Comments on "Develop Carbon Sequestration Methods"

Carbon sequestration is not a problem, in my view; Nature has been doing it for milennia, and the technology to make use of these processes exists today; Carbon capture methods to feed this methodology and to remove already-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere is the challenge I see.

focussing on developing other greener forms of energy could be more be useful because nature sets itself to equilibrium after sometimes, the need of the hour is to limit CO2 EMMISSION rather than focussing on sequestration which could lead to destablise natural ways

through own energy special production device is possible the empowering of decarbormization platforms world wide and the air composition new regulate on nature similar values as 2000bC with air quality able to initiate a new economy, ecology and life standards, that former generations never imagine, more?

I think that people should avoid deforestation and instead of cutting down trees plant some more.

I think that it's cool how they use steam to make the oil more fluid. Though the Carbon Dioxide makes the oil pun-up easily and swiftly the carbon might start going to the air and that's were global warming starts

we could send it to Mars or some other planet, that way we would not have to worry about leaks. It would cost a little to compress and send it though.

co2 taskforce between Dakar and tobago formed with 50 units can the air seccurity for the whole central and north america against hurrican formation and at the same time gas capture and warming slowdown offer.the cost of this meassure rise to $5Billon about. when interessting for details are strong try to get contact with.

in my opinion plantation method is best because it has so many advantages,, as it helps to store carbon from atmosphere as well as it creates suitable ecosystem for terresterial flora and fauna so this method is one of the cheapest and effective tools for this

In terms of storing sequestered carbon dioxide under ocean sediment, we need to take into consideration the fora/ flora aspect of the ocean. Also will the current movement of the oceanic plates allow it? I believe that nature will adapt to the excess as long as humans stop forcing the issuse and find better and more natural alternatives for energy production

Our planet has amazing buffering capacity. Human activity compared to this is ridiculously small. The sky is not falling. To compare the current climatic situation to those of the geologic past that have led to extinctions and large temperature spikes is irresponsible. We simply are not that important on the grand scale. A greener planet with more vegetation and more abundant fish due to higher levels of carbon dioxide consuming plankton is what we are worried about, really. If you want to worry about something, try the alternative which is just as likely, a mile thick layer of ice over North American and Europe! We simply do not understand this planet enough to make these grand speculations about its climate changes.

The solution to the increasing amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is to reduce the emissions by finding new alternatives to produce energy. By separating CO2 from the air and storing it in other places, we are not stopping the real problem, we are investing our time in temporal solutions and maybe even future threats. Its much better and wise to invest our time finding new alternate, clean and sustainable energies that don't harm our environment.

involve industry by the lure of huge profit,by way of corbon credits .The engineering will come when the money comes

involve industry by the lure of huge profit,by way of corbon credits .The engineering will come when the money comes

i think the better way is to grow more plants which absorbs more co2 and to use them in the better way

Since scientists cannot even agree yet on the causes of climate change, and the extent to which this will impact the world's economies, it is premature to conclude that carbon sequestration is an appropriate engineering solution. Some have proposed that, whether global warming is ultimately shown to be man-made or part of a natural climate cycle, and if it is shown that the net impacts are significantly negative, it is more cost-effective to develop/engineer adaptive strategies to cope with climate change instead of trying to mitigate or "prevent" it.

In response to anyone who said this, the idea of renewable energy vs. CCS is a complete false dichotomy! One VERY important fact is that building the parts for renewable energy systems (i.e. wind farms) does require fossil fuel input, so to say that we should forget improving fossil fuel consumption and work on researching just renewables is just plain illogical. The fact is that if we are able to implement CCS to mitigate nearly all of the negative effects of fossil fuel use, that will actually HELP us with our renewable energies investment. Also keep in mind that CO2 emissions are the only major problem. If we alleviate the vast majority of this problem using CCS, and continue researching and improving alternative energy production (which use of fossil fuels gives us the TIME to do) to prevent dependance on fossil fuels, then given the improving technologies in natural gas and unconventional oil production, and the reintroduction of coal as a veritable fuel source thanks to CCS, fossil fuels will be an excellent source of fuel for the next 100-200 years.

To Privahini: Sequestration is to deal with the immediate problem of climate change, and has no bearing on how we will use the sequestered carbon in the future. Since the most likely storage sites of seqeustered will be existing depleted oil/gas reserves, given how cheap it was to extract fossil fuels from these sites, it would be fairly manageable to later extract these sequestered carbon reserves in the future when we have found profitable uses for them, like the ones you mentioned in your posts. For now, we just need to keep the carbon out of our atmosphere.

What can be done with carbon? Build Bucky-balls; build nanotubes; build diamondoid structures for applications in the restoration and improvement of urban infrastructures. The sequestration part of the grand challenge to “develop carbon sequestration methods”, sounds a lot like an opportunity to secure something really important, like cyberspace. The current buzz about 3-D printing suggests a promising approach for building, i.e., printing, via swarms of printers, both urban and cyberspace infrastructures, in a long now kind of way. So, better than sweeping it under the rug, so to speak, the best methods would involve common sense approaches like recycle and reuse. The dream of sequestering carbon away without any purpose other than to feel safe might only provide fodder for a false sense of security. However, if the under the rug approach prevails, it would provide a wealth of resources for whoever could control access to that under the rug sequestered loot, such as future 3-D printer ink-cartridge cartels. Yet again, by building up distributed reserves, such as carbon, a principle reason could be akin to saving resources for a rainy day, and, of course, there is no fault in that. Sequestering basic materials is a very reasonable way to provide security for future generations of growth and development.

What can be done with carbon? Build Bucky-balls; build nanotubes; build diamondoid structures for applications in the restoration and improvement of urban infrastructures. The sequestration part of the grand challenge to “develop carbon sequestration methods”, sounds a lot like an opportunity to secure something really important, like cyberspace. The buzz about 3-D printing suggests a promising approach for building, i.e., printing both urban infrastructures and cyberspace, in a long now kind of way. So, better than sweeping it under the rug, so to speak, the best methods would involve common sense approaches like recycle and reuse. The dream of sequestering carbon away without any purpose other than to feel safe would only provide fodder for a false sense of security. However, if the under the rug approach prevails, it would provide a wealth of resources for whoever could control access to that under the rug sequestered loot, such as future 3-D printer ink-cartridge cartels. Yet again, by building up distributed reserves of basic materials, such as carbon, a principle reason could be akin to saving resources for a rainy day, and there is no fault in that.

At the outset, I would like to ask: Why are we fixated on (Sequestration and) Storage of Carbon? I strongly believe that CCS is is not the optimal solution for Carbon. Its a means to an end, but not the solution. If we move away from the prevalent paradigm that the only way to deal with Carbon is to sequester and store it, towards one where we see Carbon as a resource that can be beneficially reused for production of profitable end-products, I think that is when we will truly be addressing the Carbon challenge. Companies like of Calera ( which converts CO2 into cement-like aggregate) or LanzaTech (which convert CO emissions from steel mills into fuel and chemicals via gas fermentation) are progressing actively on this path. To underscore the basic thought here: lets see Carbon as an opportunity and not a problem. Lets think of value-generating Beneficial reuse of carbon in emissions, rather than cost prohibitive sequestration and storage.