By Michael Marshall
Here is a radical solution to dangerous climate change: create lakes of liquid carbon dioxide on the seabed, and keep the greenhouse gas out of the air.
As well as cutting our emissions of carbon dioxide, it is becoming increasingly likely that we will have to actively remove the gas from the air to keep Earth’s temperature at a safe level – which is now agreed to be no more than 1.5 °C above that in preindustrial times.
But where should we put the carbon? Most attention has focused on burying it underground, perhaps by injecting it into depleted oil and gas fields. This approach has been tested and seems to work, but it is unclear whether people will accept this fix.
Now Steve Goldthorpe, an energy analyst based in New Zealand, has suggested a radical alternative: dump the carbon dioxide in deep ocean trenches, where it can sit permanently as a liquid lake.
The crucial point, says Goldthorpe, is that once the carbon dioxide reaches a depth of about 3000 metres, its density exceeds that of water – so it will naturally sink to the bottom and stay there.
Very large carbon sink
Goldthorpe used Google Earth to explore the seabed and identify a suitable storage site. He found a deep ocean trench around 6 kilometres down, called the Sunda trench, just south of the Indonesian archipelago. “It is big enough to accommodate 19 trillion tonnes of liquid CO2, which is greater than all the CO2 from the total global fossil fuel emissions,” he says.
HT | Robert Woodward
Why, why, why
Once we feared fire, now we leverage it
Once we feared human blood, now we leverage it
Once we feared electricity, now we leverage it
Once we feared nuclear reactions, now we leverage them
Once we feared CO2 …
Because it’s NUTS,NUTS, NUTS!!!!
Can you just imagine the breathtaking cost (both in $s and, of course, fossil fuels and, yes, carbon emissions) of pumping or transporting a gas or liquid maybe hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers from source, then pumping it down several kilometers under the sea, then sealing that with some kind of pressure and seawater resistant membrane? And let’s not even think about the fact that oceanic trenches tend to form in geologically active areas where tectonic movements might cause the whole mega-balloon to rise to the surface and reverse all the “good work”.
What unbelievable, total CR*P!!
I say, what an absolutely spivving idea old chap! Why all the negativity? Since it’s China doing most of the C O two-ing these days, and since because of it they have lots of money, why don’t they do it? Let them fund it and lead the way to show us how much they care about our beloved planet and then we can follow suit. Perhaps.
To store for when we run out of fossil fuels and can longer emit the CO2 fertilizer to keep agriculture from crashing…
“To store for when we run out of fossil fuels and can longer emit the CO2 fertilizer to keep agriculture from crashing…”
This is the only authentic scientific reason for justifying a consideration of doing such a ludicrous thing.
Still an absurd idea but at least it recognizes the profound value that CO2 has as a beneficial gas.
When we run out of fossil fuels and hopefully have invented a new, reliable way(s) to obtain energy to replace them(or can do so well before they run out), CO2 will in fact, finally get a fair hearing.
Once CO2 detaches itself from the politics, agenda and fossil fuel connection, maybe authentic climate science(and biology/agronomy) can start to be restored to pure science again.
I really get nervous when people start talking about storing CO2 in large quantities anywhere on earth. If that gas ever escapes, it will kill every living thing in its path. Just remember two facts- CO2 is heavier than air and CO2 is an asphyxiant.
Trebla: how true. Indeed there a volcanic lake in Afrika that was loaded with CO2 in deep layers from a volcanic source. The lake overturned, sending the deep layers to the surface and killed many people living around the lake. I think engineers have built a powered aeration system to prevent a recurrence.
Looks like there are three lakes: Nyos, Kiba and Monoun. Hard to see how that would happen with ocean water from 10,000 feet down tho. But of course costs will block this stupidity.
“When we run out of fossil fuels and hopefully have invented a new, reliable way”
We, Kemo Sabe? We will be dead.
Ocean acidification? It will dissolve in seawater.
Why not change it to CaCO3 and dose it out to Alarmists for antacid relief?
Read the full story? Why? Of all the inane ideas I have heard this is about the most inane. It is record inanity.
How much energy would it take to make liquid CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to pump it down there?
