From the European Association of Geochemistry | Wally Broeker, the first person to alert the world to Global Warming, has called for atmospheric CO2 to be captured and stored underground. He says that Carbon Capture, combined with limits on fossil fuel emissions, is the best way to avoid global warming getting out of control over the next fifty years. Professor Broeker (Columbia University, New York) made the call during his presentation to the International Carbon Conference in Reykjavik, Iceland, where 150 scientists are meeting to discuss Carbon Capture and Storage.
He was presenting an analysis which showed that the world has been cooling very slowly, over the last 51 million years, but that human activity is causing a rise in temperature which will lead to problems over the next 100,000 years.
“We have painted ourselves into a tight corner. We can’t reduce our reliance of fossil fuels quickly enough, so we need to look at alternatives.
“One of the best ways to deal with this is likely to be carbon capture – in other words, putting the carbon back where it came from, underground. There has been great progress in capturing carbon from industrial processes, but to really make a difference we need to begin to capture atmospheric CO2. Ideally, we could reach a stage where we could control the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, like you control your central heating. Continually increasing CO2 levels means that we will need to actively manage CO2 levels in the environment, not just stop more being produced. The technology is proven, it just needs to be brought to a stage where it can be implemented.
Wally Broeker was speaking at the International Carbon Conference in Reykjavik, where 150 scientists are meeting to discuss how best CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere as part of a programme to reduce global warming.
Meeting co-convener Professor Eric Oelkers (University College London and University of Toulouse) commented:
“Capture is now at a crossroads; we have proven methods to store carbon in the Earth but are limited in our ability to capture this carbon directly from the atmosphere. We are very good at capturing carbon from factories and power stations, but because roughly two-thirds of our carbon originates from disperse sources, implementing direct air capture is key to solving this global challenge”.
The international Carbon Conference takes place in Reykjavik, Iceland, from 25-29 August 2014. Conference website, https://www.or.is/en/projects/international-carbon-conference-2014
=================================================
He’ll have to overcome reality though, and the reality is that these schemes have failed, in what was called in the U.K. as “descending into farce” sort of like the Edsel
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bonkers idea thinking man can do something that makes a difference observable never mind verifyable against natural variation over 100k years
Mankind has risen in technology to the point where we CAN affect the climate, both accidentally and deliberately. I think we all sense this power subconsciously and worry we will cause harm.
If we follow these plans, we WILL cause harm. Earth-life is carbon-based. Furthermore the (blessed) increase in carbon dioxide probably come mostly from the killing of earthworms and other soil organisms, more than fossil fuels. Burying the carbon then means a permanent reduction of the carrying capacity of the Earth for life.
Fortunately, this guy has the same Achilles heel as algore: he is recommending something for which he would make a lot of money and we can scream that up.
I think Wally is a very apt name for this character.
We can capture CO2 easily.
Plants with lots of fertiliser.
If we choose the right ones we can sell the produce for a profit. This could really change the world.
Am I the first to come up with this idea?
no but it is correct – plant a tree
On my 10 acres in the PNW America, they plant themselves. Damn things are growing like crazy!!!
They seem to like CO2 at 400 PPM… The sound of a chainsaw is in my very near future, like this weekend.
I’ve first read about it in the book “From Eros to Gaia” written by Freeman Dyson in 1992. Don’t know if there’s anything earlier.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=Iem53rmNYAIC&pg=PT184&lpg=PT183&focus=viewport&vq=topsoil&hl=nl
Cheers!
Pour a concrete dome over DC. Problem solved. Do the same for Brussels for good measure.
“Pour a concrete dome over DC”
A dome? Wouldn’t it be more effective if it [were] filled solid?
I’m not sure how it would contain CO2, but it would certainly contain a lot of hot air.
“Plants with lots of fertilizer.”
It would certainly work. That’s what plants do.
But then, plants would show that they LOVE the CO2. And grow faster.
