Lethal CO2 to be stored under towns and villages to prevent climate change

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


ever wondered how much co2 there is in a fizzy drink or a fizzy drinks factory

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

ever wondered how much co2 there is in a fizzy drink or a fizzy drinks factory

Nope.

Second line.

reply to post by Choronzon


Nope, It IS CO2 we're talking about. If you don't believe us check out this article from Damninteresting.com;

In hopes of slowing down the progression of global warming, some scientists have suggested that the carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution expelled by powerplants could be captured and stored before it enters the atmosphere; at which point it could be liquefied, and pumped deep in the ocean. There, they hope that the extreme pressure will prevent the CO2 from rising back to the surface, because such an event would not only defeat the purpose, but it could also be catastrophic.

There is an event called a “limnic eruption” which can occur when water becomes oversaturated with carbon dioxide. Some paleontologists have suggested that such an eruption may have been responsible for the greatest mass extinction in Earth’s history, which occurred about 252 million years ago. In recent history, hundreds of people have died from limnic eruptions in small lakes, most of them from two events in the mid-1980s in lakes Nyos and Monoun near Cameroon, in western Africa.

In each case, volcanic vents on the lake bottoms slowly allowed carbon dioxide to seep into the water, which absorbed the gas over a period of years. When the water became oversaturated, the lakes released the gas in a chain-reaction eruption, and created a dense, invisible cloud tens of meters in height. The huge blanket of CO2, which is heavier than oxygen, flowed down into low-lying valleys and asphyxiated all who dwelled there. The 1984 event took 37 lives, and the 1986 event killed almost 1800 people. The normally clear lakes turned rust-colored, and the vegetation on the lake shores was severely disturbed by the waves and strong winds of the eruptions.

To see the rest of the article;

Burying our carbon dioxide at sea



[edit on 14-11-2009 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Nice links. From the first one, www.analox.net...

(description of exposure to levels of 10,000-1,000,000 (10-100%))

Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs.

(emphasis and intro mine)

Now, exactly what is suffocation? It is the lack of assimilable oxygen. Toxic refers to something which causes a toxic reaction in the body (i.e. a poison). CO2 does not cause this. In large enough quantities it will mmake breathing difficult or impossible as it displaces air.

Water can do the same thing. We call that 'drowning'. So, is water toxic?

From your second link:

The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:
- Asphyxiation. Caused by the release of carbon dioxide in a confined or unventilated area. This can lower the concentration of oxygen to a level that is immediately dangerous for human health.

Again, water can cause asphyxiation. Is water toxic?

- Frostbite. Solid carbon dioxide is always below -78 oC at regular atmospheric pressure, regardless of the air temperature. Handling this material for more than a second or two without proper protection can cause serious blisters, and other unwanted effects. Carbon dioxide gas released from a steel cylinder, such as a fire extinguisher, causes similar effects.

Well, duh. If you come in contact with anything that is at -109°F *the freezing point of CO2) for too long, you will get frostbite. Even water ice.

- Kidney damage or coma. This is caused by a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbonate buffer. When carbon dioxide concentrations increase or decrease, causing the equilibrium to be disturbed, a life threatening situation may occur.

I believe this is referring to carbonation of body tissues, which can be a problem. Luckily, it is rarely experienced outside of divers who do not have proper respiratory devices (and thus breath their own CO2 instead of fresh O2 under pressure)

One more snippet from this site:

Carbon dioxide is one of the most abundant gasses in the atmosphere.

Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.038%. Stating otherwise on a web site does not change atmospheric composition.



Again, CO2 is not toxic, not poisonous, and not dangerous unless the concentrations are 100 times higher than at present, at which point it simply reduces the amount of oxygen available (like any other gas would do).

TheRedneck

Its not the amount of CO2 that is lethal its the amount of O2 that is displaced by the CO2 that causes the problem.

You can go up in the level of CO2 to a level 10 times normal and still survive.AS LONG AS THERE IS 21% O2 there.

As long as these companies are pumping just CO2 down the holes and there is not a sudden release there should be no problem.

On real problem would be companies that look at the CO2 and find it contains 1+% carbon monoxide and just decide that they don't want to remove the CO.
with that mix even small slow leaks can be dangerous.

