Nyadriel
We Are Organisms
Also hiding a bunch of co2 for years is begging for it to leak or something and actually not solve much, Im worried about. Its like holding a balloon under water, its pure cost, if you use it for anything is gonna end up in the air anyways.
That is what I am thinking too. Why not cycle it into separation into carbon and oxygen (like plants do)... releasing the oxygen. The carbon can be used for things.
I'm replying to both of you but frankly the bottom line involves a lot of "I don't know". I'm not an expert on it and just know some stuff from reading, assuming what I read is accurate.
As to will the CO2 in the ground eventually escape? -
Possibly, but it is heavier than air and tends to stay in low places. For example I guess there is a fair bit of it under the sea where pressure keeps it in liquid form.
CO2 is extremely abundant in nature but the presence of man puts millions of tons more CO2 in the air than would naturally be there plus of course deforestation due to man also decreases the amount naturally taken out by plants. Ideally we would stop putting it in the air except from breathing but that isn't going to happen. For one thing you would have to do away with all combustion engines and all coal fired electric plants. Not to mention a myriad of other uses including the humble soda pop.
Since we won't stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere anytime soon next best thing is removing some of the CO2 we are putting there. Kind of the atmospheric version of cleaning up after ourselves.
This wiki article has some interesting information including some uses I was unaware of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
As to the question of why not split CO2 into Carbon and O2? -
I was going to guess cost and/or energy. Turns out I was pretty close. I found this article on the Scientific American web site:
Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?
The first paragraph sums up the problem though I admit the last paragraph sounds interesting if they can make it work large scale.
Instead of sequestering carbon dioxide to reduce its effects on global climate, why don’t we split it into harmless carbon and oxygen?
—J. Henderson, Devon, Pa.
James E. Miller, a chemical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, breaks it down:
Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.
Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.
Another option would be to harness a carbon-free energy source to drive a reaction that does not merely undo the combustion process but instead uses carbon dioxide as an input to generate useful, energy-rich products. At Sandia National Laboratories, we are working to apply concentrated sunlight to drive high-temperature thermal reactions that yield carbon monoxide, hydrogen and oxygen from CO2 and water. Carbon monoxide and hydrogen are basic chemical building blocks that find use in producing synthetic fuels, so we call this process “sunshine to petrol.”
Anyway, I hope that helps a little. Possibly someone else here is more knowledgeable on this subject. I posted the original article mainly because I'm glad some folks are at least making an effort rather than ignoring the problem.
50
200
100