Or, the point of the burial is to show that CO2 is BAD, BAD, BAD!
That’s even more important than the burial itself.
M Courtney said:
Am I the first to come up with this idea?
No, Prof. Freeman Dyson alsao suggested it. So you are in very good company.
Dyson told the NY Times:
To the planet, the rising carbon may well be a striking yet ultimately benign occurrence in what is still “a relatively cool period in the earth’s history.” The warming, Dyson says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.” Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.”
And here is an interview in which Prof. Dyson explains what M Courtney suggested.
Also, here is another Dyson article on global warming, well worth reading.
Maybe, but I read about a project for capturing co2 from industrial processes in Belgium. And what did they do with the planet-killing gas? Sold it to gardeners for use in their greenhouses. And some say that the greenhouse-effect does not exist!
Yegads….why didn’t I think of that first?
And at what cost? Concentrating something as rarified as 400 ppm would mean having to process one Sh*tload of atmosphere….What kind of energy would that take? Ironic that they chose Iceland…one of the big emitters.
The CO2 in your beer, soft drinks and dry ice came from a fertilizer plant or refinery off-gas. In air separation units it’s eliminated at the front end purification stage. People living near ASUs die by the truckload due to all the oxygen being sucked away (not to mention getting the bends because of all the waste nitrogen dumped back into the atmosphere). Liquefying gases is pretty cool stuff.
Easier to pump all the Co2 into an alternate universe using Hopium for fuel.
Hopium…is that the official name for unicorn farts.
Even if it were a good idea to do this, there is a much cheaper way.
Grow plants.
Cut down plants.
Bury plants.
No fancy technology needed.
Of course govt cronies won’t get rich doing this, so it will of course be done the hard way.
They beat you to it
http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1
Don’t even need to bury them, just plant fast-growing trees (and bamboo, perhaps?) then harvest their wood. Create massive stockpiles of wood.
Of course, all of this takes energy to do and will generate considerable CO2… probably too much to compensate with sequestration.
Where do you think coal comes from?
Grow trees. Cut down trees. Build stuff with the wood from the trees.
Go back to landfills.
“Lead to problems over the next 100,000 years.”
Even by the wacky standards of ‘climate science’, even this is a bit of a stretch.
I guess none of these clowns have thought through the concept of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and how much money and energy this would require, and that’s assuming we actually had the technology to do it.
Still, we mustn’t let facts get in the way of a good idea.
Oh the technology exist. Its called rain. And it stores carbon underground in carbonates and the like Another good technology is called ‘green plants’ They also take CO2 and store it underground.
You can do it with limestone too. You take te limestione, burn it with coke to remove the carbon dioxide, which you then emit into the air, and then you run power stations flue gasses through it to extract the carbon dioxide you just released earlier, and then bury it back in the ground where you first got it. ;-)#
Or you simply compress the gas and pump it under ground, because it has been proved that unlike solid uranium, plutonium and their heavy metal decay compounds or a tiny fraction of hydraulic fracturing fluid gaseous carbon dioxide is safe in the earth’s crust for billions of years.
Mind you that’s a thought. Use liquid CO2 supercooled as a fracking mix..
And that will delay the next Ice Age surge for 100,000 years?
If he could prove it, I’d be all for it.
Wild west carbon chasers. Come on! What next?
The articles about AGW are becoming more and more bizarre.
They’re already starting to do stuff like that. Next month, about 15 miles from where I live they’re going to start work on FutureGen which is a coal powerplant that will capture and store it’s CO2 emissions 2 miles underground. I’m all for it, not because of the carbon sequestration, but for the jobs and the money it will bring into our stagnant local economy.
The only problem is that the plant will cost 60% more and produce 40 % less power. So you will pay twice as much for electricity. I am a plant designer and this is what we sell these plants for – this is not including the cost of the drilling for the disposal well and infrastructure.
