<Monday open thread The Oil Drum The Limits of Biofuels>

72 comments on Peak Oil and the Environment Part 3 - Day 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

eric blair on May 9, 2006 - 12:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
if we don't get the carbon sequestration in place, this is an environmental disaster.

There is already carbon sequestration in place.  It is called oil and coal in the ground.    To react the carbon to liberate heat makes CO2, then take the CO2 and try and tuck it away at an energy cost doesn't make sense.

What happens with the common plan of pumping it into the earths crust when the crust moves?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on May 9, 2006 - 11:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There is already carbon sequestration in place.  It is called oil and coal in the ground.
Any kind of carbon in the ground will do, including charcoal in the soil (terra preta).
What happens with the common plan of pumping it into the earths crust when the crust moves?
The oil and gas in the ground don't seem to have been greatly disturbed by the last several tens of millions of years of seismic activity.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 10, 2006 - 3:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Any kind of carbon in the ground will do, including charcoal in the soil (terra preta).

At one time you were for processing all the word and were calculating that wood waste alone would proved enough power.   Nice to see that you have finally read up on carbon in the soil.

The oil and gas in the ground don't seem to have been greatly disturbed by the last several tens of millions of years of seismic activity.

Ha!   Look at the oil in shale and oil in sands.   All the lightweight 'valuable parts' have evaporated over time.

So to claim 'no long term effect' is, well, uninformed.

CO2 gas is CO2 gas.   Pumping it undergound doesn't change that it is a gas and will, over time, get into the atmosphere.   If CO2 is 'the disese vector' the cheapest cure is to not produce it in the 1st place.   Wind, hydro,solar, and nuclear fission fit that bill.   The long term waste issues and non-renewable nature of nuclear are very important issues that should not be ignored.

The concete made in wind, hydro and nuclear are a concern WRT CO2.  
 

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on May 10, 2006 - 6:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Nice to see that you have finally read up on carbon in the soil.
I proposed holding charcoal as a carbon bank some time ago, but you apparently couldn't spare the attention.  Using excess charcoal as a soil amendment (perhaps with subsidies) is one way of guaranteeing sequestration and improving agricultural policy.
Ha!   Look at the oil in shale and oil in sands.   All the lightweight 'valuable parts' have evaporated over time.
Look at how old those deposits are:  Paleozoic.  They've had at least a quarter-billion years to leak, and how much of them have; half?  If you are talking about a phenomenon which could easily be fixed over a hundred thousand years by natural processes, putting stuff away with a half-life of even ten million is more than necessary.
CO2 gas is CO2 gas.   Pumping it undergound doesn't change that it is a gas and will, over time, get into the atmosphere.
Underground CO2 is not a gas, it is usually a fluid dissolved in water.  There are natural deposits of CO2 which have been drilled in places like Texas (to provide solvent for EOR).  That CO2 has been there for quite a while too.
to claim 'no long term effect' is, well, uninformed.
I love arguing with the ignorant, it's so easy to look smart.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on May 11, 2006 - 10:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I proposed holding charcoal as a carbon bank some time ago,

No, you were proposing taking what is normally left on the forest floor and using it as fuel, thus removing the elements from the local biosphere of the trees.

That CO2 has been there for quite a while too.

Really?   So you have data on how much CO2 was there to start and how much is there now?

I love arguing with the ignorant, it's so easy to look smart.

Go ahead, show us all how 'smart' you are.   Show the amout of CO2 to start with.

Then show the amount of oil to start with in tar sands and oil shale.

I'll be waiting.   Odds are you won't bother, because, well you have a history of non-delivery.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on May 11, 2006 - 4:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I really love it when stupid people show how poor their reading ability is, too.
you were proposing taking what is normally left on the forest floor and using it as fuel
You mean, like a forest fire "uses it" as fuel?  I've proposed a number of different things, quite a few of them having nothing to do with forests.
thus removing the elements from the local biosphere of the trees.
Wrong.  I've always supported replacement of the phosphorus and potash, either by returning them or substituting other fertilizer.
So you have data on how much CO2 was there to start and how much is there now?
You really show your poor reading ability here, because I never said that.
Go ahead, show us all how 'smart' you are.   Show the amout of CO2 to start with.
I never said I knew that, I only said that what's there is millions of years old.  That and the rate of production puts a ceiling on the rate of leakage.

I don't expect you to comprehend this either.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

72 comments on Peak Oil and the Environment Part 3 - Day 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version