Hump Day Hilarity – infinite carbon loop

Krafla geothermal power station

Krafla geothermal power station

Russell Cook writes:

I kid you not. From tonight’s (8/23/16) PBS NewsHour broadcast segment titled “To combat climate change, these scientists are turning CO2 into rock“, these quotes from the discussion segment host and two of the speakers, regarding recapturing CO2 from Icelandic geothermal activity:

MALCOLM BRABANT: “Because it is self-contained within the geothermal power plant, the CarbFix solution cannot be used for capturing CO2 from planes, cars and ships like this one in a Norwegian fjord.  But Professor Gislason believes there should be international law requiring countries to start using this new technique.”

SIGGI GISLASON, CarbFix: “The more diffuse emissions like from jets, cars, et cetera, is going to be more complicated, but still 40 percent of the emissions could theoretically be captured and stored in rocks. There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”

MALCOLM BRABANT: But even here in Iceland, it’s not being used to its full extent.

BERGUR SIGFUSSON: Seventy-five percent of the CO2 is emitted at the moment. Of the CO we take up to the surface, approximately 25 percent are reinjected directly to form the carbonates, minerals.

[……..]

MALCOLM BRABANT: But if you’re trying to save the planet, why don’t you put in 100 percent?

HILDIGUNNUR THORSTEINSSON: Well, when we were testing the technology, we didn’t know if it would work. And so we only started injecting two years ago. We’re still proving that we can keep it all down there, everything turns to minerals.  As the future progresses, we might do more. We haven’t decided.

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “Hump Day Hilarity – infinite carbon loop

    • Not true. The professor would get lots of value. In fact, he has already started his promotional campaign, to wit: “But Professor Gislason believes there should be international law requiring countries to start using this new technique.”
      I am sure he would be available as an expert consultant whose services would be in great demand by companies scrambling to satisfy the new “rockquifaction” laws.

      • But this is a war on CAGW, so we should confiscate all technologies that contribute [to the] war effort and provide them free to all to use to fight the great fight. Isn’t that what was done during WWII to help the war effort. So why not for this great cause. Besides, everyone should work for the greater good without compensation as all will benefit all. As we learned from history, this worked very well in the Soviet Union

    • “There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”

      This from the guy that invented, tested, and sells the CarbFix method. I’m pretty sure he’s got quite a lot to gain. I’m ideologically and morally opposed to legislation to “force” me to do anything. I’m especially opposed when the legislation forcing me to do something will make the proponent of that legislation rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    • Hah. They could.
      Of course the problem is that in order to make a carbonate,. you need to take something else – like say a sulphate, and use energy to turn it onto a carbonate. And then you end up with in this case spare sulphuric acid etc.
      Much better to simply add water and energy and turn it back into diesel.
      LOL!

    • No, CAGW does not make sense, even on the most rudimentary of examinations.
      These brainless attempts to limit the release of natural CO2 are the height of stupidity.
      (yes, CO2 from coal and gas is totally natural)

      • and?
        so what..?
        passes any energy directly to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere, where it is dealt with, like any other extra energy, by conduction and convection
        .

    • Repeating Tony Halla’s sentence for emphasis: “CAGW only makes sense if not examined too closely.” In the case of the PBS NewsHour, I can say with authority that CAGW is always presented as a settled science – notice in the complete transcript/video of this segment, not a word of skeptic opposition was presented. Stemming from my earliest articles at AmericanThinker years ago on the bias of the NewsHour (as described here http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html ), I keep an ongoing file on that bias. Dr Pat Michaels appeared once on the program, in a taped segment only containing his rebuttal about the ClimateGate situation; he wasn’t allowed to make other statements about the skeptic side of AGW. When it comes to the NewsHour’s overall reporting on the issue, regarding their direct discussion segments on the issue or when it is significantly mentioned in other parts of their program, it’s come up around 580 times (including last night’s CO2 rocks bit) ever since 1996, from the beginning of their online broadcast transcripts. Out of that total number, there’s only been FIVE instances where NewsHour viewers have seen any semblance of pure science points from CAGW skeptics, and one of those occurred when Anthony Watts appeared in a 2012 taped segment. The other four being skeptic science points offered by the CEO of Western Fuels in 1997, Chris Horner in 2001, Rep Joe Barton in 2007, and Roger Pielke Jr in 2013. Meanwhile, during this same ’96-to-present time, there’s been 33 appearances of IPCC/NOAA/NASA scientists there.
      Once again, for greater emphasis: “CAGW only makes sense to PBS NewsHour viewers if not examined too closely.”