A bad idea is a bad idea. You need to think a bit beyond your local economy. Think of who is actually paying for that nonsense. (Hint, it isn’t “FutureGen”).
Easier??? Wow that is some comment- We use organic solvents to trap CO2 (amines) they will react with Oxygen (600% excess air in a turbine – so is a lot of HOT air with some CO2) so it may be “easier” to do it because is less diluted- but the gas is hot. Oxidation will degrade the solvent anyway. Very expensive
You better hope all that “carbon” sequestered doesn’t get released suddenly. The 1986 disaster at Lake Nyos killed people up to 15.5 miles away.
Exactly my concern as well.
Heather here is what follows sequestration:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/co2-leaks-worry-sask-farmers-1.977078
Peter, agriculture does it every day. The largest most efficient system of carbon on the planet is green plants. And, while I do not think abiotic oil is completely mistaken, the amount of proven biotic oil and coal shows that it has worked with great efficiency for more than half-a-billion years.
He seems to suggest that we have enough fossil fuels in the ground to last 100,000 years.
At last, some really good news!
Terrific point!
Mr. Broeker also seems to think we must act quickly for we don’t have much time:
100,000 years is a “tight corner”.
“… human activity is causing a rise in temperature which will lead to problems over the next 100,000 years.
‘We have painted ourselves into a tight corner. We can’t reduce our reliance of fossil fuels quickly enough, so we need to look at alternatives’.”
Why not compress it and make diamonds? My wife would love it.
I envision a contraption on the top of a coal fired plant that captures CO2 compresses it send it down to bottom so the plant can burn it again ! Perpetual energy the Greens should love especially Obummer
Check with me again in 10,000 years. Until then this is just BS from the first BSer.
If this were desirable – IT IS NOT – then capture of CO2 from its high concentration in flue gases would be more sensible than from its low concentration in the air.
Importantly, why would anybody be concerned at “human activity is causing a rise in temperature which will lead to problems over the next 100,000 years”?
Richard
We won’t even BE here then. How’s THAT for a forecast.
Most power plants are combined cycle – excess air in a turbine is around 600% – very diluted and hot gas.
EF
Some power stations are are combined cycle units. Most are not.
Steam cycle boilers don’t use much excess air. Also, commercial and industrial boilers don’t operate power stations.
Capture of CO2 from its high concentration in flue gases would be more sensible than from its low concentration in the air. But the collection would not be sensible: it would be daft.
Richard
Power stations are typically 12% CO2 in the expelled gases. Most of it is Nitrogen, of course.
” to really make a difference we need to begin to capture atmospheric CO2. ”
What’s wrong with a tree, may I ask?
He was presenting an analysis which showed that the world has been cooling very slowly, over the last 51 million years
=====
Where did he get that?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo1.png
Since your graph only goes back to 50,000 years ago…How about here?
[img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png[/img]
Dang, sry didn’t insert that image right. Yes it is a Wiki page but the image wasn’t created there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
….Oy
If you click on the little X you will see the image…
Anyone want to give me a tutorial on inserting images on the new format? 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Maybe without the img tags.
Nope
Is this the one?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Just as a point of information, the black line at the right side of the graph roughly represents the last 50,000 years in Latitude’s graph. The box on the x axis that contains “PLT” is about 2,000,000 years wide. The temperature trend since the Eocene has indeed spanned about 50,000,000 years.
So plastic bags last forever and must be banned. They contain carbon. Why not make them mandatory and bury them. Not that any of it makes any sense and the whole thing is silly. We should let the greens declare victory and leave the field (mercy rule). Of course if we look around there is ebola, southern border, churches going apostate, national debt, Ukraine, Isis, the lost middle East across North Africa all the way to India, etc. so we would still have something else to think about. Toss in failing school system, collapse of our infra structure, health care debacle, militarized police force, sky rocketing entitlement numbers, and corrupt IRS as well as Justice department and one could get depressed. Maybe we do need to worry about climate change and the associated kleptocrats if for no other reason that it diverts us from reality.
