How much lime does it take to treat the whole ocean? Where have we heard this before? Oh yes, dump powdered iron into the ocean. That one didn’t happen yet. Sure, let’s just toss a bunch of lime into the ocean and watch what happens. We’ll just order up a few billion bags of slaked lime and toss ’em into the sea, yeah, that’s the ticket. Note that there is no discussion of what all that lime might do to upset other balances, just so long as we get rid of that nasty CO2. Thank goodness another professor from James Hansen’s Columbia University gives a stamp of approval.
I’d love to see the environmental impact report on this one, especially when they find out that lime does not dissolve immediately or completely in water, but tends to settle.
By the way, slaked lime + water = whitewash. I’ve mixed a few batches myself recently.
From Physorg: A dash of lime — a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels
Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O’Driscoll in SCI’s Chemistry & Industry magazine published today.
Shell is so impressed with the new approach that it is funding an investigation into its economic feasibility. ‘We think it’s a promising idea,’ says Shell’s Gilles Bertherin, a coordinator on the project. ‘There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change – and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.’
Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater’s ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it back again.
However, the idea, which has been bandied about for years, was thought unworkable because of the expense of obtaining lime from limestone and the amount of CO2 released in the process.
Tim Kruger, a management consultant at London firm Corven is the brains behind the plan to resurrect the lime process. He argues that it could be made workable by locating it in regions that have a combination of low-cost ‘stranded’ energy considered too remote to be economically viable to exploit – like flared natural gas or solar energy in deserts – and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible for calcination to take place on site.
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore ‘carbon negative’.
‘This process has the potential to reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be possible to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels,’ Kruger says.
And Professor Klaus Lackner, a researcher in the field from Columbia University, says: ‘The theoretical CO2 balance is roughly right…it is certainly worth thinking through carefully.’
The oceans are already the world’s largest carbon sink, absorbing 2bn tonnes of carbon every year. Increasing absorption ability by just a few percent could dramatically increase CO2 uptake from the atmosphere.
This project is being developed in an open source manner. To find out more, please go to http://www.cquestrate.com , a new website, launched today.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Evan Jones (00:49:16) Why not paint Al Gore white to increase his albedo?
And yet another classic line, Evan!
Lime is manufactured by heating limestone rock which drives off CO2 gas.
CaCO3(s) –> CaO(s) + CO2(g)
The amount of CO2 taken up by lime cannot exceed the amount of CO2 produced in its manufacture and is almost certainly less.
Having said that, I think I understand the rational behind this, which doesn’t mean I agree. Produce lime and CO2 in an industrial process. Capture the CO2 use it for say oil field injection. Then use the lime to capture atmosphere and ocean CO2.
Are you just making this stuff up? Pulling it from ‘The Onion’?
“All technology is therefore bad, and we must address this problem only by behavioural change.”
As long as said behaviour is being smug because they’ve bought a Prius (instead of a more CO2 friendly car) or thrown out all their working lightbulbs to replace them with “energy efficient” bulbs.
Why is it that the real believers still refuse to give up the trappings of modern life and revert to a more pastoral existence? Don’t they realise they are killing the planet?
And if that’s not enough, put the trees in the ground!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080513101652.htm
and here
http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1
And then, when there will be no trees left, BBC has the solution:
Synthetic trees could purify air
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2784227.stm
I’m speechless…
Two points about lime. It is made from limestone (CaCO3) by burning it, producing quick lime (CaO) and CO2. So there is no net gain in the amount of CO2 in the air/ocean system. Also, the reaction between hydrated lime (made by mixing quick lime with water) and dissolved CO2 raises the pH to over 9, which is the toxic limit for most fish. Hence Grovesmuk use of lime to kill fish.
By the way, the iron experiment has been tried on a small scale, and it failed.
This reminds me so much of an old anti-submarine warfare “plan” I once heard. Fill the oceans with LSD, and the fish will cluster around submarines in a frenzy of affection, rendering the submarines inoperative.
You folks just don’t understand. The idea is to net all the dead fish the lime will produce, and feed the world.
Win-Win!
Evan Jones (00:49:16) :
“Why not paint Al Gore white to increase his albedo?”
I dont think that would be a good idea, since such dramatic changes in the albedo will throw earth into another ice age.
I can think of a lot of uses that I could put lime to, and a lot of people that could could get adapted quickly
Ya’ll is just made you didn’t think up this money making scheme.
Here in Sudbury where the lakes are acidic from sulfer emissions due to smelting, we have limed our lakes to reduce their acidity. It has helped to bring life back to some near dead lakes.
The liming the oceans idea is horribly ignorant.
John M Reynolds
Of course they have a solution for the carbon created by the land and sea transportation. Don’t they? Ah come on, these are the academic leaders of the world.
Spectral analysis of infrared emissions from earth show two large CO2 notches where very little energy gets through, one at 4.3 um and one at 15 um. Doesn’t the existence of these notches indicate that all energy that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed, and that any increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly result in any additional greenhouse effect? It seems to me that the whole effort to halt the rise of atmospheric CO2 is an exercise in absurdity, given that the only remaining effect it can possibly have is to benefit plant growth.
Oh my – this is too funny!! We’re gonna dump slaked lime into the ocean to soak up all of the nasty CO2…..