  1. Well this is nothing short of brilliant. We should immediately remove all low reliability wind turbines and solar plants from the grid and convert them all to energy sources that turn CO2 into rocks leaving reliable coal and gas powered energy for powering the grid. And this will appeal to leftists everywhere – we pay the renewables people to make rocks. Then we use all those death trains that return to the coal mines empty to drag all those CO2 rocks to the coal mines there they are used to back-fill the coal digs. In addition, we can load all those Chinese ocean freighters that return to China empty with CO2 rocks that are dumped in the South China Sea to make new islands. Given time they can build a multi-lane trans-Pacific highway system from China to all the Pacific Rim nations.

    • Pff, I think the urgency is so great the time for science is past – we need to employ wizards. I suggest they take all their consensus tokens, pool them together and form an academy of alchemy. I hears a bloke called Hairy Porter is available for lectures..

  2. I know, I know….lets burn limestone to reduce it to CaO and, here’s the clever part, CARBONATE IT WITH CO2!! Yay!!

    • I can guarantee with 100% certainty that when the next ice age comes, we will be burning limestone to create CO2 like there’s no tomorrow. Not because it will have any effect on the temperature, but because it will keep agriculture from crashing.

  3. Why that heck would anyone sane want to store something that is desperately needed NOW in the atmosphere.
    Atmospheric CO2 level are still way too low, and need to be boosted somehow if we are going to continue to feed the world’s increasing population.

      • Do we Need more CO2 in the atmosphere? Definitely not. Would it be useful for farming, probably yes.

        • Do we Need more CO2 in the atmosphere? Definitely not. Would it be useful for farming, probably yes.

          Probably? Probably????
          EVERY plant on earth is growing faster, taller, higher, more efficiently with the increased CO2 released than EVER before in recorded history! We (worldwide) are feeding and clothing and sheltering some 1/6 of MORE people worldwide due to the increased CO2 released by burning fossil fuels. And we ARE feeding the remaining 2/3 BY the energy of the fossil fuels (bulk storage, cleanliness, handling, harvesting, plowing, planting, shipping, packaging, selling, moving, wrapping, cooking, refrigerating, and handling the food), and preserving the health of every one with cleaner tools, clothing, shelter, water, and sewage disposal only made possible by the concrete, steel, pipelines, and roads and dams and sewage plants built with fossil fuels.
          Remvoe fossil fuels? You kill people. You return to the short impoverished lives of the 1750’s. Worldwide. (Except for the liberal elites of course.)

      • Tony,
        If you look at CO2 levels on a geological time scale, you will realize that we are near record low concentrations right now. And as long as you are looking, please notice that when CO2 levels were high, so were plant and animal life. It took a lot of plants to feed one sauropod. So all that CO2 that we are returning to the atmosphere, where do you think it originally came from, hmm? And how do you think it got into the ground? By putting it back, we are actually recycling a valuable resource and helping to green the planet. And if we warm the place up slightly, that’s just a bonus. Warmth = Life, Cold = Death

      • “Do we Need more CO2 in the atmosphere?
        MOST DEFINITELY YES..
        700ppm should be the initial aim.
        The world’s plant life would flourish, in abundance, to the massive benefit of all life on Earth.

    • Greenhouses use CO2 generators to promote plant vitality.
      I don’t have a greenhouse so I just stick it outside. Just doing my part to help the planet. 🙂

      • When I need to go somewhere, like to drive my mobile CO2 generator.
        My stationary CO2 generator is nice and comfortable so I live in it.
        No thank are necessary…I’m just doing my part.

    • Fair enough Ben, but this whole ‘CO2 isn’t a pollutant it’s just plant food’ meme is just too silly for words. It’s not about food, it’s just boring internet blather.
      I have plenty of doubts Menicholas, there being no such thing as certainty.

      • tony mcleod

        Fair enough Ben, but this whole ‘CO2 isn’t a pollutant it’s just plant food’ meme is just too silly for words. It’s not about food, it’s just boring internet blather.

        Why is it “too silly for words”? What part of it is not true? What part is an exaggeration?

      • Photosynthesis, the reaction whereby plants make food, powered by sunlight:
        6 CO2 + 6 H2O —> C6H12O6 (sugar) + 6 O2
        In years past, I would be stunned if any adult did not recognize this reaction on sight. These days it seems a large fraction of the population not only does not know it, but also is oblivious to it’s pivotal role for virtually all life on the planet.