+ 1
Plastic bags contain carbon and last forever.
My Safeway in downtown Portland, Oregon used free paper bags for years with no problem — then the city mandated plastic to save the trees. Then two years ago mandated a return to paper because the plastic bags were filling up the dump and the paper could be recycled. Supermarket bags were mandated to be made out of recycled paper. It rains an awful lot in Portland and if rain hit those recycled bags your groceries immediately hit the ground. They would fall apart as you held them.
Safeway realized that according to the law the supermarket could not GIVE you free plastic bags but it could still SELL them to you — like any other product in the store. Safeway now charges 20 cents for a plastic bag that they probably pay 1/10 of a cent for if that much. Highest profit item in the store. They sit prominently right next to the free recycled paper bags the clerks use if not told that you want plastic.
If carbon capture becomes big I am sure the city will mandate plastic again and bury all that ever lasting plastic in our dumps. But I bet Safeway will still be charging us for those plastic bags. Liberal idiots.
Snowsnake,
I love your take on things.
So well said.
The feeling is mutual.
Dave H
I want to know if this highly intellectual fellow has a clue where on God’s Green Earth we can store that much carbon dioxide… That’s not likely to be possible.
Norway abandoned their carbon capture programme. It was supposed to be their “Moon landing”, but according to their energy minister: “At both the national and international level, the development of technologies to capture and store CO2 has taken longer, been more difficult and more costly than expected”.
Heh – govt programmes are ALWAYS “more difficult and more costly”; look at obama”care”.
According to BBC: The [CO2 sequestration] process was patented back in the 1930s, and it is reckoned to be one of the most important technologies available for tackling greenhouse gas emissions.
Why the heck was there a CO2 sequestration process in the ’30s? And if it is “one of the most important technologies…” and Norway was not able to implement it, why does this Wally fellow think that there should be another attempt made?
It must be like what leftists say about communism – it just hasn’t been done right yet.
TOTAL lunacy.
If I had to guess, the process patented in the 1930’s was likely for extracting CO2 with an eye to using it for some commercial purpose, not simply to bury it in the ground. IIRC, CO2 has been used in oil field enhancement to boost flow. I’d guess basically you wouldn’t provide an “up” pipe and leave it trapped there. It’s all madness anyway; I think that something like 30% or so of the output from a coal-fired electric plant would be required to capture and compress a reasonable percentage of the CO2 it produces.
Tell him to go stand on the edge of the Grand Canyon. You’ll see several hundred millions years of carbon sequestration in the vertical walls of the limestone rock. Those thick limestone layers go on for several hundred miles in the western US and there are limestone deposits all over the world. Most of that CO2 was in the atmosphere at one time. Mother nature is still busy sequestering CO2 in warm shallow seas and will continue to do so whether we want her to or not.
Use areal spraying to nock down microbes and insects an additional 6% and you’ll have accomplished the equivalent of anthropogenic emission in its entirety.
They have been doing this for a long time.
https://www.google.ca/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=carbon+capture+and+storage&btnK=
Use ariel spraying to knock down microbes and insects; an additional 6% and you’ll have accomplished the equivalent of anthropogenic emission elimination in its entirety.
There must always be an n+1 tip of the iceberg of idiocy.
The slack jawed idiocy of an educated man making any sort of assertions about 100,000 years is beyond parody. It is beyond jumping the shark. In a field most notable by its ability to make allegedly intelligent smart people make stupid claims, this is possibly the most extreme example.
Then one can wonder away from the wreckage of the 100k year foolishness and take a look at the mind numbing stupidity of the idea that underground CO2 sequestration is needful, practical or viable as a solution and wonder who paid for this tripe?
Who paid for it? Why, you and I did…
It’s not who paid for it; it’s who gets paid to do it–the guys who is suggesting it.
Too late to bomb Reykjavik ? You can always say you thought it was the Bardarbunga volcano.