kusheng asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

What is you Opinion on Carbon Sequestration?

Do you believe that it'll work? Is it an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions?

http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/scienceman.html#carbon

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, it will work as long as the carbon is sequestered in stable geologic formations. I'm rather skeptical of using the oceans for this purpose.

    It's basically a stopgap while we convert to renewable energy. There are only so many natural formations which will be able to trap the CO2 for an indefinite period, so we can't rely on this technology in the long run. In the short term, it's a good stopgap measure.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Unfortunately, every time a plan for carbon sequestration is proposed, the Green movement attacks it. Now we find that even trees aren't useful since they do absorb CO2 but the methane they emit more than makes up for that. Pumping it underground, into tanks, into the ocean, none of those will work they say. Maybe they'll only be happy when no one has a car, no one has electricity and we're living a less technological lifestyle than they had in the 1700s. Or maybe they'll still have cars and lights, just not us unwashed masses who don't care enough for the planet. They're even unhappy about the OneCAT which runs on compressed air, since you still need power to make the compressed air. Which is odd since you can make that with electricity from renewable sources the last time I checked. If planting trees is bad for the environment then get out your chainsaw. Since air pollution has slowed warming, pollute more. Don't cry for the rainforests since their loss has also slowed warming. Basically it's the old saw, everything you know is wrong.

  • Bob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    It could work. I'm "skeptical" about it being better than constructing power plants that don't burn fossil fuels.

    MIKIRA - You have some knowledge. You could use more, particularly about CO2. Here's the deal.

    There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. But that CO2 is just being recycled. The CO2 you breathe out was recently taken out of the atmosphere by plants. Putting it back is no big deal. But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

    There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

    Look at this graph.

    http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_...

    The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

    Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm not so sure that this will work. there needs to be a lot of testing done on this before it is ever put into practice on a large scale.

    Besides, I've heard that the oceans are already naturally "sequestrating" a large amount of the CO2 that man has pumped into the atmosphere already. It seems to me that we're going to start changing the chemical balance of things if we start manually pumping CO2 into the ocean.

    I've also seen plans to sequester greenhouse gases underground. This seems like possibly a little bit better idea, especially if it could be stored in a rock formation underground where it couldn't escape. However, at best it will only be a temporary solution until we can make truly renewable power generation (solar, wind, geothermal....) the vast majority.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Oceanic carbon sequestraion is (or was) along with the land plant portion a part of the natural carbon cycle to which we all are slaves.

    When humans start messing with things that they do not understand (read here 'climatic cycles' {that's global warming or global cooling to you RioLinda types}, carbon sequestering, genetic engineering, and many more..you fill in the blank) they will bring about a global disaster...which we all will understand.

    Right now, the entire AGW, carbon credit/sequestration thing is a scam designed to frighten the ill informed and uneducated into submission and to force the rest of us into a higher tax bracket while implementing a single, planetary government on us.

  • 1 decade ago

    I find it odd that we should be finding solutions to a problems when it is often far better to avoid the problem in the beginning.

  • 1 decade ago

    It may help a bit, but not in the long term. Besides, there is increasing evidence that the entire solar system is warming up - not just Earth. Nothing we do can stop that.

    Check out info on Mars's polar caps melting...

  • Mikira
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Hmmm, maybe we all should all try to breath directly onto a plant, so the CO2 we exhale will be sucked up right away.

    Oh and Dana, are you going to tell me that we don't Exhale CO2? Please show me your understanding of the CO2 Cycle humans are a part of, since you tell me I have no understanding of science at all.

    From: http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/RITCHISO/301notes...

    *Primary function is to obtain oxygen for use by body's cells & eliminate carbon dioxide that cells produce

    *Includes respiratory airways leading into (& out of) lungs plus the lungs themselves

    Maybe I should keep my medical knowledge to myself?

  • 1 decade ago

    If it can be done then it is a good idea. I don't think any of the ideas floating around is very realistic though.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.