An updated proposal to store CO2 on Antarctica
Story submitted by John Tillman
Story body: In 1995 two Japanese scientists suggested storing carbon dioxide in Antarctic ice caves. Now three scientists at Purdue have published a more elaborate and detailed proposal along these lines, advocating 446 deposition plants, supported by sixteen wind farms, on the icy, katabatic blast-swept continent.
This dry snow reservoir could come in very handy in the future. When climate cools again, and atmospheric carbon dioxide returns to the oceans whence it came, humanity might replenish our supply, without needing to burn more wood or fossil fuels (which we could be doing anyway, to keep warm, unless nuclear or alternative technologies have replaced carbon-based energy).
CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropogenic Global Warming
Ernest Agee, Andrea Orton, and John Rogers Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Abstract
A scientific plan is presented that proposes the construction of carbon dioxide (CO2) deposition plants in the Antarctic for removing CO2 gas from Earth’s atmosphere. The Antarctic continent offers the best environment on Earth for CO2 deposition at 1 bar of pressure and temperatures closest to that required for terrestrial air CO2 “snow” deposition—133 K. This plan consists of several components, including 1) air chemistry and CO2 snow deposition, 2) the deposition plant and a closed-loop liquid nitrogen refrigeration cycle, 3) the mass storage landfill, 4) power plant requirements, 5) prevention of dry ice sublimation, and 6) disposal (or use) of thermal waste. Calculations demonstrate that this project is worthy of consideration, whereby 446 deposition plants supported by sixteen 1200-MW wind farms can remove 1 billion tons (1012 kg) of carbon (1 GtC) annually (a reduction of 0.5 ppmv), which can be stored in an equivalent “landfill” volume of 2 km × 2 km × 160 m (insulated to prevent dry ice sublimation). The individual deposition plant, with a 100 m × 100 m × 100 m refrigeration chamber, would produce approximately 0.4 m of CO2 snow per day. The solid CO2 would be excavated into a 380 m × 380 m × 10 m insulated landfill, which would allow 1 yr of storage amounting to 2.24 × 10−3 GtC. Demonstrated success of a prototype system in the Antarctic would be followed by a complete installation of all 446 plants for CO2 snow deposition and storage (amounting to 1 billion tons annually), with wind farms positioned in favorable coastal regions with katabatic wind currents.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1?af=R&
===============================================================
From Anthony:
1 billion tons annually is what the proposal would store. Sounds like a lot doesn’t it?
From the Global Carbon Project:
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burning and cement production increased by 3% in 2011, with a total of 9.5±0.5 PgC emitted to the atmosphere (34.7 billion tonnes of CO2). These emissions were the highest in human history and 54% higher than in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol reference year). In 2011, coal burning was responsible for 43% of the total emissions, oil 34%, gas 18%, and cement 5%.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burning and cement production are projected to increase by 2.6% in 2012, to a record high of 9.7±0.5 PgC (35.6 billion tonnes of CO2).
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and other industrial processes are calculated by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center of the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory. For the period 1959 to 2009 the calculations were based on United Nations Energy Statistics and cement data from the US Geological Survey, and for the years 2010 and 2011 the calculations were based on BP energy data.
Uncertainty of the global fossil fuel CO2 is estimated at ±5% (±1 sigma bounds based on the 10% at ±2 sigma bounds published by Andres et al. 2012).
Uncertainty of emissions from individual countries can be larger.
The 2012 projection of 2.6% growth is based on the world GDP projection of 3.3% made by the International Monetary Fund and our estimate of improvements in the fossil intensity of the economy of 0.7%.
Source: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm#FFandCement
So, with 35.6 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted in 2012 (estimated) and China still going like gangbusters, does anybody really think the 1 billion ton sequestration proposal is going to make even a dent?
![dotchinaco2new-blog480[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dotchinaco2new-blog4801.jpg?quality=83)
I would say we could do something like this once someone presents some actual data that shows CO2 is a real problem.
Crosspatch: Don’t expect actual scientific proof that CO2 is a real problem. What we will get is more assertions and theories masquerading as scientific proof.
