Pumping CO2 into the bottom of the ocean to reduce this green house gas. Is this method a really ood idea?

Question

Visit this website for the article http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1599675.htm

Answer 1

4 years ago I worked on carbon sequestration projects in Australia and internationally. This included researching biological, geological and ocean sequestration of CO2.

There are pros and cons of all these processes, but I see many more pros. You only have to look at Statoil's Sleipner Project in Norway - They have been sequestering CO2 into high saline aquifers since 1996.

They have, in fact stopped 1 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere per year, the equivalent emissions of a 150MW coal fired power plant in the US.

I think it is a great solution until we can move towards a hydrogen economy.

Answer 2

the very undeniable actuality that environment warms a planet through trapping warmth is technology actuality. Venus, Earth and Mars furnish a classic 3 Bears social gathering of too a lot, superb and too little. the very undeniable actuality that CO2 is a warming gas is favourite. the very undeniable actuality that CO2 concentrations are starting to be in the ambience is favourite. besides the undeniable fact that, that does no longer mean that that's the in uncomplicated phrases component happening. we also are seeing a lengthy time period up-cycle in photo voltaic output. it really is in all probability that both are real, the warming the planet has experienced because the overdue 1800s is partly organic and partly guy-made. There are an outstanding many problems with the global-warming panic storyline, besides the undeniable fact that the middle bedrock of it really is sweet and is something we ought to continually deal with. The question is one in all cost. properly this second the in uncomplicated phrases technologies that can produce commercial tiers of power without CO2 emissions is nuclear means (except you stay close to a dammable river or geothermal hotspot). The political competition through a lot of an same those who push the GW time table to nuclear means is hypocritical. We ought to make a call from those selections: a million) settle for some warming till option technologies are cost-efficient 2) Geoengineering (like carbon scrubbers or freeing sulfates or maybe if) 3) Nuclear. 4) intense monetary slowdown through embracing option technologies previously they're waiting for primetime. IMHO, 4 is actual no longer viable because you'll by no skill get coming up international locations to embody it which will save wealthy international locations from completely embracing it.

Answer 3

No way. The premise is that injecting frozen dioxide on the ocean floor will keep it solid due to vast pressure thereby increasing melt time by centuries. While good in theory, nature has a way of surprising us. The truth is that the ocean floor is still a vast unexplored area that could make matters worse. Forget damaging any ecosystems or destroying natural wonders. If an underwater volcano or magma flow hits the CO2, it will explode and create catastrophic waves, not to mention releasing the greenhouse gases. There are just too many unknowns to attempt this on a large scale.

Answer 4

The best idea is to just stop polluting and cutting down the trees then we wouldn't have to pump CO2 to the bottom of the ocean killing who knows what undiscovered plants and animals in the process. There is CO2 in the air naturally, but we humans put too much in the air and now were just about screwed. What if we put too much in the ocean? Then we destroy that whole ecosystem also. I think we should just leave everything alone and start thinking how we could change ourselves and the destructive way we live, not the environment.

Answer 5

I think this is a horrible idea.

First off, this would most likely cost billions upon billions especially when you consider how many countries would need to do this.

It is almost impossible to be as safe as it sounds. For that matter, it is almost impossible to not affect marine life.

The dumbest thing is how the main point of this is that it will be distributed across the planet. How? If it takes it 100 years to get from Europe to Australia, how long do you think it will really take to go across the planet.

Besides, this wont solve anything. Eventually, there will be too much CO2 in the ocean, and by that time, we will surely be done for.

Answer 6

My very first thought before I opened the article was that this would cause the oceans to be too acidic. That would result in the destruction of some of the marine life. Then I opened the article, and it looks as though most other scientists agree with that sentiment. I would say its probably not a good idea, at least not without a LOT of testing first.

Answer 7

the oil industry has killed the planet. we all know about global warming. what we don't know is the truth. the truth is the planet and its habitable environment relies on the crude oil in the ground.just as motor oil in your car engine keeps it cool and lubricated is the same way it acts in the planet. the crude oil acted like a cushion in between plates and an insulator. it kept the heat from rising to the surface the way it does now. I'm sure green house gasses add to it. every time you open a heated house and the heat escapes where does it go? does it cool off or does it raise? what effects of all this heating doing on the planet. it all must add. watch the trailer to a inconvenient truth

Answer 8

Who is building these pumps? It is junk science. The trees will eat up the CO2 and grow big and strong. Relax and pass the chips.

Answer 9

Wow, what an Awesome idea!! I dont think it would be an odd idea,at all!! The question, is will it work? If it does, how cool would that be!!! And hopefully, we can all view the end result either online, or on the planet channel!! I'd love to see that!!!

Answer 10

sounds interesting, but chances are would be more destructive than constructive. It seems like it would completely change the balance/content of sea life which could have huge unintended consequences.

Also, could be highly dangerous from a pressure/explosion standpoint. Could potentially trigger earthquakes...and/or vice versa.