Reminds me of a recent article discussing the role of ‘coccolithophores’ in the role of ocean calcification. Seems they are getting bigger and bigger recently as CO2 concentrations rise, thus sequestering more CO2 than ever before. Recently confirmed in experiments as discussed here:
http://www.physorg.com/preview128613620.html
The funny part is that earlier “studies” on the effects of ocean acidification used hydrochloric acid for acidification rather than dissolved CO2. Of course the CO2 was observed to increase the mass of the little buggers whereas the HCl dissolved them – Duh!. Apparently the original thinking was ‘any old acid will do’ to prove their point. The shear arrogance and ignorance of the AGW researchers in general is truly stupefying.
These people appear to be getting funding for their lunatic idea. It would be quite interesting to set up some fake anti C02 technology company and see how easy it is to make some money.
Probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard on this whole AGW subject.
this is the most unthinkably destructive scheme I’ve ever heard of, not only from an economic standpoint but from an ENVIRONMENTAL one!!! The previous poster who mentioned lime and dead fish had it right – water creatures are all very sensitive to PH levels. Change them up or down, and most life in that water dies. As another previous poster noted, that’s why acid rain (sulfur compounds) are so damaging to lakes. In that case, lime brings the pH balance back towards normal. This moronic plan would lay waste to the oceans. Unbelievable to think that anyone could be fool enough to even suggest this.
Why don’t we just re-introduce phosphate in detergents? The resulting algae bloom would soak up additional CO2 and create a similar environmental catastrophe but, our clothes would be cleaner. Where can I get grant money to research this approach?
So let me understand this:
We heat limestone using a heat source (maybe natural gas) which releases CO2 from combustion which then releases more CO2 as limestone converts to quicklime.
Assuming that a certain amount of the lime settles out and never reacts with dissolved CO2, there would be a significant net increase in atmospheric CO2 not a reduction.
Seems brilliant to me!
Isn’t this similar to the way biofuels got started? How’d that work out?
Here’s a development of the Al Gore idea (inspired by something I saw on YouTube once). All the throngs of people worried about CO2 and ocean acidification could be invited to go on a Greenpeace-sponsored mass skinny-dip across the Pacific, having first coated themselves head to toe in eco-friendly lime-based white body paint. I even have a slogan for them: “Be A Lemming For Gaia”. Think of the benefits: Earth’s albedo is raised, the ocean’s pH balance is restored, no technology is used and any swimmers who fall to marine predators will contribute valuable protein to the food chain. Now that’s surely a win-win solution.
I used to read SciFi as a kid when they engaged in terraforming other planets (Venus was a favorite) but I never, in my wildest dreams, that we would seriously consider doing this to our own planet.
This is the most idiotic idea I’ve heard yet. Giant mirrors in space, dump iron into the oceans, dump gigatons of lime into the oceans … *sigh*
agree – the idea as such is nuts, but the business model is worth checking out (have been ruminating about something like that on deep-ocean understanding for years…)
cquestrate’s tag line says it all:
“Developing an open source solution to climate change” –
the foundation of the concept is the theory that climate change needs a solution. In other words, it’s their progression way beyond hypothesis, accepting the consensus of AGW.
I would think that most readers of this blog are quite comfortable with having falsified the original hypotheses – that man-made CO2 emissions are the main drivers of global warming or even climate change as such. We look at differentiated ways to refine climate science towards understanding of regionally observed phenomena (Roger Pielke Sr.’s excellent work comes to mind), and how they are forced by a multitude of factors and balanced by that huge hot water bottle (thank you, Stephen Wilde) which gets its heat from that big source out there.
In short: climate change is one of the real basics of life, driven by photons and cycled through complex interactions between the main compounds water, CO2 and O2, quasi-inert buffers as well as a myriad of critical trace contributors.
Rather than falling into the arrogance that we need and can change that, we should strive toward better and better understanding – embracing and celebrating these fundamental processes – so that we can adapt our societal metabolisms into these much larger dynamics of life.
Back to the business model stipulated by cquestrate – open source solution – this fits well into our wiki world (compare with Don Tapscott’s Wikinomics – how mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin Books 2006/07).
Any comments on how similar approaches can be used to create a pathway to sanity, beyond the “combat climate change” craze?
I am working on a specific subset (interactive deep-ocean explaration for the Net generation) and plan to re-launch once more within weeks. Towards this, I have started personal discussions with a few of you – thank you for responding – more to come as soon as the bread-and-butter stuff flows smoothly.
Anthony – thanks again for this terrific forum that fills the need for rational balance seasoned by healthy and civil discussion with a good dose of sly and quirky humor!
ulrich lobsiger
(the deepslope smart camera – vintage 1986 – non-invasive long-term observation of deep-sea processes at the millimeter scale; digital follow-through is underway carried by many others…)
Okay, let me this straight. An OIL COMPANY funded this study. Hiring a PR firm (oops, I mean ‘consulting’) to front a dodgy blogish-looking website, one would think folks like desmogblog would be all over this one – that sort of thing is right up their alley. Funny I don’t see articles knocking this crazy scheme in any of the greenie blogs. Guess Exxon is the only ‘evil’ oil company.