      • This is why house plants do so well when you talk to them. As you speak, you exhale additional CO2 on them and they love it

      • MarkW
        August 24, 2016 at 6:57 am
        It’s not a pollutant.
        It is plant food.
        Why do you object to the facts?
        If it were a pollutant, why would (Human Beings) every living air breathing animal evolve to produce it at every breath?

      • Call Any Vegetable – Frank Zappa 1970
        (This is a song about vegetables, they keep ya regular
        They’re real good for you)
        Call any vegetable Call it by name
        Call one today When you get off the train
        Call any vegetable And the chances are good
        Aw, The vegetable will respond to you
        (Some people don’t go for prunes…I
        don’t know, I’ve always found that if they…)
        Call any vegetable Pick up your phone
        Think of a vegetable Lonely at home
        Call any vegetable And the chances are good
        That a vegetable will respond to you
        From the Album https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutely_Free

      • I understand plants need CO2 and I also understand a little more can be beneficial for plant growth.
        My question is how much is too much?
        Unfortunately the answer to that question may only appear in the rear-view mirror. In the past rapid, dramatic changes to the climate have occurred as a result of changes in atmospheric and ocean chemistry, changes that happened much slower than those happening today.
        If CO2 affects global temperature (and I understand some here dispute even that) then who can be certain the short term benefits (for plants for example) of emissions at unprecedented rates won’t be swamped by adverse affects such as changes in soil moisture and rapid habitat changes. I don’t think anyone can be certain.

        • redback1

          If CO2 affects global temperature (and I understand some here dispute even that) then who can be certain the short term benefits (for plants for example) of emissions at unprecedented rates won’t be swamped by adverse affects such as changes in soil moisture and rapid habitat changes. I don’t think anyone can be certain.

          Nope. The plant stomata changes that have increased life and improved productivity and increased growth by 12% to 28% every year in every plant on earth allow GREATER resistance to drought, not less resistance.
          And, as always, more CO2 = more growth.
          More warmth = more growth (over a longer season, in more areas of the world, at higher elevations and higher altitudes!)
          There is no harm, only good, from a definite CO2 increase and its “potential” 0-4 degree temperature rise, and we see little chance of even a 4 degree rise.

    • Those who fulminate on the subject of CO2 don’t want to be feeding the increasing population. NWO wants smaller numbers, not larger.

  4. If you have a geothermal field and inject CO2 as a test, you can make carbonate, and then foul your injection well. But, you can drill another, and another, and another, every few weeks. Also, you just take your CO2 from your power plant in Virginia and just pipe it across the continent to the Salton Sea, and inject it into that geothermal field. Sounds cost effective to me. Should only cost a few billion for the pipeline. Use a couple hundred fossil fuels pumps to compress it and ship it over in the pipe. As for transients sources, there is no capture possible. Making carbonate makes carbonate scaling, a real bane for well drillers of any type. It mixes with a tad bit of silica, and becomes insoluble, even in acid. When your pipes foul, you throw them away. You cannot clean them. Depressurization of water up to the surface in a geothermal field is massively corrosive to pipes and everything comes out of solution as an insoluble scale. What they do now is limit the heat exchanger dwell time so that the scale does not form fast enough before reinjection. So if CO2 is coming up, reinjecting the water with CO2 keeps it somewhat more in solution. Cycling CO2 is done to stop pipe scale, not to save the world. Calling that CO2 sequestration is disingenuous and proves noting for others. There is no viable CO2 sequestration at this time. Most attempts involves calcium silicates like olivine.

      • We could start with the millions of tons of CO2-producing concrete going into wind turbine support.

      • Agree on producing less, as long as the method makes economic sense – molten salt nuclear reactors are
        on the cusp of revolutionizing all power production. The idiotic bias of the braindead greenies against “dangerous” nuclear power cannot withstand a technology that not only is by far the cheapest method of producing power but also by far the safest of all power production technologies and will never run dry for lack of fuel, be it Thorium, nuclear wastes, or uranium exttracted from the sea. The rest of the world is not as dumb as the USA and will universalize molten salt reactors – starting with the Chinese , who will once again demonstrate their superiority over this country in practically everything – they are hell-bent for
        creating the first commercial molten salt plant design, and their govt is throwing lots of capital into the devleopment of these plants, unnlike our braindead chief executive, who throws money only at primitive solar and wind power. Obama, the only man who can make George Bush look absolutely brilliant.
        In a relatively short period of time, China went from a nuclear nobody to the premier (along with Russia)
        producer of Gen 3+ nuclear reactors. They can build 35 reactors simultaneously while our bankrupt manufacturing facilities are struggling to build four of them.
        This country has become the land of media-sanctioned lies and utter stupidity. And Fascist as well.

