That is an interesting point. Since liquid CO2 capture from stationary sources (coal) and sequestration in deep strata must be a part of a sustainable mix of greenhouse gas control technologies, there may be enough free CO2 to release. But some current deep injection ideas involve carbonate mineral formation in basalt. And then there is the leakage problem. Or we could save some coal...
= Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:31 PM To: Stuart Strand; [email protected]; 'geoengineering'; 'greenhouse effect' Cc: 'James Lovelock'; 'James Hansen'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration I would argue that any sequestration technique for CO2 should allow its release back into the atmosphere when needed. Why needed? For sure when the nominal background level of CO2 in the atmosphere drops to 180 ppm as the Antarctic cools following the end of the current 20,000 year component of the Milankovitch cycle. That will take place relatively soon. When the Earth so cools we will be glad to have enough CO2 stored to put back 100 ppm and achieve acceptable climate. We should view geoengineering techniques as a thermostat that works both ways as needed. One of the elegant aspects of carbon sequestration techniques is that they do no damage. Capture and storage fits that category. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