With concrete slab construction the same building slab perperation system used for high radon gas areas would work for CO2 areas,

That is after the ground is packed for the slab you put 3 to 6 inchs of 1 inch rock and cover with 60 mil plastic with a couple of 2" vent lines before pouring the concrete slab. the vents are then run above the roof as the building is framed.
This keeps the CO2/radon from coming up into the home and vents it outside.

Redneck, I'm not sure what you think my point is. I thought you could tell from my posts that I, in no way, shape or form am advocating that CO2 is poisoning the planet until I read the last part of your reply. Also, the danger lies in CO2 massing in confined spaces such as insulated homes shut up for a period of time (with people inside) - but also, I suppose, there is the added danger from explosion.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Nice links. From the first one, www.analox.net...

(description of exposure to levels of 10,000-1,000,000 (10-100%))

Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs.

(emphasis and intro mine)

Now, exactly what is suffocation? It is the lack of assimilable oxygen. Toxic refers to something which causes a toxic reaction in the body (i.e. a poison). CO2 does not cause this. In large enough quantities it will mmake breathing difficult or impossible as it displaces air.

Ok, even though the term CO2 poisoning is used in everday language, I won't debate the use of it. Actually, it's proper name is Hypercapnia - and yes, CO2 can be toxic.

www.righthealth.com...

Hypercapnia or hypercapnea (from the Greek hyper = "above" and kapnos = "smoke"), also known as hypercarbia, is a condition where there is too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood. Carbon dioxide is a gaseous product of the body's metabolism and is normally expelled through the lungs.

Hypercapnia normally triggers a reflex which increases breathing and access to oxygen, such as arousal and turning the head during sleep. A failure of this reflex can be fatal, as in sudden infant death syndrome.

Hypercapnia is generally caused by hypoventilation, lung disease, or diminished consciousness. It may also be caused by exposure to environments containing abnormally high concentrations of carbon dioxide (usually due to volcanic or geothermal causes), or by rebreathing exhaled carbon dioxide.

Water can do the same thing. We call that 'drowning'. So, is water toxic?

Water is not taken into the blood... water is not toxic, it is not the same thing.

From your second link:

The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:
- Asphyxiation. Caused by the release of carbon dioxide in a confined or unventilated area. This can lower the concentration of oxygen to a level that is immediately dangerous for human health.

Again, water can cause asphyxiation. Is water toxic?

CO2 is taken into the blood... water is not. CO2 is toxic... water is not.

- Frostbite. Solid carbon dioxide is always below -78 oC at regular atmospheric pressure, regardless of the air temperature. Handling this material for more than a second or two without proper protection can cause serious blisters, and other unwanted effects. Carbon dioxide gas released from a steel cylinder, such as a fire extinguisher, causes similar effects.

Well, duh. If you come in contact with anything that is at -109°F *the freezing point of CO2) for too long, you will get frostbite. Even water ice.

I agree.

- Kidney damage or coma. This is caused by a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbonate buffer. When carbon dioxide concentrations increase or decrease, causing the equilibrium to be disturbed, a life threatening situation may occur.

I believe this is referring to carbonation of body tissues, which can be a problem. Luckily, it is rarely experienced outside of divers who do not have proper respiratory devices (and thus breath their own CO2 instead of fresh O2 under pressure)

What you have just described is CO2 poisoning (or Hypercapnia, if you prefer) and yes, right now it is rarely experienced... but what happens when you expose whole communities to massive amounts of CO2 in potentially confined spaces (their homes, etc.)? It won't be so rare then and is the danger with this happening.

One more snippet from this site:

Carbon dioxide is one of the most abundant gasses in the atmosphere.

Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.038%. Stating otherwise on a web site does not change atmospheric composition.

Again, CO2 is not toxic, not poisonous, and not dangerous unless the concentrations are 100 times higher than at present, at which point it simply reduces the amount of oxygen available (like any other gas would do).

This is what confused me. I do not in any way, shape or form believe that manmade CO2 is contributing to anything. I believe that global warming (if indeed it is warming - which it might not be) is a natural cycle and that it was made up out of greed. Plain and simple.