    • Thanks for the chemical/geo. insights, very informative.
      So what they are doing is just pro forma good well practice. Then they call for international law forcing everybody else to do this. Of course they know full well that nobody else can do this because almost nobody else does commercial steam geothermal.
      Of course, they will be very happy to do this for others, and Save The World on the behalf of others, in exchange for cash payments for the resulting Carbon Credits.
      And they create a nice revenue stream of hard international currency.
      Smooth, Iceland, Very Smooth.

      • Actually it is even worse than that. From my reading of the conversation, they said they’re doing it a little bit but only about a quarter of what they could be doing, to see if it will work. So they are not really sure yet if it will work. And even if it does work they are not sure if going to do it any more than they’re already doing anyway.
        So, they want to force everyone else to do it, but they’re not even sure if they’re going to do it themselves?
        Why should anyone listen to such drivel from witless nincompoops who evidently do not even listen to themsrlves?

  5. I loved the bit at the end of the video.
    37% of people in Iceland believe elves possibly exist,
    17% find their existence likely and
    8% are certain,
    according to a 2007 University of Iceland survey.

    • Social justice warriors will use anything, no matter how farfetched, to advance their cause. They use CAGW to advance their agenda although many of them will privately admit that it doesn’t matter if it is true or not. They call it the noble lie.
      In Iceland, they use elves as an excuse to block the construction of roads. link

      • Ben of Houston says: August 24, 2016 at 6:17 am
        … The fair folk are not ones to be trifled with.

        You are right. I am protected by my puppy Fenrir the 1023rd* and by my two cats, the Gib brothers (we lost count of the generations). No elf dares put a foot within miles of my place.
        The critters are also potent against dragons. There has not been even a single damsel devoured since my ancestors settled here.
        *It’s not that special. Every dog is the decendant of Fenrir the 1st just as I am a decendant of Attila the Hun. link

    • I liked that too; totally unrelated, and undermines the credibility of what they just presented. This is the type of thing we would expect after news coverage of skeptics.

    • Of course elvenkings exist, how could Frodo get his lembas without them?
      [The mods wonder what is the relationship (least-squared-skeptics-fit?) between a belief in CAGW global warming and the belief in elves, faeries/fairies/ferries, and the beliefs of trolls? .mod]

  6. What difference will it really make!?
    Are these guys really contemplating a method that it will be considered as of any effect at all when its capacity can be somehow comparible with the natural CO2 sink!
    Do these guys have any idea how huge that is and how meaningles what they propose is in sight of it, especially when an international legislantion demanded to regulate it and force it.
    Are they mad, or simply looking for a way to dip them fingers in the “fight against climate change” huge fund!??
    cheers

    • Sadly, they believe in it. They really believe the legislation should criminalize dissident and require CO2 capture. I wonder where should I move to? I quite liked the Europe.

  7. Lets Sneer At That. In fact lets sneer at anything that contradicts our pre-conceived bias. SMFH.

    • Your gods already do, toni. suzuki, gore, desmugblargh, non-skepticalscience…. all work at sneering at anything that contradicts the tenets of their faith.

    • “lets sneer at anything that contradicts our pre-conceived bias”
      Seems that is all you have available to you…typical of anti-CO2 regressive, world hater.
      Why do you hate plants, and everything that relies on their growth… Including yourself.???
      Plants NEED CO2, and the current atmospheric level is not that far above basic subsistence level.
      Sure, control REAL pollution, but let the CO2 go free, into the atmosphere where it is needed, and where it BELONGS.

      • A little bit more may well have had some benefit, but letting off a massive, uncontrolled burp (on geological timescale) is performing an experiment on our life support system with entirely unknown outcomes.
        The warming we are experiencing now is from the CO2 emitted 3 or 4 decades ago. It’s been a major ramp up of emissions since then.These kinds of events have not ended salubriously in the past. I don’t have much confidence this one will either.
        And I don’t hate you Andy. Your my internet buddy and we just disagree. Hopefully that little up-tick on the graph Anthony posted is the beginning of the end of warming and the hole thing has just been a hoax. Noone would be more pleased than me.

