Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fracked Shale Could Sequester Carbon Dioxide

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the delerium-tremens dept.

Earth 235

MTorrice writes "The same wells that energy companies drill to extract natural gas from shale formations could become repositories to store large quantities of carbon dioxide. A new computer model suggests that wells in the Marcellus shale, a 600-sq-mile formation in the northeastern U.S. that is a hotbed for gas extraction, could store half the CO2 emitted by the country's power plants from now until 2030."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

interesting (0, Troll)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44896131)

It kind of puts the environmentalists in a bit of a clamor. They wont know which way to go with this

Re:interesting (5, Informative)

zzottt (629458) | about a year ago | (#44896145)

Will it help slow down our oil consumption? and deforestation? and air/water pollution? No? There is your answer.

Re:interesting (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896211)

plus how much energy (that comes mostly from fossil fuels?) will it take to pump the carbon dioxide back into the shale? and how much energy did it take to get the natural gas out in the first place? and how much carbon dioxide did that produce?

Re:interesting (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44897049)

plus how much energy (that comes mostly from fossil fuels?) will it take to pump the carbon dioxide back into the shale? and how much energy did it take to get the natural gas out in the first place? and how much carbon dioxide did that produce?

Does it matter?

The alternative is no sequestration. Pick your poison.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896381)

Will it quicken our oil consumption? and deforestation? and air/water pollution? No? There is your answer.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896439)

You don't get it:

You don't really need to slow down oil consumption, if the CO2 thus produced is buried instead of polluting the air.

Re:interesting (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year ago | (#44896809)

You don't get it:

You don't really need to slow down oil consumption, if the CO2 thus produced is buried instead of polluting the air.

Because environmentalists had no opinion one way or another about oil before climate change became an issue, right?

Re:interesting (2)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#44897043)

Will anything else remotely practical do any of the above? No? There is your answer.

Re:interesting (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896151)

It kind of puts the environmentalists in a bit of a clamor. They wont know which way to go with this

Except given that fracking is polluting ground water and wells, any scheme oil companies come up with to try this is likely to pollute just as badly.

Trusting the oil companies is generally a bad idea.

Re:interesting (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896243)

Not true, you liberals are f-ing dirty. Complain about endless oil wars and clean energy and you have something that will help start eliminating everything you bitch about and still you complain. Cry bitches, and stop using power and man up and put your ideals where it counts. The day I see some green loser give up power and everything else they insist destroys the environment is the day I believe a word out of their lying stupid mouths. Damn this site is not news for nerds but propaganda to feed the ignorance.

Re:interesting (4, Insightful)

crunchygranola (1954152) | about a year ago | (#44896375)

Because pollution is something that never ever existed anywhere and was entirely made up by Liberals, rather than being produced by corporations?

If you bother to read TFA you will see what a petrochemical industry researcher says about this computer model: "the model does not consider several important factors, including the buoyancy of the gases, the heterogeneity of these kinds of formations, and the presence of water and other fluids, all of which will affect how much CO2 will be absorbed by fractured shale".

But you are confident that one grossly simplified computer model, without any field data to test it, is the answer?

Tell me, AC. Are you similarly convinced of the accuracy of the very thoroughly researched and comprehensively supported global climate models? Do you denounce those who doubt these models with the same profanity?

Re:interesting (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896539)

I didn't realize that corporations were the ones who made up pollution. I guess you learn something everyday.
 
BTW: The fact that you're using a computer means you're consuming corporate goods. That makes you guilty too.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896729)

I didn't realize that corporations were the ones who made up pollution. I guess you learn something everyday.

BTW: The fact that you're using a computer means you're consuming corporate goods. That makes you guilty too.

Who let grandpa on the Internet again? Enough fun for today. Time for your meds old man.

Re: interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896815)

Call in a Stasi van. And a loaded hypo.

