Specfiction;594970 wrote: The CO2 can be removed and sequestered in deep strata. Los Alamos pioneered the technique and there are startups trying to develop the technique on a large scale. It's the same thing the deep ocean does by depositing CO2 in limestone on the ocean bottom.
The CC also tells people that sex before marrige is a sin but pop culture has nullified that effectively with marketing--we could do the same for birth control. Does anyone doubt marketing works. Like I said, these are not simple problems, but bad solutions like fission energy is not a solution. And poorer countries are not the big polluters, the more advanced countries are.
Whilst it is perfectly possible to scrub CO2 form the atmosphere there are no viable techniques for removing it by the million tonne lots which is what the burning of hydorcarbons as a main fuel supply would call for.
Actually, one of the next big catastrophies in waiting is the amount of carbon currently depostited on the ocean floor in the methyl hydrates. Whilst people are thinking of harvesting this as a source of cheap fuel, there is a very real danger that a further rise of about two degrees will trigger the spontanious release of millions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere over a very short period. Given that methane is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 this would be a major disaster.
It was not I that was suggesting that the poorer countries were the major polluters, you were suggesting that overpopulation was "the base of most of our problems" but, as you bring up the point, whilst China, India and the USA are the major polluters one of the big factors in the rise of CO2 concentration is the deforestation being carried out in the poorer countries. Again, we need to improve the economies of these countries so that they are no longer reliant on logging / strip farming etc for subsistance.
As you said in a previous post, Gaia *will* bite back and we *must* learn to control ourselves before that happens or we will not be around afterwards. The solution will not be a single thread but a complete tapestry with measures to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses and particulates, to increase carbon deposition, to reduce energy consumption (both directly and by recycling of materials) and, very likely, by direct intervention to reduce the amount of solar energy adsorbed by the ecosphere.
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
-
Specfiction
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51 pm
Ethanol for Cars--And the Energy Crisis
Whilst it is perfectly possible to scrub CO2 form the atmosphere there are no viable techniques for removing it by the million tonne lots which is what the burning of hydorcarbons as a main fuel supply would call for.
Actually, one of the next big catastrophies in waiting is the amount of carbon currently depostited on the ocean floor in the methyl hydrates. Whilst people are thinking of harvesting this as a source of cheap fuel, there is a very real danger that a further rise of about two degrees will trigger the spontanious release of millions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere over a very short period. Given that methane is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 this would be a major disaster.
This is a good discussion--the good news is that we both agree there's a problem--many times it's hard to get to that point. As for sequestering, there are processes being developed that can handle millions of tones of CO2 in an economic way which results in stable solids in deep strata. I agree that the methyl hydrates are an enormous problem and constitue a "rapid-tipping-point" outcome from global warming. What do we do about trillions of tones of CH4 bubbling out of the ocean--answer nothing--if that happens, it's too late.
Actually, one of the next big catastrophies in waiting is the amount of carbon currently depostited on the ocean floor in the methyl hydrates. Whilst people are thinking of harvesting this as a source of cheap fuel, there is a very real danger that a further rise of about two degrees will trigger the spontanious release of millions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere over a very short period. Given that methane is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 this would be a major disaster.
This is a good discussion--the good news is that we both agree there's a problem--many times it's hard to get to that point. As for sequestering, there are processes being developed that can handle millions of tones of CO2 in an economic way which results in stable solids in deep strata. I agree that the methyl hydrates are an enormous problem and constitue a "rapid-tipping-point" outcome from global warming. What do we do about trillions of tones of CH4 bubbling out of the ocean--answer nothing--if that happens, it's too late.