These people could potentially be exposed to concentrations much higher than in natural situations and that is the problem here.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

I am concerned only with your use of the words 'toxic' and 'lethal'. Toxic is not the correct term. CO2 is not taken 'into the blood'... CO is, where it mimics oxygen but does not release like oxygen at the cells, effectively rendering a red blood cell useless for transporting oxygen any more.

Catalysts in the lungs promote the release of CO2 and acceptance of O2 into the bloodstream, where more catalysts at cellular walls allow the oxygen to separate and the red blood cells to instead pick up CO2. The only way the blood cells will carry CO2 back to the cells is for there to be pressurized CO2 in the lungs; they won't accept more CO2, but they will be unable to release CO2. At atmospheric pressures, you will not get carbonic poisoning in 100% CO2; you just won't be able to get any oxygen either. Carbonic poisoning happens when the water in the blood is turned into carbonated water, and this happens only under pressure.

Oh, and water is absorbed directly into the blood, very easily as a matter of fact (through the intestinal walls rather than the lungs). If it weren't, we would quickly die of dehydration.

When you use terms such as you have to describe CO2, you are adding fuel to the fire for those who would do exactly what you are against. If CO2 is considered to be a toxic substance, then it needs to be sequestered away somewhere. On the other hand, if people stick to the science instead of exaggeration, then perhaps the populous at large will realize what a total scam CO2 demonization is.

Obviously, storing pressurized CO2 underground is silly. In the first place, it would be much less dangerous and much more efficient to separate the carbon and store it... no chance of atmospheric leakage, much easier to transport and handle, and much less to store... carbon is much less dense and takes up much less space than CO2.

But even if CO2 were stored underground, the chances that a leak large enough to cause major problems is slim to none. If a leak did develop, it would firstly cause noise, which is easily detectable. Secondly, it would not be a sudden catastrophic release; it would start slow, probably just enough to cause a few headaches and alert authorities to evacuate the area. Thirdly, even if it did erupt, the result would not be 100% CO2, or probably not even over 10%; the gas would dissipate quickly in open air. And fourthly, the effects of large amounts of CO2 are quickly corrected by simply breathing a little oxygen for a few moments, allowing the chemical imbalance to right itself and the gas transport to function again. Just plain old air contains enough oxygen to fix the problem, although it is quicker with high O2 concentrations.

The real tragedy here is not that someone will die of CO2 exposure, but that millions of dollars would be spent to perform a useless function in the most impractical and expensive manner possible. Even the US government, as adept at waste as they are, would not go to such ridiculous extremes. So I believe that this whole idea is little more than an attempt to convince the public of how 'dangerous' CO2 is.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/14/2009 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by Choronzon
I think you are mixing up Carbon-Dioxide with Carbon-Monoxide.

No,
The green movement has no issues with carbon monoxide.
There's no way to make money off of it.

They are talking about that simple gas that humans and animals exhale with every breath. Plants even need it to survive and they create oxygen as a by product.

It's not really dangerous in a natural state so they've devised ways to concentrate and store it in the name of global health so they can make a buck off of it. The fact that their storage methods are dangerous doesn't bother them a bit.

I think the real point here is; if you're going to pump a million tons or whetever huge amount of CO2 into the earth, usually into porous/unstable rock, under pressure, in the event of a massive catastrophic release of CO2 there may be a wall of CO2 many meters thick that would asphyxiate anyone within it for more than a few minutes. Also, CO2 is heavier than air, so breathing PURE carbon dioxide makes it very diffivult to even exhale the heavier gas. So, in other words, he who smelt it, dealt it.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
This is being done for one reason and one reason only... MONEY. They are risking people's lives to save money while they make money.

See I don't get this, it will cost them millions to pump the CO2 back into the ground, if global warming truly is a farce, then they would just vent it all into the atmosphere.



[edit on 15/11/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Because they are probably going to pump it into old oil fields to squeeze out the last few barrels, then cap off the pressurised CO2 filled cavern, as a going away present, you know.