Re:interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896637)

Get off your high horse man..... You're on the internet because of the electricity produced at a power plant. You're on electronics because of rare metal mining and ploycarbonate and silcon manufacturing

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896807)

>Because pollution is something that never ever existed anywhere and was entirely made up by Liberals, rather than being produced by corporations?

Because pollution never existed before corporations?

Re:interesting (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44896263)

any scheme oil companies come up with to try this is likely to pollute just as badly.

At least they'll be drinking Perrier.

(Perrier that tastes of brimstone...)

Re:interesting (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44896331)

Except there is no proof that any of what you just said is true. sure there are youtube videos, but when i start trusting youtube videos instead of doing my own research based on the facts presented by unbiased scientists, well that makes me as dumb as most of my fellow americans

Re:interesting (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44896821)

NPR [npr.org] and ProPublica [propublica.org] have done a few pieces regarding this topic that I think you should check out before writing off the phenomena completely.

Re:interesting (5, Informative)

danbert8 (1024253) | about a year ago | (#44897055)

I listened to the NPR piece by Diane Rehm and it is SOOOO horribly biased. She only asks the one not very official spokesperson for fracking loaded questions and then cuts him off and lets the director of GasLand (and sequel) pretty much give a sales pitch on his movie. I'm not saying there aren't environmental consequences from fracking, but when the director of the documentary is saying the EPA, USGS, and other government studies showing the fracking isn't to blame can't be believed, then who DO you believe?

http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/Websites/iogcc/Images/2009StateRegulatoryStatementsonHydraulic%20Fracturing.pdf [state.ok.us]
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3489 [usgs.gov]

Now I'm not saying oil and gas extraction can't pollute the water supply. It can and frequently does. But even if there is contamination around fracking sites, it isn't due to the fracking itself, but poor environmental controls in the supporting operation. The key here is not to fight fracking, but to fight to keep all the processes associated with well drilling within the rules of existing environmental regulations.

Blaming fracking for well contamination is equivalent to blaming GM because your gas tank leaks. (Obligatory Slashdot car analogy)

Re:interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896517)

There are no cases to show that fracking has polluted ground water. Only flawed EPA testing that caused pollution. If the gas/oil and other petrochemicals (under thousands of pound of pressure) could not get up thru the MILE of rock above, how would the water used in fracking get up to pollute?

Re:interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44897013)

Stop being purposefully ignorant, its bad for everyone. Fracking causes all sorts of issues such as generating earthquakes which then crack the bedrock protecting wells. There is plenty of room for methane to escape when you're blasting fracking fluid through one end. When you do things under high pressure you need to control the conditions very carefully or things tend to expel themselves in places you don't necessary expect, not sure if you've ever tried to make a rocket a home before. Why do you think the practice is illegal in large portions of Europe now? You think they were swayed by an EPA study that was reported years after they banned the practice?

Re:interesting (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about a year ago | (#44896169)

If history is any indication they'll go bananas:

(B)uild
(a)bsoletely
(n)othing
(a)nywhere
(n)ear
(a)anything

Re:interesting (1)

Pitr (33016) | about a year ago | (#44896179)

"Hey, if we screw the environment, we can store a little of the pollution we cause for a while!"

Yup, real dilemma there...

Re:interesting (3, Insightful)

unrtst (777550) | about a year ago | (#44896519)

"Hey, if we screw the environment, we can store a little of the pollution we cause for a while!"

A while!?!? this is "from now until 2030"!!! (well, half of it).
Or we could store a percent of all CO2 emitted by the country's power plants until 2363!!!

I have no idea why they used those figures. How about, "it could store as much CO2 as the country's power plants produce in 3 years".
Sure, it's something, if it is even possible/feasible, but it's obviously not going to solve any issues, even in the near term.

Re:interesting (1)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#44896757)

A while!?!? this is "from now until 2030"

Keep in mind that this is essentially pumping a gas into undeground caverns and making an educated guess that it won't leak back out. Sweeping it under the rug, if you will. Note that the power plants that sequester in this way will have to be built where their emissions can be transported to such sites.

