SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Deep in the jagged red mountains of Oman, geologists are drilling in search of the holy grail of reversing climate change: an efficient and cheap way to remove carbon dioxide from the air and oceans.
They are coring samples from one of the world's only exposed sections of the Earth's mantle to uncover how a spontaneous natural process millions of years ago transformed CO2 into limestone and marble.
[...] Around 13 tons of core samples from four different sites will be sent to the Chikyu, a state-of-the-art research vessel off the coast of Japan, where Keleman and other geologists will analyze them in round-the-clock shifts.
They hope to answer the question of how the rocks managed to capture so much CO2 over the course of 90 million years — and to see if there's a way to speed up the timetable.
Kelemen thinks a drilling operation could cycle carbon-rich water into the newly formed seabed on oceanic ridges far below the surface. Just like in Oman's mountains, the submerged rock would chemically absorb carbon from the water. The water could then be cycled back to the surface to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, in a sort of conveyor belt.
The geologists are studying how well the rock core samples from Oman absorb CO2 in the hope they can build a means to sequester captured carbon in the Earth's mantle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @12:02AM (3 children)
We aren't going to bag up our carbon dioxide, then ship it to Oman. That only makes things worse.
We aren't going to freeze or liquify or compress it, then ship it to Oman. That only makes things worse.
We aren't going to pull it out of the air in Oman. That only makes things worse.
Look, all of the above requires stupidly huge amounts of energy. Where is that supposed to come from? Maybe we burn more fuel? Oh yeah, this is also fucking Oman. That isn't quite ISIS territory, at least for today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @12:36AM
They mean duplicate the process that occurs in Oman somewhere else, not use the process in Oman.
Speculation: Passive solar for energy on an ocean barge maybe, just sit there and during the day cycle water via pumps. Send someone out once in a while for pump maintenance and clean the panels.
A global CO2 trading scheme could make it actually pay for itself and drive third world economies broke at the same time!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:19AM
Where is that supposed to come from?
A possible future fusion reactor that is being researched at Wendelstein 7-X [wikipedia.org] and ITER [wikipedia.org]. Or accelerator driven fission reactors etc. Ie there may come future power sources that isn't available now.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday April 15 2017, @05:22AM
The ITER should prove Fusion viable by 2030 at which point all of your points are invalid.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:18AM (1 child)
This just smacks of shitting the bed, then rolling the sheets up and hiding them under the bed. Put on your big boy pants and figure out how to fuck things up less, not clean it all up afterward.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:33PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:25AM (3 children)
There may be a real risk of disrupting the thermal layers that steers the flow of water between cold (north) and warm (south) regions. As well as saline flows.
That said, these kinds of rocks could after being crushed, heated and put under pressure absorb huge amount of CO2.
Meanwhile CO2 emitters should be reduced. Thorium power instead of coal power etc.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:40AM (2 children)
Can they really be THAT different than other rocks?
Can the process by which this happens still be that much of a mystery in this day when chemistry is thought to be a pretty much finished science?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:52AM
It might be that the rock in question is ready to use as-is. Which translates to less energy requirements.
I find it interesting at least. But there are other techniques already. So the big problem is really to get power to drive them. Because it ought to use at least as a minimum the amount of energy expended when that CO2 were created. Pumping up CO2 in the atmosphere to later remove it. That is a gigantic energy and entropy waste.
Any seller of a cheap over unity fusion reactor out there? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:05PM
when chemistry is thought to be a pretty much finished science?
lolwut?
Thought by who? You?
You have a real knack for tossing off total bullshit claims as if it they were well-established.
What is it like to live in the alternate reality of your head?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:38AM (1 child)
Seems to me that NOT shipping core samples half way around the world to a shipboard lab might be a place to start reducing the carbon footprint.
Also, what does it mean when it says One of the world's ONLY exposed section of mantle. Is it THE only exposed section. Or is it just one of t MANY exposed sections? Turns out Oman is probably the least hospitable (or politically stable) such place in the top 5 such places. [smithsonianmag.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:55AM
If it's unstable just send the marines and declare it of limits to any infighting ;)
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:14AM (10 children)
It seems as soon as anyone even looks at anything apart from reducing emissions as a way to reduce AGW they are attacked.
