[Terrapreta] More misguided nonsense:

[MFH]

How come the loony fringe get this sort of publicity and TP doesn't?


Deep-sea carbon storage must be tested, says leading scientist


*	David Adam <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidadam>  
*	guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/> , 
*	Wednesday June 18 2008
*	Article history

Scientists must start dumping carbon dioxide into the deep ocean to see
whether it provides a safe way of tackling global warming, a leading expert
on climate change has said. 

Wallace Broecker, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at New York's
Columbia University, says experiments must be carried out "promptly" and has
called on environmental campaigners to drop their opposition to such
schemes. Experts have said carbon dioxide stripped from the exhaust gases of
power stations and dumped in deep water would stay there for hundreds of
years, but there is concern about the impact on marine life.

Writing for the Guardian, Broecker
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/18/carboncaptureandstorage>
says: "While we know enough to say with confidence that deep ocean disposal
of CO2 is certainly feasible, unless small-scale pilot experiments are
conducted, information necessary to assess the impact [on sea life] will
remain obscure. It is my view that a series of experiments involving
one-tonne quantities of CO2 should be conducted."

He says such injections of the gas could be made from deep-sea drill ships,
and monitored to see how it dispersed and affected marine life. Otherwise,
he warns, the gas could be dumped in future with no idea of the
consequences. "If marine disposal proves to be economically favourable and
if push comes to shove, forces ... will likely intervene and deep-sea
disposal will commence without adequate testing and evaluation."

Unlike most carbon
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/13/carboncapturestorage.foss
ilfuels>  capture and storage schemes, which aim to trap the gas and pump it
into underground saltwater reservoirs or empty oil and gas fields, deep-sea
storage would release the carbon dioxide directly into the water. Only very
deep water would be suitable as great pressures are needed to stop the gas
simply leaking back to the surface. At depths greater than 3,500m,
scientists think the gas would be compressed into a slush that would settle
on the sea bed. That rules out shallow seas such as the North Sea, but makes
the Pacific Ocean a prime candidate - particularly as underground reservoir
storage sites for carbon dioxide in the Pacific region could be vulnerable
to earthquakes. 

Broecker says 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide could be safely dumped directly
into the waters of the deep Pacific, equivalent to the carbon pollution from
about 16 years of the world's current fossil fuel use.

Worms and other organisms on the sea bed directly beneath the storage site
would be killed, Broecker admits, but he says the impact would be "trivial"
compared to that of the fishing industry. Other experts have said the
injected carbon dioxide could damage larger marine life including fish
because the gas will dissolve in the seawater and make it more acidic.

Small amounts of CO2 have been injected into deep water off the California
coast but there have been no large-scale experiments to test the concept. A
planned pilot scheme off Hawaii was scrapped in the late 1990s after
protests from local people and environmental groups. Greenpeace remains
implacably against such experiments.

Broecker says: "I am in full sympathy with those who claim that the benthic
world [the lowest level of a body of water] is likely a fragile one. Hence,
before we poke it with CO2, we should do our homework. Therefore, I
challenge Greenpeace to relax its stand and allow pilot CO2 injections to
proceed."

But Bill Hare of Greenpeace said: "The urgency of reducing emissions of CO2
has never been greater. But just as with an emergency in a heavy passenger
jet, the crew should never rush in to hasty actions that will ultimately
make a very bad situation a lot worse. Ocean disposal of CO2 is one such
option. The position of Greenpeace and of other groups opposed to this
option was based on research into the effects of ocean disposal of CO2."

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080619/05e2149c/attachment.html