True the proposal expects the CO2 to adsorb to the rock, but how durable a bond that will be long-term, considering this shale has already been cracked to aid in the escape of gas, in that environment down there and in the face of any changes in the environment (like say a geologic event causes the temperature to increase) -- well that doesn't give me the warm fizzies. I'm a bit more enamoured of the sequestration strategies that actually involve bonding CO2 into a solid.through chemical reactions e.g. in concrete manufacture or bonding it to low-impact-cultivated biomass that can either be then buried or sunk to the ocean floor.

Re:interesting (3, Interesting)

Xenkar (580240) | about a year ago | (#44896227)

I remember reading that a majority of the energy used in the USA is for concrete production. Switching to locally sourced geopolymers will reduce the amount of power we need and drop us from the top per-capita energy consumer to one of the most "green" nations in the world.

It is definitely better than messing around with mercury-filled bulbs and pumping CO2 into the ground.

So the way environmentalists will go with this is to say no.

Re:interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896325)

I've wondered about the smaller nuclear reactors, i.e. the ones that can fit on a truck or train and can be assembled in an array to power a town or two. So far, various nations use them all the time, and issues are little to none.

Comparing the failing nuclear power plants to what we have today is like saying how a 51 Bel-Aire fails modern crash tests

Re:interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896671)

"I remember reading that a majority of the energy used in the USA is for concrete production"

Respectfully, I think you are misremembering. There is no way more energy is spent making concrete than for running cars.

Re:interesting (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44896231)

Sure, all you have to do is collect it, transport it and store it. And I'm SURE companies will be *lining up* to take on the extra expense. Easy peasy.

Re:interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896309)

Yeah, do we transport the CO2 in Hefty trash bags that we put over the smoke stacks of the power plants, or do we run exhaust pipes from all of the coal plants to the fracking fields?

Re:interesting (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44896361)

How so?

This plan will never happen. Carbon capture would require capture and transportation which would be expensive enough to seriously hinder the use of fossil fuel based power plants.

Re:interesting (5, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44896387)

As a few others already pointed out, there is to be no clamor. The problem of pump and dump does not change because of this, and the potential for more extreme problems grow.

Let me give an example to clarify. Landfills were seen as a great savior. Bury the trash, especially in colder climates and build ski resorts on top of the fills. Michigan did this. The first year was cool, a new village sprouted up around the fill and ski fans flocked in. Then the seepage contaminated the water supply of not just the small village, but water supplies for hundreds of thousands of suburbanites and it all closed down. Nobody wanted to ski in turd smelling snow, let alone live near it or drink the water from the areas around it.

The better solution would have been to extend and grow recycling operations, limit massive dumping by large companies to paid officials to look the other way, and help society be more aware of their impact. You know, kind of like we started to do in the early 70s and forgot about due to massive add campaigns and cheap toys.

What will pumping CO2 into the ground get us? Temporary reprieve from increasing CO2 levels (with thinning green areas to process that back in to Oxygen)? What happens if the well leaks? Massive deaths from O2 starvation?

Now if they could remove the O2 and put that back in the air and dump the remaining Carbon down the tubes, well in a few million years we'd have lots of diamonds. They won't or can't, so there is no use in investing lots of time and effort into this type of project.

Society needs to stop accepting bandaid fixes to problems that people are creating in order to make massive profits from society. The people making profits should be re-investing that into making society at least remain stable instead of constantly shitting in the wells.

Re:interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896651)

Now if they could remove the O2 and put that back in the air and dump the remaining Carbon down the tubes, well in a few million years we'd have lots of diamonds. They won't or can't, so there is no use in investing lots of time and effort into this type of project.

Won't or can't? Seriously? Get off my /.!!