      • Wow, tony really does seem to believe the propaganda.
        Your evidence that the current warming is being caused by CO2 released decades ago is ….
        I’m still waiting.
        For that matter, your evidence that the current warming is being caused by CO2 at all is ….
        I’m still waiting.
        Your evidence that the rate of CO2 increases is greater than the planet has ever seen before is ….
        I’m still waiting.
        For that matter, it’s already been proven that there is nothing unusual regarding the current warming, not in terms of amount not in terms of rate.
        What is it about warmists and their need to lie to support their religious beliefs?

      • Tony M says that carbon dioxide sits inert for 3 or 4 decades then decides to start doing its thing. Most estimates of residence time is less than 40 years. So is there really a problem?

      • “…but letting off a massive, uncontrolled burp (on geological timescale) is performing an experiment on our life support system with entirely unknown outcomes…”

        Massive exaggeration
        science sounding nonsense
        dreaded unspecified threats
        In tony mcLeod’s world, it is easy to achieve uncontrolled burps and geological timescale…
        Going from .038% to .04% of the atmosphere is hardly noticeable.
        Going from .028% of the atmosphere, which borders plant photosynthesis suffocation levels, to .038% of the atmosphere has literally rescued plant life, therefore all life on planet Earth.
        Going from .04% to .1% is likely still a Godsend.
        Disaster? From CO2 levels?
        Without a truly massive volcanic event, that is highly unlikely.
        Even then, in spite of all the alarmist assumptions and suppositions about CO2 levels, from the Deccan or Siberian traps, killing life; it took thousands of years of massive eruptions to achieve those alleged levels.
        Instead, all replicable science has managed to prove about CO2, is that the Earth thrives with higher levels.
        No proven CO2 caused droughts.
        No proven CO2 caused deserts.
        No proven CO2 caused heat waves.
        No proven CO2 caused deaths.
        No proven CO2 caused famines.
        No proven CO2 caused sunken islands.
        No proven CO2 caused extinctions.
        No proven CO2 caused acidic seas.
        No proven CO2 caused loss of reefs.
        No proven CO2 caused loss of wildlife.
        No proven CO2 caused melting polar icecaps. Before whining about the Arctic, explain the Antarctic.
        Frankly, there is no proven CO2 caused global warming.
        Decades of frightening claims with alarmist demands for greater funding and rather absurd green money pits, have frittered billions of dollars without advancing science.
        Perhaps, in the case of climate science, science has been forced to significantly retrograde, requiring substantial proper scientific method research over years to repair.

      • “The warming we are experiencing now is from the CO2 emitted ”
        That is a MANIFEST LIE.
        The only warming in the last 40 years since we actually started measuring properly has come from El Nino events and from ocean circulation, neither of which has anything to do with CO2

      • 1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino
        2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
        3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
        4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
        5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
        6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend for 40 years
        7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
        8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015
        9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
        10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010
        11.Temperatures in northwest China have not shown a warming trend in the last 368 years.
        12. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.
        13. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling
        14. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
        That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
        There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
        The ONLY real warming has come from regional ElNino and ocean circulation effects.

      • tony mcleod August 24, 2016 at 6:43 am
        “… performing an experiment on our life support system with entirely unknown outcomes.”
        But it’s perfectly OK, I suppose, to trash the world economy with complete disregard for “our life support system” which will result in “entirely KNOWN outcomes.”

    • Wasting money on something that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
      Nothing to sneer at here.

    • Tony M,
      You are a hypocrite. When you give up everything that our fossil fueled civilization has provided, then you will be honest.

  8. I’m sure ‘special correspondent’ Malcolm Brabant enjoyed his little expenses-paid fossil-fuelled jolly to Iceland. Skype system down, was it Malc’?

  9. We will turn mountains
    into sea,
    and the skies into rivers,
    and fjords into deserts.
    – Come on ! Come on !
    – And deserts into quagmires.
    – And icebergs into fire !
    And the fire into a mighty
    rushing wind which will cover
    the face of the earth…
    and wipe clean the scourge of woolly
    thinking once and for all.
    We can make beans
    into peas !
    Time Bandits-1981

  10. “There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”
    No questions and force. The progressive allure.

    • Wouldn’t it be simpler to stop cutting down hardwood trees in the tropics and replacing them with trees for palm oil? Y’know chopping down tress that are a couple of hundred feet high, with a circumference of 50 feet and replacing them with saplings that are 8 feet tall and 6 inches circumference – now think – which of those absorbs more CO2?
      Regards, Alan

      • To be precise, full grown forest does not net absorb carbon, but it IS a significant carbon storage. Saplings absorb CO2, but have a small carbon storage.
        What you want? Do you want absoption or storage? Absorption is good, but if you use the wood to be able to get a fast growing young forest, you didn’t get net absorption. You did get woodmaterial and energy, though. If you choose storage, you don’t get net absorption, but you neither get timber or energy.

