to a problem that requires politicians to make hard economic choices.

Howard J. Herzog, a chemical engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied the subject for more than 15 years, said sequestration methods are "not an answer to the problem" of global warming but "they're part of the answer to the problem."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42365-2005Feb21.html

[ATFFL]

How dare these scientists do actual research and try to come up with an actual solution rather than launch a knee jerk reaction to the problem and impose an ill-conceived plan that has unknown consequences politically, economically and environmentally.

The only reason to oppose this is if you want to damage the global economy instead of finding an alternative solution.  If you want to say this is not enough, I can live with that.  To say that this research should not be done is just saying you don’t want any solution but your own.

[David S]

As one who remains skeptical about global warming, it seems like it would be a good idea to explore ways of counteracting it. Then if serious climate problems do show up we will have some idea of how to deal with them.

If you want to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing our consumption of fossil fuels you would need to make a drastic reduction. That would likely bring our economy to a screeching halt.

[DanielX]

Good idea, Trederick.

Here's an even better one: recycle the sequestered carbons, many of which can be either re-burned as fuel (probably as a coal-analogue rather than gasoline) or used in other purposes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Good idea, Trederick.

Here's an even better one: recycle the sequestered carbons, many of which can be either re-burned as fuel (probably as a coal-analogue rather than gasoline) or used in other purposes.

Wouldn't it take more energy to recycle the carbon in CO2 than the you would get from the recylced carbon?

[DanielX]

Good idea, Trederick.

Here's an even better one: recycle the sequestered carbons, many of which can be either re-burned as fuel (probably as a coal-analogue rather than gasoline) or used in other purposes.

Wouldn't it take more energy to recycle the carbon in CO2 than the you would get from the recylced carbon?

Ah, sorry, i forgot that we were dealing with CO2 and not particulate emissions - many of which are actually unburned.

Probably the best thing to do with CO2 is to use it on its own for various purposes, for example dry ice, carbonated beverages, etc. It can also be emptyed into the deep oceans (not shallow, because it would cause massive algal blooms there), where it will slowly be reabsorbed into the Earth. Yet another use would be greenhouses.