There was a time when this was a community of nerds, geeks, and such, and I wouldn't need to point out that the reason we convert C (e.g. coal) into CO2 is because we want to use the energy released in the process. The idea of carbon sequestration is that we can have our cake and eat it too -- we burn the fuel, use most of the energy, and then use a fraction of the energy to stuff the CO2 someplace safe where it won't cause trouble.You have to put all that energy back into it to separate the C from the O2, so there's no cake left -- it's better to just not burn it in the first place.

Re:interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896831)

What will pumping CO2 into the ground get us? Temporary reprieve from increasing CO2 levels (with thinning green areas to process that back in to Oxygen)? What happens if the well leaks? Massive deaths from O2 starvation?

You are wrong on every account.

1. It would not reduce CO2 rates at all - additional currently sequestered CO2 is emitted by millions of tons per day, not a few cubic meters.
2. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. If it rises to 0.08%, we will be in serious serious trouble.
3. O2 is 21% or so. If it falls to 20.5%, well, nothing happens.
4. If well leaks, nothing happens either. You don't die from O2 starvation if you have too much CO2. You die from CO2 poisoning. And a well doesn't "blow out" enough CO2 to make any difference except if you are standing over the hole.
5. The point of this scheme is to get carbon credits. That's all. It's about money, not "saving the planet".

Re:interesting (1)

tirerim (1108567) | about a year ago | (#44896899)

Separating the O2 from the C is easy, but it takes energy -- that's why plants need sunlight to do it. If we had a source of clean energy with which to perform the separation, we'd be better off just using that source directly and never generating the CO2 in the first place.

Re:interesting (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#44896973)

It's not easy, it's very expensive and time consuming. This is why I was rather generic in my response. It's kind of like the ole CO2 scrubbers. They made a mess, reduced efficiency, costs a whole lot of money, and required lots of maintenance.

In a technical sense you are correct that we "can" separate. In a business sense, you "can't".

Re:interesting (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year ago | (#44896979)

Now if they could remove the O2 and put that back in the air and dump the remaining Carbon down the tubes, well in a few million years we'd have lots of diamonds.

And once you've finished burying the carbon we could immediately start mining it to burn (combine with oxygen to release energy) in existing coal (aka carbon) burning power plants!

They won't or can't, so there is no use in investing lots of time and effort into this type of project.

As long as we get energy by burning naturally sequestered carbon based fossil fuels in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms and producing gaseous CO2 we will be fighting an increasingly inefficient uphill battle.

Re:interesting (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896437)

Environmentalists will always find a way to hate on humans, no matter how many of their "problems" you solve. Nothing short of mass human suicide will ever appease them. They'll just find some new corporate boogeyman to bitch about.

Re:interesting (1)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#44896813)

Were that true, they'd be perfectly happy to watch humanity kill itself, since they are so good at doing it in very inventive ways. The anti-population nutters can get a bit extreme, but run of the mill environmentalists are placing a lot of hope, not hate, towards their fellow man by trying to encourage them to help address the problem.

Re:interesting (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44896715)

Not at all. There are many other ways to sequester carbon so this particular method isn't very valuable. Next, what's the value of a place to store carbon if nobody's capturing it? Nobody's actually doing carbon sequestration anywhere in the world yet, as far as I'm aware.

False choice. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44896929)

It kind of puts the environmentalists in a bit of a clamor. They wont know which way to go with this

Not really. Sweeping environmental problems under the rug not only doesn't address the core issues but ignores that things have a way of slipping out from under the rug when no one's paying attention anymore.

Additionally, carbon sequestration is expensive and generates no sellable product. It's like dealing with mine tailings. As soon as a company no longer has to watch it to take care of accidental spills and leaks, they won't, leaving the government to pick up the bag.

Worse, one of the advantages of natural gas is that it's easy to transport and can be burned far from the source. How easy is it to capture carbon dioxide and then ship it all the way back to the fields to be sequestered? How much energy does that transportation take and how much does pumping it back into the ground take?