The fastest way to have geo-engineering that removes live-giving CO2 from the atmosphere ‘at scale’ is to fertilise the ocean with iron powder to promote the fixing of carbon in the shells of microscopic sea creatures. They will sink to the bottom all by themselves.
If applied at scale, it would be possible to remove every last molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere and the ocean, if fanatics so desired, going one better than putting all of it at the bottom of the sea. Perhaps the prospect of a lifeless, frozen planet appeals to them.
You are one letter off. It’s insane, not inane.
It’s not insane if you can make a decent(?) living from it.
Iron fertilization seems to work and is pretty cheap compared to almost any other method of getting rid of atmospheric CO2. link It is possible that the 2012 Haida experiment led to an increase in salmon. link
I have observed that wildlife officers don’t actually care about individual critters. They just want their policies followed no matter what. I suspect that environmentalists are the same. Even good things, like increased salmon, are bad to them because it disrupts their chosen narrative. Pigs.
Regarding your observation of wildlife officers, it is a bit like ‘I love humanity, but hate people’ attitude that can be observed in the more ‘progressive’ sectors of our community.
In fairness, the concept is not as insane as it sounds at first blush. Dry ice sinks in water and sinks faster in sea water, so you convert CO2 gas to dry ice in a big enough chunk that most of it will not change state before it sinks far enough to prevent further CO2 bubbling off (sheath it with a layer of pycrete thick enough to insulate it, but not enough to bouy it) and it will flow along the bottom to the lowest level as a liquid and stay there, until it finishes dissolving into the surrounding ocean (which will take some time). Load these megaliths of dry ice on ships and dump them overboard onto the abyssal plains.
The only truly insane part is that it needs doing.
It doesn’t need doing. 1.4C over 350 years is trivial.
TCR is 1.4C for a doubling of CO2. 1750-2100 = one doubling.
Assuming that the energy required to do all this will come from fossil fuels. For each ton of CO2 deposited in the bottom of an ocean trench, how much CO2 will be added to the atmosphere?
Sinking CO2 deep into oceans, is anyway better than sinking taxpayers money deep into solar mega-projects.
What could go wrong, right?
Sure, it must be perfectly safe. Has there ever been a catastrophic release of carbon dioxide by a body of water? Well, beside that killer African lake thing, but that was different, …
Murphy is my co-pilot.
Whoa, wait a minute, I thought CO2 caused ocean acidification, now they want to directly dump it in the ocean? At least try to stay on the same page.
Please more of this nonsense, CO2 is not dangerous, we need it for our plants and life.
Looks like they want to go deep enough in the ocean that the CO2 sinks. Actually, that may be how nature deals with the CO2—oh, wait, never mind. Nature could never be that clever.
Carbon dioxide sequestration is right behind geo-engineering as the stupidest idea coming from the left side of the political spectrum. Both schemes are entirely without merit.
+1
Carbon sequestration seems at least a little less permanent and “mad scientist” in nature compared to geo-engineering.
That’s why it’s right behind and not in front of geo-engineering.
Got it—I missed the clever order thing. 🙂
There is also a good chance that a fraction of the CO2 will dissolve away and effectively kill all surrounding aerobic organisms. Another ecological good deed with loads of disadvantages. Pretty much, most environmental suggestions break what was not broken or creates new even worse problems. They almost always ruin things, in some cases everything. Sigh.
I doubt there are any aerobic organisms 3,000m (just shy of 10,000 feet or 4,384 psi) below sea-level
“which is now agreed to be no more than 1.5 °C above that in preindustrial times”
Agreed by whom?
The world’s temperature has been 3 to 5C above “preindustrial” times 3 times in the last 5000 years, and the world thrived each time.
The world’s temperature is finally clawing it’s way back to what it was before the Little Ice Age, and these fools are panicking?
And just what was the temperature in 1850? Given the paucity of the records, HADCRU and GISS get to “adjust” and “infill” to their hearts content.
Anyone remember Lake Nyos?
That’s the idea. The underlying problem is an overpopulation. To solve it they want to kill as many people as possible (anyone but their family).
What happens to the marine life that lives in the bottom of that trench now?