  11. I support a catalyst-enabled process wherein the CO2 waste from aircraft engines is converted into calciferous stones which are ejected rearward at supersonic speeds, contributing to thrust at cruising altitude. My proposal has already received support from the Society of Collision Repair Specialists and the Urgent Care Association of America. Our coalition has made significant contributions to a key “charity” and we expect EPA regulations requiring our technology to be in force by early 2017 and full compliance over US airspace to be required by 1/1/2020 .
    /sarc off yall

      • Yes, thanks. Our initiative was also strongly backed by the Association of Social Scientists for Costs Of Carbon Knowledge, but we have found the use of their acronym to be too inflammatory.

      • We at Scientists Concerned Over Lewd Descriptors must object to the acronym of the aforementioned association.

      • We recommend Association of Social Scientists for Knowledge In Silly Shit and Equivocal Research Subjects as an apt alternative.

      • In an effort to expand the tent, the “Associated Social Scientists for Costs Of Carbon Knowledge” had decided to change its name to “Professional Organizations Onboard For Science”. They reconsidered when the Times emailed them and suggested that it could not print a headline reading “*SS for C*CK to become P**FS”. An organization spokesperson lamented that they had lots of great ideas but all of them seemed to have unexpected flaws.

        • “An organization spokesperson lamented that they had lots of great ideas but all of them seemed to have unexpected flaws.”
          He said a mouthful there.

  12. ‘SIGGI GISLASON, CarbFix: “…but still 40 percent of the emissions could theoretically be captured and stored in rocks. There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”’
    “Force” people to do something that’s … “theoretically” possible? Wow, what a nut case. Siggi has no idea what a dangerous behavior he’s advocating. Yeah, the US Constitution is 200+ years old, but as Siggi so clearly demonstrates, the need for a separation of powers, for three equally competing branches of government, for a written contractual limitation (“Congress shall make no law …”) of government powers, has never gone out of style. We need to relearn it. I hope not the hard way.

  13. Now all they have to do is place a turbine inline with the CO2 coming up from the earth to produce the energy to inject the CO2 back into the earth. Then they can put a turbine inline in the injection well and use that energy to power the extraction well, right?
    Brilliant! ;o)

  14. Thanks for all the good laughs, all you commenters! Even a vacuous article like this one can be turned into good entertainment and a little bit of insight! Got to love WUWT!

    • ….That reminds me of when I was a kid many moons ago and just starting out my job as an Iron Worker…my brother, who was also my boss, would send me down 3 stories( no ladder) to get him a “bucket of steam” ! D’oh !

  15. I have this idea where I boil water down to make a concentrate for export to dry regions. After delivery it can be restored to normal dilution for drinking.
    To date, it’s been hard to find partners for developing this revolutionary tech, but you’ve given me an idea. I’ll try Iceland!

  16. Iceland’s volcanic activity is outgassing CO2 virtually all of the time. It is the northern part of the mid Atlantic rift that extends for some 5,000 miles. Geologically active, with many parts outgassing CO2.
    Icelandic trolls have a lot of work to do.

  17. CO2 dissolved in water creates some carbonic acid. In certain rocks, such as basalt, this acid will combine with the rock to create calcium carbonate, as they demonstrated. This will not happen in granite or sandstone which are acidic rocks.
    There are more problems with their idea. 1) At small scale it might work but if you try more you will foul your injection well, as someone pointed out above. 2) I seriously doubt that you can dissolve a ton of CO2 in 5 tons of water. That would be an impossible concentration. 3) they have plenty of water to use because it is a geothermal well and they can just use the cooled water they pumped up. 4) they have not demonstrated that the CO2 they are pumping down is actually turned into carbonate –or at least they didn’t in the interview. 5) in a power plant, the cost to separate the CO2 and pump it somewhere is very high, not like the geothermal plant case.

    • The Illinois CCS experiment to inject into a sandstone formation failed. The [formation] was a naturally briny aquifer. cO2 plus brine formed scaly carbonates. The sandstone around the injection well plugged in weeks. Rinse and repeat. Total technical failure.