This is a loser of an idea. The only merit it has is as a fig leaf to justify more fracking, which only makes the problem worse.

how big? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896155)

600 square miles? It lies under at least 5 states. Someone needs to recheck their survey maps.

Re:how big? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year ago | (#44896313)

Heh, yeah. More like 95,000 sq miles.

Re:how big? (1)

danbert8 (1024253) | about a year ago | (#44896327)

According the the WIKIPEDIA LINK IN THE ARTICLE the shale covers approximately 104,000 square miles which seems much more realistic. Come on editors. If you are going to link the source, you know actually check the source!

Re:how big? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44896481)

The wiki article linked says "The Marcellus covers several times more area,[138] stretching 600 miles (970 km)", which is to say the linear measurement is 600 miles. The summary is wrong. I think it's the first incorrect summary I've seen here in at least a half hour.

Why not.. (3, Insightful)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | about a year ago | (#44896165)

There's something ironic about extracting oil, burning it, and then putting the resultant CO2 back in it's place. Unfortunately, if this is only in the computer model stage it will probably be 2030 before it even has a chance of getting implemented.

That is, unless we come up with some catchy slogans to rally behind, I suggest: "Make the world a soda, carbonate our shale!"

Sounds like a great plan. (5, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a year ago | (#44896187)

Let's store the next 30 years worth of excess carbon dioxide in huge underground chambers
so that instead of gradual climate change that the environment can adjust to and compensate
for we instead have a massive catastrophic climate change when one of those chambers
springs a leak.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896297)

and in the meantime, we get flammable water.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896337)

Carbon Dioxide isn't flammable.

Instead what you'll get is the gas pressure rupturing the well casing at the water table line and we'll all have fizzy water. And then asphyxiate.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#44896421)

Carbon Dioxide isn't flammable.

Instead what you'll get is the gas pressure rupturing the well casing at the water table line and we'll all have fizzy water. And then asphyxiate.

I believe the grandparent meant flammable water from the Fracking use to empty out the shale so the CO have eventually be placed inside.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896345)

Line the walls with lichen that feed off of CO2 and produce oxygen and there wouldn't be that problem.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

ElKry (1544795) | about a year ago | (#44896409)

Yep, looking forward to those oxygen-saturated underground explosive reservoirs.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44896507)

I'm pretty sure that plants can't concentrate pure O2...

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44896727)

I'm going to skip ahead to the punchline: when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death

Not chambers (1)

zerosomething (1353609) | about a year ago | (#44896355)

The oil doesn't come out of chambers. It's a lo more like a sponge. Also this is a real old idea not sure why it's making /.

Re:Not chambers (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year ago | (#44896447)

Thanks, yes, I was pretty sure I read about this exact same idea about a year ago (and I think it was even here on /.)

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896477)

A half-assed sequestration attempt by an industry with incentive to say "global warming is a hoax, will intentionally use poor execution, no effective oversight, and negligence in every aspect of this "plan". End result: greatly accelerate CO2 emission pollution and destroy any pita EPA regulation (ie. more of the same, only worse), and oh yeah, wave off any mini man-made earthquakes and fracturing of encasing rock layers as God's will.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44896523)

Uh... its miles down, under millions of PSI. The CO2 is in liquid form under that kind of pressure. The kind of earthquake it would take to release that would be so large, the CO2 would be the least of our worries.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | about a year ago | (#44896565)

Rock hasn't been known for its impenetrability to water, otherwise basements wouldn't need sump pumps.

Of course, CO2 + water = carbonic acid, which has a tendency to dissolve rock. We will likely see those chambers leak sooner or later.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (4, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#44896691)

we instead have a massive catastrophic climate change when one of those chambers springs a leak.