What happens to the marine life that lives in that trench presently?
Sorry for the double post. The first one disappeared without a trace, and those usually don’t come back.
New record in stupidity.
I doubt it will stand long. Check back here tomorrow.
Let’s find out if CO2 is a problem or a boon to the biosphere before we have a competition of really stupid ideas to try and get rid of it. So far the evidence is in CO2’s favour: greener more productive biosphere, much nicer climate than 150 years ago, humans enjoying the best, longest and most numerous lives we’ve ever had and the rapid development of human civilization being driven by the burning of fuels whose consumption has marginally contributed to the CO2 we measure in the atmosphere. Let’s also not forget beer, bubbly wine and … well just about any carbon based-life form you might think of.
“CO2’s favour: greener more productive biosphere, much nicer climate than 150 years ago,”
Be Careful. To the uninformed, this statement might give the impression that CO2 is responsible for the climate’s current condition.There is no evidence of that whatsoever. There is no evidence that CO2 adds any net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere.
1.5C above preindustrial times? moved goalpost acknowledged! Also preindustrial times, what, as in the age of dinosaurs? That was preindustrial and a good 10C warmer than today! The whole argument is based on balderdash.
Provided the state curve for the pressure depth keeps CO2 liquid at the pressure and temperature in the deepest ocean, a lake of CO2 would stay beneath the liquid H2O as it is heavier. There would be diffusion across the boundary interface but not a great deal. If there are no currents nearby, the pool could sit there forever (or at least for human memory). The question I would have is “why would one want to hide away all this plant food where no one will ever see it again?” Do they hate plant life that much?
Why do they want to starve the plants, and the animals that eat the plants, and the animals that eat the animals that eat the plants? Why? What do they have against plants?
“My Mama always told me “Stupid is as stupid does””.
-Forest Gump…smarter than your average AGW climate scientist.
stupidity³
I already have a stupid, expensive and useless hobby. I don’t need another one!
Own a sailboat, eh? 😉
A number of important advances have been made toward converting CO2 to liquid hydrocarbon fuels efficiently and cost effectively. It appears that before long, CO2 will be an important renewable resource! No doubt complete with crowds of Greens rallying to decry any “misuse” of Nature’s Golden Molecule.
What volume of CO2 are these idiots imagining they can “pool” in this fashion?
All of it.
A better idea would be for Superman to inhale all the “extra” CO2, fly into space, and fart it.
That’s almost as stupid an idea as the underlying paper.
Carbon dioxide in earths atmosphere has been on a downward trajectory over millions of years, to the point where all life on earth is at risk for extinction when CO2 levels drop below 150 ppmv. Especially during the depths of every ice age advance when a healthy percentage of the northern hemisphere is covered in ice sheets a mile or more thick.
Dozens of Megafauna species went extinct in the last 20,000 years when CO2 levels were at 180 ppm for an extended period of time at the peak of ice sheet advance, and the only explanation that has any real credibility is that their food source that had been available throughout their evolution over millions of years, was becoming very limited south of the ice sheets due to very low levels of atmospheric CO2 (and very cold stormy weather) not allowing the plants to grow to support the food chain that had co-evolved with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in previous epochs.
It has been wide scale warming and greening of the earth in this interglacial that has led to an explosion of humans on the earth, especially in the last 250+ years since we started using fossil fuels. If we had not utilized fossil fuels and increased the ultra low amount of CO2 in earths atmosphere the last 250+ years comparative to the preceding levels of CO2 when life/plants evolved, all life on earth will be at risk for extinction when future ice sheet advances and earths natural processes slowly turn atmospheric and oceanic CO2 into geological carbon sinks.
While the scheme to store liquid CO2 in an ocean trench is ludicrous from a perspective of energy use to do so, at least if this hair brained scheme was ever enacted, we could at least easily pull it back out and release it to earths atmosphere when it will be needed to keep all life alive on this beautiful planet we call Earth. It is time to stop demonizing CO2 as the sole source of adverse climate change, which it is not and history will bear this out.
It should be hare brained (as in rabbit)
Absolutely ludicrous.
Ohhhh this made me laugh.
I needed a good laugh.