  18. CO2 Sequestering Simplified
    Back in 2010, Duke University released an alarming study which indicates that the greatest hope of sequestering CO2 produced by coal fired power plants, the injection of CO2 into underground formations, has a high likelihood of leaking from the formations and contaminating aquifers. That kills what seemed like a good idea, but there is another approach.
    Some folks have suggested that since the oceans quite naturally sequester vast amounts of CO2 already, if one could find a way to speed up the process just a little, you might keep up with the human combustion of fossil fuel.
    The same natural sequestration of CO2 is also true for shallow fresh water ponds with their prolific algal growth in the summer. I see a huge potential for a green, sustainable (not to mention utopian) lifestyle growing up around coal fired power plants. Infrastructure costs to establish such communities are minimal. All that is required is that shallow fresh water pools be installed with piped in CO2 from the power plant for accelerated plant growth. Warm water containing the waste heat from the power plant would also be injected into the pools to maintain a constant warm temperature during the colder months.
    Seed the water with the most prolific and nutritious algae species. For floral diversity and as a human habitat construction resource, plant willows around the shore. Within two years you will have a Garden of Eden.
    Willows are easily woven so could be used to make both the rafts and paddles to be used by the inhabitants for recreation, exercise and food gathering. The first two of those activities will have to become an essential element of the culture of the inhabitants since agitation of the water is needed to accelerate algal growth. Willows will also be used to make the structural skeletons of the wattle and daub dwellings for the inhabitants. The architectural concepts conceived of by J.R.R. Tolkien could be adapted to the wattle and daub technology to provide very cozy living spaces. Young willow shoots can also be woven into baskets and sandals.
    The staple food for the inhabitants will be the algae collected from the pond. It can easily be gathered and set out in mats to dry in the sun. The dried mats would be cut up into convenient sized biscuits for later consumption. Thus, the use of fire for food preparation is not needed thereby avoiding generating any CO2 from cooking. The use of fire to provide personal warmth is also not needed since there is the immediate availability of the warm pond as a refuge in the cold winter months just as the Japanese Macaque monkeys have learned to do.
    The power plant sponsoring each pond community should grant half acre or acre homesteads to the pioneers who come to live there. This will imbue a pride of ownership in the inhabitants and encourage them to be good custodians of the environment in which they live.
    For those who are of a spiritual bent, a single oak or cypress tree could be planted in each community to provide a focal point for worship and social events. To prevent backsliding or succumbing to the temptations of the material world, each community should have an enclave set aside and inhabited by a cadre of spiritual leaders. The minimum qualification for such leaders is that they be bona fide AGW proponents, having published at least one peer reviewed paper on the subject. Subaltern ranks of the spiritual leader class could be filled by environmental reporters who have kept the faith and been martyred by skeptics.
    Immigration into the communities should be limited to those who are young and idealistic and can be expected to have children to sustain the community in coming generations. Aging hippies should be discouraged from homesteading in the community – they are the class of people most likely to introduce mind altering plants and animals to a clear headed population. The community could not survive with half the population licking cane toads and soaking in the warm pool. It needs a vibrant young population out on the pond paddling around, agitating the algae and gathering the fruits of the earth.
    By the turn of the century such communities would be in their third or fourth generation and have developed such diverse and quaint customs that they would necessarily attract a considerable tourist trade. The associated power company could profit from the tourist trade and as a consequence provide electricity to their customers at a reduced price. This is a win-win solution for all concerned with the issue. The first coal fired power plant in Britain, Australia or California in many years would surely be quickly permitted if such a plan were proposed. If necessary, we may have to compromise and not exclude the aging hippies and cane toads. The hippies’ horticultural skills at growing hemp could be an asset in providing the community with a source of fiber for clothing, floor mats and rope.
    This idea is a patentable invention but I, like Benjamin Franklin and his lightning rod invention, am here-by donating the invention to the world for the benefit of all mankind. Feel free to forward my invention to anyone you know who is as concerned about the problem as I am.

    • The inhabitants will need to be taught to shun excitement, and leaving the village is to be seen as “adventuring”, and simply not done by proper folk.
      The leader of each village should be given a ring. A Great Ring. A Ring of Power.
      And One Ring, to rule them all, and in the darkness, bind them.
      Things could get interesting after a while.

  19. It should be noted that all anthropogenic CO2 was once in the atmosphere. We are merely returning it to its natural place to the proven benefit of the entire biosphere,
    We need more than .04.
    Love, Kat

    • Yep, just returning accidentally buried carbon back into the shorter term Carbon Cycle that provides for ALL life on Earth..
      Yes…even for the alarmist… even THEY are TOTALLY reliant on adequate atmospheric CO2,
      and 400ppm is barely adequate.