A lot of people forget that material properties change with pressure and depth. The first time the Alvin submersible found black smokers (active volcanic vents) on the mid-oceanic ridge, they moved in for a closer look. They found out afterwards that they'd recorded temperatures close to 400 C. The melting point of Alvin's portholes was far less than 400 C [whoi.edu] , and they would've died if they'd stayed there too long. People see liquid water, and just assume the temperature is below 100 C and therefore the glass portholes are safe. But at the depth they were at, the pressure is much higher and thus the boiling point of water was around 400 C.

I did some quick research. Fracking is typically done 2-3 km underground. The ground temperature at that depth [mpoweruk.com] is about 75 C. The pressure at that depth [spec2000.net] is about 200-300 bar (atmospheres).

Looking at the phase diagram for CO2 [wikipedia.org] , that's in the supercritical fluid phase. So the CO2 wouldn't need to be pressurized at that depth like it has to be at sea level. The ground pressure alone would be enough to prevent it from reverting to a gas, and thus it would be impossible for the chamber to catastrophically spring a leak. The only way that could happen is if another drilling operation tapped the chamber and suffered a blowout. Normally that doesn't happen - they keep the bore filled with heavy mud to maintain the pressure at depth. But occasionally (e.g. Deepwater Horizon) there is a blowout, the pressurized mud is lost, and the liquid/gas underneath is then squeezed out by the surrounding rock through the "straw" (bore). I don't see this as being any more risky than regular oil drilling. If anything it's safer since CO2 is pretty inert and won't catch fire. The biggest risk would be the CO2 gas pooling in a depression and suffocating anyone/anything inside.

Re:Sounds like a great plan. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44896749)

To be fair, this is just PR to make fracking out to be something good we should allow in our backyards. No one intends to ACTUALLY solve climate change this way. That'd cost MONEY!

Right (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#44896195)

Re:Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896351)

Acid hurricane!!!!

Re:Right (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | about a year ago | (#44896451)

We could always ask Yoda [youtube.com] . I hear he lives in a swamp where the sequestered CO2 comes up all the time.

Jump the shark fonzey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896247)

Ralf Malf
Pothedz
Ritzie

all in favor of Slashdot doing more shark tank jumping shout out!

No such thing as 'man made global warming' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896255)

... but Slashdot keeps repeating the ludicrous mantra... you idiots.

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

Don't let the facts get in the way of your insane belief system though... "Heretic!" they cry. Idiots.

Re:No such thing as 'man made global warming' (1)

kesuki (321456) | about a year ago | (#44896489)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot [sourcewatch.org]
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com [alexa.com]
both are highly known as clime change deniers they are not reputable as you claim.

most real research is paywalled and/or sells books to fund their research above whatever grants they get. it is how academia works these are feel good stories for republicans to seed disinformation, as it takes all blame away from them.

even if the global warming is a result of the sun fusing higher density particles and not burning of fuels while deforestation there is still merit in finding ways to slow global warming. it's not 'shit we better burn all the coal we can before it all ignights and screws humanity'

BSG was right... (2, Funny)

jeremiahstanley (473105) | about a year ago | (#44896259)

What is with all this fracking schist?

More propoganda from big oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896305)

Granted we need energy and it is critical to our success. It doesn't mean we allow energy companies to poison are air, ground and water. This is more spin by big oil for the reckless drilling they do. Fracking has already posioned ground water in many areas as well as caused earth quakes. More regulations are need to keep big oil in line. If you think that is a bad idea move to China where there are few regulation and please drink the water :-)

Re:More propoganda from big oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896657)

Pumping waste back down the old wells is what is causing the earthquakes (Youngtown Ohio), not the fracking to release the gas. "poisoned groundwater in many areas" ?? where has that happened ? Dimock PA- where test after test has shown the drilling/fracking did not cause problems, reports of lighting tap water with a match go back 50 years or more. More than 100 years ago indians/Native Americans would lite Oil Creek on fire - long before the FIRST well was ever drilled. W edo need reasonable regulation and safety rules - or yes, without them business/people will take all the shortcuts they can - just to make an extra buck.

