[Terrapreta] More misguided nonsense:

[folke Günther]

2008/6/18 MFH <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>:

>  How come the loony fringe get this sort of publicity and TP doesn't?
>
Deep sea storage is more fancy, hence more  interesting. Something that
everybody can do in their backyard is of no interest, even if it is a better
way.
FG

> *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 says<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/18/carboncaptureandstorage>:
> "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 capture and storage<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/13/carboncapturestorage.fossilfuels>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."
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
NB :Send your mails to folkeg at gmail.com, not to holon.se
----------------------------------------
Folke Günther
Kollegievägen 19
224 73 Lund
Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)46 141429
Cell: +46 (0)709 710306
URL: http://www.holon.se/folke
BLOG: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080619/1286c2fd/attachment.html