And who will pay for this boondoggle?
“A scientific plan is presented that proposes….”
That says it all really; just a few calculations, and some straightforward advice (i.e. we better keep the dry ice cold), and PRESTO alleged global climate disaster solved. Next task, write the Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech.
Jeeezh…..
Have these boffins never heard of INFRASTRUCTURE, you know; roads, airports, seaports, electrical power grids, water, sewage handling, etc. All the little details needed to carry out an engineering undertaking of the size proposed. Heck, when they built the Hoover (nee Boulder) Dam they made a new city just to feed and clothe the workers.
Here’s a summarized plan;
Step 1, replicate the US interstate highway system, airports, air traffic control and seaports in Antarctica. Including cell phone towers and FedEx (or UPS if you prefer) delivery systems.
Step 2 (six months later) assemble the new machines
Step 3 (2 weeks later) flip the ON switch
Step 4 (10 minutes later) pack your bags and go home, mission accomplished………..
Having been to Antarctica I can assure you that NONE of the infrastructure exists; there are no roads (just some wide trails around the bases), no cell phones, and no seaports (with significant cargo transferring capabilities). Sea transport to there is limited to 4 (or maybe 5) months of the year. Airplane travel is similarly limited. The electrical power grids are limited to small areas around the bases.
Seems like it would be easier to capture Sasquatches and inject them with the CO2 (even if there was a good reason to do so).
What flavor is the “pie in the sky” in their world ?
Cheers, Kevin.
CO2 sequestration is S T U P I D. Period. Crosspatch is on the money. Where is the data to prove the hyposthesis that CO2 is a problem in any way? I guess plant food is a terrible thing…
Have the writers heard that – not only is there no infrastructure down there – but even disposing of waste is a REAL problem?
See, at -40 to -70 below zero (on the high ice caps where the temperatures they mention using are limited to) you can’t “dispose of” human waste. it doesn’t decompose – the microbes that “might” decompose it are themselves killed by the frost. So most Antarctic camps nowadays must “store” their biological waste (er, blood or medical waste, shitte and urine and garbage disposal flushings and everything else) and ship it back out.
50 years of contamination and waste and simple “life” down there has made unsightly “dumps” of most of the “so-called” scientific camps.
These people have been reading too much science fiction…and not the good stuff either!
Back when I was in grade school, um, a much longer time ago then I like to imagine, they had us do an exercise in the gymn. There was a theory that very young children learned to walk too soon, and that advanced development altered our innocent young eyes. You see (no pun intended) by walking too soon, rather than continuing to crawl, our brand new eyes would look into the distance rather than at the ground where they belonged. Anyway, the theory was, that by not having a lot of experience in our formative years, of looking at things closely, as when crawling, we would be disadvantaged when reading. So, when my fellow students and I were about 8 years old our teachers gathered us up for crawling exercises on the gym floor. So there we were, crawling around aimlessly on our hands and knees all over the gym floor for about an hour or so so as to improve our reading skills, until that very rare teacher, who actually had some connection with real life, appeared and put a stop to the nonsense.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Whatever, for chrissake, does that foregoing story have to do with splattering dry ice all over the arctic? Maybe it’s just me, but I think it has everything to do with it.
I was laughing so much at the idea of going to Antarctica and putting up dry ice factories and missed a couple of details like the sublimation rate from storage or the whole infrastructure bit.
Why is it that I picture 4 or 5 very stoned students sitting in the student union, thinking this crap up.
Honestly.
CO2 sequestration makes doing nothing look like a really excellent idea. Doing nothing is quick, cheap, reliable and in this case, cost effective, as the extra CO2 will aid plant growth and do nothing harmful to the climate.
That’s not important. The question to ask is who receives the money that gets paid.
…does anybody really think the 1 billion ton sequestration proposal is going to make even a dent?
Sometimes people are so busy trying to blind us with their intelligence and their math skills that they forget to start with the arithmetic of the obvious. If that answers your question…
Just Sayin’
And Tom J. (March 3, 2013 at 7:51 pm) Had a good laugh — I too remember some stupid theories in education that should never have seen the light of day — not even the dark of the moon.