You people just don't get it. All the tanks are going to open at once. Its about the reptilian aliens terraforming the earth because they breath the CO2. It's about climate change all right, just not OUR climate :-)

[edit on 15-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Even the US government, as adept at waste as they are, would not go to such ridiculous extremes. So I believe that this whole idea is little more than an attempt to convince the public of how 'dangerous' CO2 is.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

[edit on 11/14/2009 by TheRedneck]

Pressurized CO2 in a confined space is dangerous. But, I have to agree with you that I don't think that the US government would go to such ridiculous extremes (but remember this story is in the UK) - even though earlier in the thread Alethea showed us where they are planning to do this in Texas here – I don’t think that this will ever happen in the US (at least in the next 25 years, but I’ve seen crazier things). It boggles the mind why they would want to bury CO2 which isn’t a problem, when they can’t even get nuclear waste, which is a tremendous problem topside, buried at Yucca Mtn. I know this sounds strange but just consider that Yucca was studied for 30 years with multiple determinations that the repository will cause less than 1 mrem/year (which is less than the natural dose and is extremely low) public dose for 1,000,000 years (thats 1 MILLION years). Yet, still, we can’t bury it there because they want it lower – even though the waste sits topside strewn all over the nation in canisters. That is why I don’t think this will ever happen here in the US - I'm not familiar with the UK, where this story originates, though.

reply to post by Chadwickus

This is why... MONEY... OIL!!:

Originally posted by Alethea

As a value-added benefit, when CO2 is injected into a mature oil reservoir, it can produce additional oil. This process, enhanced oil recovery (EOR), begins by injecting CO2 into an oil reservoir. A small amount of the injected CO2 dissolves in the oil, increasing the bulk volume and decreasing the viscosity, thereby facilitating flow to the wellbore.

www.netl.doe.gov...

shoot, we do this all the time, but the old farmer has a better way of sequestering carbon into the ground.


plant a damn tree

LOL did al gore tell him CO2 is lethal?


Why not make some dry ice with the CO2 lol

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


It does seem to be useful for extracting oil.

Here's a link to a CO2 sequestration project that's starting up very shortly.

Link

I notice they plan to liquify the CO2 in this project.
I'm wondering if the same will/has been done near the village in you OP.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Just a question ,but isnt carbon dioxide what we beathe out after taking in oxegen ??

If it is possible to harness CO2 in such a manner then a possible solution may be to pump it to offshore Oil production platforms who could then inject it into the subsea oil reservoirs. As the reservoirs empty their oil they would be filled with CO2.

They already do exactly this (Gas Lift) with Nitrogen gas in order to increase production due to falling reservoir pressures so the infrastructure of pipelines and pumping stations is already in place and may just need modifying to change over to CO2.

It is high time the major Oil producing companies such as Chevron started to look at this seriously. I single Chevron out as they have recently been running an ad campaign telling us how they invest 68 million dollars a day in PEOPLE.

Incredible,

edit: oh i see this has already been mentioned earlier.... I should have read the full thread before jumping to the reply button

PEACE,
RK



[edit on 15-11-2009 by Rigel Kent]

The article headline is clearly a bunch of nonsense.

The last paragraph should put it all into perspective.

Carbon storage facilities in the Netherlands and Germany are being blocked by residents concerned about the risks.

The Vattenfall plant in Spremberg, northern Germany, was meant to be Europe’s first demonstration capture and storage facility but is having to pump the carbon into the atmosphere because of local opposition.

"but is having to pump the carbon into the atmosphere because of local opposition."

HOW LETHAL CAN IT BE!

CO2 is not anymore lethal than Dihydrogenoxide, other wise know as H2O, or water. This article was probably put out by the same anti-environmentalists who put out the dihydrogenoxide nonsense, meant to make fun of the environmental movement.

CO2 is being constantly pumped into our atmosphere as a result of burning coal. Of course animal, humans included produce it as well, and plants absorb it.

The whole idea sounds like a good way to deal with CO2, pump it into the ground which will absorb the gas naturally, rather than into the atmosphere.

This is probably propaganda campaign garbage because power companies don't want to pay for this. The thing is, such an operation will probably create local jobs where this is being done.

Environmental controls create jobs. Allowing corporations to pollute our environment only serves to enrich fat cats.