| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Davdi Bowman wrote:
I don't necessarily advocate this method of CO2 sequestration. (I just
don't know enough about the relevant issues to have an informed opinion
one way or the other.) I just mentioned it as a conceivable possible
counterexample to Ludwik's claim that the only way to significantly cut
CO2 emissions in electricity generation is to go nuclear. Maybe going
all nuclear would be best. I just don't know.
Isn't this the same kind of sequestration that occurs naturally in
some African lakes, one of which recently catastrophically disgorged
its stored CO-2 and killed almost an entire village in the process? I
read an article which talked about the probability that the contents
of the lake would "turn over" periodically, suddenly releasing this
massive amount of CO-2 which would push the oxygen out of the bowl in
which the lake formed, thus asphyxiating all the animal life therein.
I forget exactly what the conditions that would trigger a turnover
were, but I would imagine, that it would be when the CO-2 level
reached a certain fraction of the total depth of the lake, perhaps
the depth at which the pressure was such that the CO-2 could no
longer remain liquified.
I can't recall what the pressure requirements are for CO-2 to exist
in liquid form, but I recall its a few atmospheres, which corresponds
to a depth of 30 fathoms, or so. So I presume that the pipes carrying
the CO-2 to its oceanic home would have to extend at least out to the
edge of the continental shelf. But there is quite a bit of life on
the bottom out there beyond the edge of the shelf, and what would
this stream of liquid CO-2 do to whatever life it ran over on its way
to the local low point? And what is the interaction between the life
at this level and the life in the shallower depths, especially that
life that makes up our ocean fisheries?
Maybe we have some cross-disciplinarians on this list who can shed a
bit of light on this.
But another question remains. How much of the energy produced by the
fossil fuel plant would be needed to recapture the CO-2 produced by
combustion, liquefy it and pump it to the depth it would need to be
able to continue down on its own? Would we be better off just not
producing the CO-2 in the first place?
Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
<mailto://haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>
(919) 467-7610
Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************