... depositing waste carbon dioxide from industries beneath the earth surface where it can turn to rock in say 1000 years time. The explanation was that carbon dioxide together with sat water eventually turns to rock. Does this sound promising?
2007-07-26 09:37:27 · 7 answers · asked by Mrs. Midnightbully 4 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Actually the earth already does this and has for billions of years. If you go to the Bahamas, you will find the beaches composed of oolites, which are precipitated calcium carbonates. This is because the ocean is warm here and warm water cannot dissolve as much calcium. Frankly, I would consider sequestering carbon as waste to be a huge waste of time and resources. The only solution to pollution that will satisfy the alarmists is to move away from a market economy in my opinion.
2007-07-26 10:09:30 · answer #1 · answered by JimZ 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'd prefer that we keep the carbon dioxide where we can get to it if the need ever arises. How about the good old fashioned way: planting trees, harvesting timbers, planting more trees.
We have moved away from wood in manufactured goods and replaced them with products of a much higher energy consumption, including petroleum products. How many times have you seen plastic with a faux wood finish? How many times do you see the cheap furniture made out of plastic or steel?
We could even stockpile lumber for later use. Did you know that we have had the technology to make methanol, ethanol, gasoline and diesel fuels from trees for decades, or in some cases almost two centuries? Lumbar stockpiling could begin immediately with a managed program of reforestation to keep the forests at zero loss. Meanwhile, technologies could be refined to the point that a significant portion of fossil fuel use could be replaced.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1991/zerbe91a.pdf
That doesn't even take into account the direct use of wood in high efficiency wood burning stoves for home heating.
2007-07-27 02:37:04 · answer #2 · answered by 3DM 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Carbon sequestration is indeed promising and will allow us to continue getting power by burning coal without contributing significantly to global warming. The problem is that there's only so many stable formations where we can store the carbon, but at least it will buy us some time to move to alternative power sources.
2007-07-26 16:44:08 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, that's being investigated. In the short term, it might be the only answer.
2007-07-27 09:23:43 · answer #4 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but probably not feasible-- the cost will out weigh the US interest in this.....I believe there are some european countries already using this method!
2007-07-26 17:01:19 · answer #5 · answered by mac 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It will work for sure but its not really a good idea. Like most of the stuff being proposed its very well designed and better can be developed.
2007-07-26 16:54:04 · answer #6 · answered by jim m 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Tearing up the ground to "stop global warming"? Just more evidence that all this hype is doing more harm than good.
2007-07-26 16:46:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