Rotterdam offers burial at sea for greenhouse gases

For threads primarily discussing Climate Change (particularly in relation to Peak Oil)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 1426
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:48 am
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

woodburner wrote:On he one hand your reply is the typically silly response. On the other hand I know people who would be able to live without the technological adornments which most could not imagine living without. Those who could "go to the hedgerow" for lunch will be able to survive when the majority perish as result of failed adventures to bury CO2.
Maybe it was slightly silly, but your claim that all technology is bad, whilst happily using it, has an air of hypocrisy, no....?

Little John is right, ultimately we are ******.
There is no solution - hedgerows or technology.......
There are only ways to be 'less bad' or reduce impact......
This could be from utilising 'hedgerows' and could be by utilising 'technology', depending on the issue at hand....
The end result will be the same, the only question is when....
Little John
Posts: 8832
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

Mark wrote:
woodburner wrote:On he one hand your reply is the typically silly response. On the other hand I know people who would be able to live without the technological adornments which most could not imagine living without. Those who could "go to the hedgerow" for lunch will be able to survive when the majority perish as result of failed adventures to bury CO2.
Maybe it was slightly silly, but your claim that all technology is bad, whilst happily using it, has an air of hypocrisy, no....?

Little John is right, ultimately we are ******.
There is no solution - hedgerows or technology.......
There are only ways to be 'less bad' or reduce impact......
This could be from utilising 'hedgerows' and could be by utilising 'technology', depending on the issue at hand....
The end result will be the same, the only question is when....
I take issue with that slightly Mark.

Utilizing the hedgerow is unsustainable for humans right now and will continue to be so until human numbers dramatically fall.

Utilizing technology, while buying humans a rapidly diminishing period of time, is unsustainable for all of life and will continue to be so until human numbers dramatically fall. Indeed, it could be worse in that what eco-system remains following the inevitable ecological collapse may be insufficient to support large complex life forms like humans,.

From a planetary-eco-systemic perspective, it is far more utilitarian, as well as moral, to take the first option.

But, of course, we won't.
User avatar
Mark
Posts: 1426
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:48 am
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

Little John wrote:I take issue with that slightly Mark.

Utilizing the hedgerow is unsustainable for humans right now and will continue to be so until human numbers dramatically fall.

Utilizing technology, while buying humans a rapidly diminishing period of time, is unsustainable for all of life and will continue to be so until human numbers dramatically fall. Indeed, it could be worse in that what eco-system remains following the inevitable ecological collapse may be insufficient to support large complex life forms like humans,.

From a planetary-eco-systemic perspective, it is far more utilitarian, as well as moral, to take the first option.

But, of course, we won't.
We agree that human numbers need to fall significantly and will at some point...
The impact very much depends how this happens (gradually or suddenly)
If gradually, the rich/powerful will probably still prosper and adapt/harness technology...., the poor/powerless will be behind fences at the margins...
If suddenly, all bets are off.....

We can only do our own little bit and live as sustainably as society permits....
snow hope
Posts: 4101
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

Post by snow hope »

It is certainly a quandary!

I used to think the "collapse" would happen quickly and with devastating impact, but I now think the trajectory will be much slower.

Society is like a very large ship/tanker, it is hard to slow down and only turns slowly.

Different countries will be impacted by different shortages causing different hardships and different solutions/mitigations. Hard to predict in any detail as the systems are simply too complex.

Black Swan events will no doubt occur, but I suspect world war will be the result in the not too distant future, even if one region/empire doesn't decide to start the process early to achieve its aims.

Humans are generally selfish in order to achieve there own survival which is generally a strong trait in most of us. I am not of the opinion, I have heard some express on here, that they will forgo their own lifestyles or even lives for the greater good. I admit I am too selfish for that.

I suppose I have given up hope for solving the quandary and wish to enjoy life reasonably sustainably, whilst reacting to the realities pertaining at any point in time. I don't have to outrun the bear......

Still searching for that little island with its own fresh water and food supply!! :lol: :roll: :wink:
Real money is gold and silver
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14642
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

woodburner wrote:What has any of this got to do with wasting energy stuffuing CO2 into holes in the sea floor?
It's all on the same forum.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
Mark
Posts: 1426
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:48 am
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent disposal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6291/1312

Scientists in Iceland say they have discovered a new way to convert carbon dioxide into rock. Like many other carbon capture and storage pilot projects, this one – called CarbFix – faces high hurdles in terms of costs and technology, however, CarbFix’s latest results are a great step forward towards locking the gas underground forever.

Published in Science, the research shows that injecting CO2 into layers of basalt (dark volcanic rocks underlying Earth’s oceans and parts of some continents) triggers a reaction that rapidly forms new carbonate minerals. The project began back in 2006 when Icelandic, U.S. and French scientists launched the CarbFix experiment 25 kilometers east of Reykjavik, intending to dose Iceland’s abundant underground basalt with CO2 that bubbles from cooling magma underground and is collected at a nearby geothermal power plant.

In 2012, they injected 220 tons of CO2 – with heavy carbon for monitoring and some extra water mixed in – into layers of basalt between 400 and 800 meters below the surface. After about a year and a half, the pump inside a monitoring well kept breaking down, which engineers discovered was due to calcite buildup that bore the heavy carbon tracer that marked it as a product of carbonation. Measurements of dissolved carbon in the groundwater suggested that more than 95% of the injected carbon had already been converted into calcite and other minerals.

The speedy carbonation “means this method could be a viable way to store CO2 underground—permanently, and without risk of leakage,” explained Juerg Matter, a geologist with CarbFix at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. Bigger field tests are needed, and many challenges remain before the technique could be widely used – not the least of which is a lack of incentive for power companies to incorporate CCS. In the meantime, though, the success is a welcome development.
User avatar
Mark
Posts: 1426
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:48 am
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

Pump CO2 into rocks, report urges:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37306766

The costs of tackling climate change can be slashed if a network of pipes is built to store waste carbon dioxide under the North Sea, a report says. The technology - carbon capture and storage (CCS) – involves pumping CO2 emissions from power stations into rock formations. It is expensive, but parliamentary advisors say the costs can be halved. Savings can be achieved if the system to deliver the London Olympics is copied, they tell ministers. The climate change minister Nick Hurd told BBC News he would welcome new ideas for promoting CCS.

Continues....
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8909
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

CCS involves paying once to discover, extract, process, transport (an increasing expense due to depletion)... then paying again to capture and sequester the carbon (a new expense we're not currently paying).

Far better to cut demand and save both expenses. It's just bonkers to suggest that we're going to so much richer in the future to be able to pay for increasingly expensive fossil fuels and then pay again to sequester their carbon.

Cutting demand and using non-carbon fuels is a far better proposition than CCS.
Post Reply