Do the people who live there get the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896307)

Water contaminated by chemicals and methane and then also a risk of deadly CO2 leaks. They better make the people whose homeland they fuck up filthy fucking rich.

"Et tu, slashdot?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896319)

Promoting fracking fracking? I understand that alternative energy solutions are disappointing, but don't promote fossil fuels, what the frack?

Gasland, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896335)

somebody hasn't seen Gasland (or Gasland 2)...

Re:Gasland, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896685)

Gasland is a bunch of hype, scare and lies. FrackNation is much more accurate - watch them both/all and decide for yourself.

Prove it's necessary to sequester CO2. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896341)

So far, there is no proof to demonstrates that CO2 has any negative effects on the atmosphere or the ecosystem.

Re:Prove it's necessary to sequester CO2. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44896855)

So far, there is no proof to demonstrates that CO2 has any negative effects on the atmosphere or the ecosystem.

Try this little experiment then: Seal yourself in an airtight room and breath. Record results.

Re:Prove it's necessary to sequester CO2. (1)

Petron (1771156) | about a year ago | (#44897039)

Mind if I bring some tanks of Algae and a sunlamp with me?

With out CO2, we would all be dead... starting with the plants.

fracking tag? (1)

dfn5 (524972) | about a year ago | (#44896385)

This article is tagged fracking. I do not think it means what you think it means. You know, this being slashdot and all.

Not Good (1)

b4upoo (166390) | about a year ago | (#44896395)

Co2 in water forms a mild acid. It could be rather dramatic in its effects on water quality and also if limestone is present or several other kinds of rock the reaction might be rather violent over time. Try growing your house plants on carbonated water and you will rapidly see the problem. Maybe we could pump enough Coke syrup down with the CO2 so that the Earth could spew an interesting beverage. Let's rank the notion of down pumping CO2 as absurd.

Re:Not Good (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about a year ago | (#44896535)

Carbonated water - It's What Plants Crave!

Yeah, so besides pushing in toxic who-knows-what to get at the gas we will add in tremendous amounts of some who knows what it will do CO2 back into to the mix. So, now the earths surface is like some giant rug we are sweeping our grime into.

Re:Not Good (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about a year ago | (#44896823)

Co2 in water forms a mild acid. It could be rather dramatic in its effects on water quality and also if limestone is present or several other kinds of rock the reaction might be rather violent over time. Try growing your house plants on carbonated water and you will rapidly see the problem. Maybe we could pump enough Coke syrup down with the CO2 so that the Earth could spew an interesting beverage. Let's rank the notion of down pumping CO2 as absurd.

Funnily enough, they're pumping metric shitloads (exact measurement) of CO2 into the ground in order to scrape the last little bits of oil off of the rock. Seems to work a treat... We call this tertiary recovery or a "CO2 flood." Nothing violent seems to be happening over time.

I've got a better idea (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about a year ago | (#44896411)

Let's not bury our problems. Instead, let's bury some tree saplings and have them sort this carbon dioxide problem out.

Plant more trees!

Re:I've got a better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896723)

If we plant more trees to absorb the CO2, then the trees will block the wind and the turbines won't be able to generate enough power. If we cut down all the trees, we will increase windfarm output and will have less need for the CO2 producing fuels.

Lake Nyons (1)

lecoupdejarnac (1742408) | about a year ago | (#44896479)

Any time I hear about underground CO2 sequestration, I think about the Lake Nyos Incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos [wikipedia.org] Pumping mass amounts of CO2 underground would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:Lake Nyons (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#44896553)

Any time I hear about underground CO2 sequestration, I think about the Lake Nyos Incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos [wikipedia.org]
Pumping mass amounts of CO2 underground would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Jeez

I'd heard of the lake and its acidic nature... but never heard about the 1,700 people that it asphyxiated. That sucks on toast.