We need to wake up and start researching climate engineering while we have time to turn things around. We need to do the research now. Once we know what extra tools beyond reductions are available and the risks involved we can move onto making an informed decision.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:03AM
Sounds like aliens to me. They came by a while ago and convinced the people that campfires were teh evill, and showed them how to put that shit into underground dumpsters.
Cut to now. We've found the dumpsters, now we just need to wait for the aliens to come back.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:20AM (5 children)
The idea of geoengineering scares the hell out of me, but it may be our only chance. That said, a much easier way to do this would be to raise primary productivity in the oceans--cyanobacteria and phytoplankton--with iron and/or silicate dust dumps. I remember, way back in college almost 10 years ago, taking oceanography classes and hearing that iron and/or silicon were the limiting nutrients to these species, i.e., primary productivity could be much higher than it is. They're basically the lungs of the ocean--I think I was taught they make twice as much oxygen as land plants total?
Problem here is, we don't know if that would lead to massive algal blooms and subsequent eutrophication and anoxic dead zones, which are already a huge problem. But if we're gonna geoengineer this seems a lot more natural, straightforward, less energy-intensive, and obvious than messing with the rock cycle. The geologist in me (and in my diploma, not that I've ever had any job that needed it...) feels an unknown, nameless dread at that prospect.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Saturday April 15 2017, @04:05AM (3 children)
I like the look of solar radiation management like reflective roofs as a fairly low risk, quick intervention.
I'm not sure if it just an Australian trend, but it seems almost every new home here is built with a dark or black roof. We're already climate engineering, just in the wrong direction.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday April 15 2017, @10:56AM (2 children)
The visible-light colour of a roof doesn't necessarily correlate with its reflectance and emissivity in the infra-Red. What material a roof should be, and whether reflecting IR is a good idea, can vary - it's a bit more complicated than simply assuming white rooves* are good.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengineering) [wikipedia.org]
*one hoof, several hooves: one roof, several rooves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:14PM
The visible-light colour of a roof doesn't necessarily correlate with its reflectance and emissivity in the infra-Red.
How much sunlight that roof absorbs is the key factor in how much IR it emits. Dark roofs absorb more visual light spectrum which is a large part of solar influx.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:18PM
In fact, darker colors tend to be more effective heat emitters. Glossing over the details, its the same reason they are better absorbers of IR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:08PM
> The idea of geoengineering scares the hell out of me, but it may be our only chance.
Then whatever approach we take needs to be one that is highly unstable, so that if we stop doing it, the effects also quickly stop.
Your idea of seeding the oceans seems like one that could set off chain reactions that we have no control over.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday April 15 2017, @05:27AM (2 children)
My boss recently got on my case about this, complaining about the arrogance of man thinking his actions can control the future of the planet.
Figure that tech got us into this, tech will get us out. I think it is desirable to change your life as you can to reduce polution because its obviously bad. But its hard to tell people to reduce their standard of living.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:08PM
Figure that tech got us into this, tech will get us out. I think it is desirable to change your life as you can to reduce polution because its obviously bad. But its hard to tell people to reduce their standard of living.
Reducing standard of living is obviously bad too because poor people are both high fertility (overpopulation being the primary driver of global warming after all) and care less about global warming (remember, they vote!).
Telling people to reduce their standard of living is easy these days. What remains hard is telling people that the religious fad of the day isn't the most important thing ever. It rarely sinks in [soylentnews.org].
Figure that tech got us into this, tech will get us out.
Beats massive human die-offs and resetting to a point where one is going to do it again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:13PM
My boss recently got on my case about this, complaining about the arrogance of man thinking his actions can control the future of the planet.
Sounds like the standard american evangelical position - God made the earth, man is arrogant to think he can interfere with god's plan.
Never mind that other part of the bible where god made man caretaker of the earth (Genesis 1:26).