OMG do they not want to breathe, sequestering Co2 means sequestering O2, our O2 levels are falling as it is.
But wait! Maybe the windmills could be made out of sort of ‘nano-ice’, so much less material would have to be shipped in… we could call it Ice 9. (per Vonnegut)
What caught my attention, such a sweet notion, was the comment that we’d sort of keep the CO2 around in case we needed it, y’know, if it got colder.
Unbelievable.
The proposed sequestration might almost cover the amount of CO2 released by greenhouse CO2 generator like the beauty below:
http://www.greenhousemegastore.com/product/johnson-co2-generator
I love the Johnson CO2 generator – burns natural gas to produce CO2, and throws away the heat.
Am I really living on the same planet as these people? And who is paying for this. Like willis I need to come out of retirement every now and then and I could sure use some funds.
A scientific plan for sure.
When might we see an engineering plan?
Like never, even the craziest engineer will balk at this inanity.
As for co2 sequestration, if co2 can be demonstrated to be a measurable problem, what about plants?
Beneath the attention of high minded climatologists?
Based on the evidence, shale, coal and oil, plants can sequester co2 for millions of years, well who knew?
I can feel myself becoming a victim of raging climatologism psychosis.
That RCP for short and its spreading around the world.
First symptom, contempt for government and the nonsense it creates.
Maybe ‘we’ should sequester the untold tones of plastics floating in the oceans. Maybe ‘we’ should update the water treatment plants in major cities so that billions of tones of raw sewage (produce methane for transportation/) are not spilled yearly into the oceans. Maybe ‘we’ should build cutting edge sustainable cities in the Arctic before Antarctica. Maybe ‘we’ should capture build a space elevator. Maybe ‘we’ should build a space station on the moon….
So… basically…
..The Onion hacked the American Meteorological Society’s web site?
… building 446 freezer plants in Antarctic conditions… a billion tons a year… and how are they proposing to power 446 cryo plants; solar power? During a six month night (can’t wait to see the battery plants for that)? Or carbon free unicorn farts?
An Onion hack. Or maybe some grad students seeing what they could get past their professors. Or drugs. Really, really good drugs all around.
Let’s do it. If we get behind this idea and spend everything we have on it to save the planet, for shit’s and giggles, why not.
Purdue U. must be one of those institutions having a cash shortfall and they are out of pencils and paper – all that would be needed to show the uselessness of this scheme. All that expense and the only useful product is stored CO2! Any influence on temperature would be indistinguishable from zero.
I’d be impressed if they could break the carbon-oxygen bond and make diamonds and other useful products. It won’t have to be done in the most inhospitable of places either.
THIS !
A … PROPOSAL !
Are these Purdue U. Farmers Mad with Anthropogenic Human Mann Mad Cow Disease !, we know they are lunatics, their SAT and ACT scores prove it !
Oh well. Guess this the the Cream de la Cream of the NSF Favorites, i.e. sexual favorites.
Ah, so that is what the money was for !
XD
Meanwhile back on on Vulcan, Antoine de Ramon N‘Yeurt, David P. Chynoweth, Mark E. Capron, Jim R. Stewart, Mohammed A. Hasan. (2012), citing Ernest Agee, Andrea Orton, and John Rogers offer an alternative analysis that shows, ‘the potential of Ocean Afforestation to produce 12 billion tons per year of biomethane while storing 19 billion tons of CO2 per year directly from biogas production, plus up to 34 billion tons per year from carbon capture of the biomethane combustion exhaust…based on macro-algae forests covering 9% of the world’s ocean surface, which could produce sufficient biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, restoring pre-industrial levels’.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1?af=R
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206
Hold on! That was a close shave. No need for the inconvenience of trying to get one’s head around 446 sequestering plants in Antarctica, we’ve got ‘Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA)’.
Who funds this, who reads it let alone who takes it seriously?
Don’t you see … all the energy expended in cooling and compressing the CO2 into storage pellets and building the infrastructure will produce more CO2 so that it is a self-sustaining endeavor. Isn’t sustainability the quest of the left?