  20. How much carbon is accounted for in CO2 in the atmosphere compared to other places:
    (See Wiki: Carbon Cycle) in gigatons (GT)
    Atmosphere: 720 GT
    Terrestrial biosphere: 2,000 GT (living and dead)
    Ocean organic: 1,000 GT
    Ocean inorganic: 37,400 GT
    Fossil Fuels: 4,130 GT (90% coal and peat)
    Lithosphere Kerogens: 15,000,000 GT
    Lithosphere Carbonates: more than 60,000,000 GT

    There is 100,000 times more carbon locked in terrestrial kerogen and carbonates than is in the current atmosphere. Yet at some time or other, every one of these carbon atoms must have spent time in the atmosphere as CO2.
    I submit a limiting factor of 2,000 GT of Carbon in the terrestrial biosphere is the paltry 720 GT in the atmosphere. Most forms of life on this planet make it their business to sequester carbon into calcium carbonate, into bone, into carapace, into cellulose. Some of this carbon is returned to the atmosphere via volcanos, weathering, and termites. But it is not a steady state condition. For the past 650 million years, since life learned to make hard body parts, shells, and reefs, life itself has been sequestering carbon, the very element that makes life possible. 99.99% of all carbon that used to be in the biosphere is now locked up in stone or buried underground.
    What species has made it’s business the recycling of sequestered carbon back into the biosphere?
    Homosapians
    We humans are far from being a scourge, a curse, a virus on this planet. Instead, we are an essential link in the “circle of life”. By our penchant, our talent, our skill at unlocking the treasure of buried and sequestered carbon, we coal-burning, hydrocarbon-pumping, shale-fracking, cement-kilning humans are returning essential life-giving carbon to the atmosphere and biosphere.
    Who thinks the trees would object to a rising CO2 level if they had a vote?
    (Ref: a comment in 2014)

  21. @arthur
    ‘cusp of revolutionizing all power production’
    A solution in search of problem. The power industry is not having a problem meeting demand. Many critics think we should do it a different way but since they do not have any experience making power, there advice is ignored. For good reason!
    “The rest of the world is not as dumb as the USA and will universalize molten salt reactors –…”
    Of course all (I can not think of an exception) new commercial reactors are clones of US LWR from the 60s. The US did not dictate what the best choice of reactors should be. Several countries developed design that were best for them.
    “… starting with the Chinese , who will once again demonstrate their superiority over this country in practically everything..”
    Doing something 50 years after others have done it not a sign of superiority. Let me know when China has built more than 100 large reactors, has a large fleet of nuclear subs and aircraft carriers.
    Let me know when China gets air pollution under control. Let me know when China achieves coal miner safety rates of the US.
    Let me know when a Chinese Christian does not look around before whispering to a foreigner, ‘I am a Christian.’
    So while I have a lot of nice things to say about the Chinese people, not so much good about the government. After the slave labor coal policy failed the have turned to nuclear which is an improvement.
    “China went from a nuclear nobody to the premier”
    Do you mean the reactor designed in Pittsburgh and Charlotte NC? Or do you mean the design I worked on in Virginia before going to China? Credit Bush for making it possible for US companies to do nuclear work for China. China has not advanced the state of the art in nuclear.
    ‘struggling to build four of them’
    I did not know the US was struggling. The US is #1 in nuclear generation and there is no close second. We need to have a plan to replace reactors, that is why we are building four with many more in the licensing pipeline.
    France had planned to replace their fleet but has adopted the US approach of keeping existing reactors running by replacing steam generators.
    Putting drama aside, the world does not need an unlimited supply of power to cheap to meter. We need a finite supply of affordable priced power. We have that now.

  22. That scheme makes about as much sense as plumbing your sewage back into the river – upstream of where you draw water.

      • Stephen,
        He said “sewage”, not treated water. I’ve never heard anybody refer to “sewage” as treated water. Nice strawman though.

  23. The dominant gasses that drive volcanic eruptions include water, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide and in the case of Iceland, hydrofluoric acid. Mother nature can be so unkind.

    • I don’t understand all the science on wuwt but the humour is so clever I just have to keep reading.
      Patrick

  24. Good people, 1st and last is human rights and protecting environment –
    But Professor Gislason believes there should be international law requiring countries to start using this new technique.
    – Oh wait, 1st and last are laws.
    __________________________________________
    They could found a startup, search for investors and sell ‘you saved the world’ certificates.
    But that’s another story.

Comments are closed.