Re:Lake Nyons (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about a year ago | (#44896649)

Except what happens with sequestration in the proper bedrock is the CO2 reacts and forms carbonate and bicarbonate. Solids. And stable.

Save ALL the carbon dioxide (0)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#44896491)

We'll need it to help warm up the Earth during the coming ice age!

How (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896549)

the article says it's possible, not how it could actually be done, which seems like a rather important point.

Shale already does sequester carbon dioxide (2)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44896605)

The problem is we are un-sequestering it in the first place.

600 miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896617)

wikipedia says 104,000 square miles... perhaps 600 miles long? methinks someone skimmed the info.

sequestration not enough (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#44896665)

It isn't enough to sequestrate the CO2. Part of the sequestration will include O2 needed for life. It would be much better to plant billions of trees which free up the O2 for humans and animals. Please, do it naturally, as man made attempts are often very short sighted.

Re:sequestration not enough (1)

Kevin Fishburne (1296859) | about a year ago | (#44896763)

Funny, just read your post after posting mine. [adjective] minds think alike, I suppose.

Could and Can, pfff. whatever. (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44896695)

"could store half the CO2 emitted by the country's power plants from now until 2030." -- Yes, well, but that can't actually be done... Additionally, 2030 isn't very far away. If I'm going to sell my future humans down the river I would prefer them not to be alive right now -- Or more importantly: I would like to be dead long before they realize we rigged their short lot on the temporal lottery.

Here, let me demonstrate how bullshit the claim is:
Sunlight at Earth's surface could provide ALL of the energy needed by mankind for the foreseeable future.

See? It 'could'. However, CAN we overcome the greed barrier and actually do so? Not fucking likely. Could, Should and Would, CAN go fuck themselves. Let me know when these mother frackers commit a 'Will'......

use plants maybe? (2)

Kevin Fishburne (1296859) | about a year ago | (#44896745)

Speaking purely out of ignorance, since plants consume CO2 and release O2 you'd think people would be researching ways to genetically engineer plants or algae or something that could live in an artificial environment and act as a filter through which CO2 could be continually pumped until it reaches a "safe" threshold and then released into the atmosphere. Think of an aquarium, where the water is continually cycled through a filter, except when the water gets clean it would automatically empty and be refilled with new dirty water. I think the idea of just "sticking the shit somewhere" is a bit beneath us, excuse the pun.

Sea could sequester plutonium (1)

Barryke (772876) | about a year ago | (#44896775)

And in other news..

"The same seas that we evaporate and drive boats across could become repositories to store large quantities of plutonium. A new computer model suggests that holes in the Atlantic Ocean, a 106400000 sq-kilometres formation right next to the U.S. that is a hotbed for water, could store all the radio active waste emitted by the country's power plants from now until 2080."

0_o

It's always good (1)

no-body (127863) | about a year ago | (#44896779)

To leave a few surprising presents for future generations
some with long term effect, the radiating thingies and the ones with immideate effect - odorless, colorless gas taking your breath away.

Small problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44896793)

... could store half the CO2 emitted by the country's power plants from now until 2030.

There's only a small problem of extracting the CO2 from all the power plants combustion, liquefying it and transporting it up to hundreds or even over a thousand miles to the drilling site for sequestering.

It's already being done (1)

Silvrmane (773720) | about a year ago | (#44896953)

Re: all the comments about infeasibility or time required to make this a reality... It's already being done. An exhausted oil bed in Weyburn Saskatchewan is being used to sequester CO2 from a power plant in the US - Montana I believe. The issue there now is that CO2 is heavier than air, so when it comes out of the fracked rock formation it tends to hug the ground in low-lying areas. A farmer local to the project has already claimed that the gas is leaking and killed several of his lifestock. Google around, I'm sure you'll find information on it. It's a project that's been on the go since around 2000.

All the Buzz (1)

Jmac217 (3006299) | about a year ago | (#44896993)

Those buzz words trying to grab all the people's attention...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?