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

I have to agree with the previous posts. This sounds more like some campaign against the idea most likely driven by people with an alternative viewpoint. The end result is a hope for government $$.

There's many possibilities to deal with co2 even if it were to pose a threat. For one they could use double or triple wall tanks so if a leak occurs you have redundant backup. Another idea is to burn co2.. (What?) That's right what happens if we burn it? What would the compound become?

Link

Carbon dioxide doesn't "burn" simply by adding heat to it. Combustion is the process of chain-reaction oxidation. Most combustion (for example, with organic materials) takes oxygen from the air and uses it to oxidize carbon atoms, producing CO2 (and H2O in organic compounds). However, with the correct substrate, it is possible to "burn" carbon dioxide by using it as the source of oxygen for oxidation (this reduces the carbon, and black carbon residue is a product of the combustion). This is frequently done in chemistry demonstrations where magnesium is ignited and surrounded with dry ice (solid state CO2). This produces Magnesium Oxide (MgO) and carbon (C). MgO has slightly less free energy than CO2, making the reaction exothermic (and hence combusion possible), but it has a very high activation energy, mostly involved in the dissociation of CO2. Burning magnesium is quite hot and provides the necessary activation energy and will "burn" the CO2 if there is no O2 available (this is done by piling the dry ice on top of the burning magnesium, or a similar method).

[edit on 15-11-2009 by libertytoall]

reply to post by poet1b


It's obvious that you did read the article. The thing you are missing here is that CO2, although not toxic nor deadly in ventilated areas (i.e. the atmosphere), is very deadly in confined, not well ventilated spaces (i.e. insulated homes, etc.). Exposure to elevated levels of CO2 over time at very least affect mental clarity. Go back and read some of the links provided in the thread or google the term “Hypercapnia” for more info.

Originally posted by libertytoall
There's many possibilities to deal with co2 even if it were to pose a threat. For one they could use double or triple wall tanks so if a leak occurs you have redundant backup. Another idea is to burn co2.. (What?) That's right what happens if we burn it? What would the compound become?

Although you have some very good ideas here, I don't see why we have to do anything at all with it. It poses no threat to the environment, IMO.

Im surprised that most people were not aware of the Co2 issues..
Right here in my own backyard, communities surronding Greenville, Ohio have been fighting this for awhile now. Greenville Oh., thought it would be great to have an Ethanol Plant..Everyone was for it. It would bring tons of jobs they said. Then they told the residents in the town and surrounding towns that Co2 would be stored underground. The communities here fought against it, and won last I heard.
You can read about it in the Dayton Daily News.
www.daytondailynews.com...

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Although you have some very good ideas here, I don't see why we have to do anything at all with it. It poses no threat to the environment, IMO.

By George, I think you've got it!

CO2 is not 'lethal', not 'toxic', and should never be labeled as such. It is a mostly inert gas, only useful for photosynthesis, and only dangerous when it displaces oxygen (or, admittedly when breathed under pressure). Nitrogen is the same way.

Have a star!

TheRedneck

Originally posted by FortAnthem
This global warming BS has gotten way outta control!

Now they're seriously planning to put whole towns in danger to appease the environmentalist wackos. Insanity truely rules the world.

If they really have to do something with their CO2 in order to lower their "carbon footprint"

Why don't they pump it into a greenhouse or a forest where it will do some good and be transformed into oxygen by the plants?

Oh yeah, that would make sense. Can't have any of that, it's against the law in most states.

I see the ignorance is flowing in bucketloads again. Not only about global warming but about how trees work.

This world is screwed because the US who lied to their citizens for years about global warming evidence (ie hid it) and now there are enough politicans convinced of the original lie with enough conned citizens to support their views and vote for them. Without the US, the major CO2 contributor, on board with the rest of the world its pointless.

To hell with the skeptics, my kids future is screwed because of your blind stupidity.

[edit on 15/11/09 by malcr]

So I,m curious,there are a lot of Brits on ATS,Is Britian the crashtest dummy of the world?I mean everytime I see a post or news artical about something wierd or of the scale of common sense its in Great Britian somewhere.

Just curious.

why don't they just use it to make cheap affordable fire extinguishers for everyone make it manditory everyone has two that way people would be storing gas for them and they could make a profit

Originally posted by FortAnthem
This global warming BS has gotten way outta control!

Now they're seriously planning to put whole towns in danger to appease the environmentalist wackos. Insanity truely rules the world.

If they really have to do something with their CO2 in order to lower their "carbon footprint"

Why don't they pump it into a greenhouse or a forest where it will do some good and be transformed into oxygen by the plants?

Oh yeah, that would make sense. Can't have any of that, it's against the law in most states.

This is SO TRUE! People are very uneducated about CO2. They don't know that Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are not the same thing. I worked for several years for a company called "Carbon Dioxide Sales", so I think I know a little about this subject. We use CO2 several ways. Dry ice is the solid form of CO2 and is used in medical and scientific research and to keep things really cold ( -100 degrees F ). The liquid form of CO2 is what puts the fiz in drinks such as soda-pop and wine and beer. Also, a CO2 fire extenguisher is one of the best ways to put out a dangerous fire. Not so scary now, right?

Carbon Dioxide IS NOT poisonus. Carbon Monoxide IS poisonus.

CO2 can only kill you if you are in a "confined area" where it is released in the form of a gas. Since CO2 is heavier than air it will eventually drive out the air and you will die from lack of oxygen. CO2 is a part of the natural way the Earth creates balance. If you feel we are producing too much CO2 (I don't agree to this belief, BTW) the natural thing to do is simply plant more trees. The trees breath CO2 and give off oxygen. You would have to be an absolute IDIOT to support storing CO2 or launching it into space.

A far better way to deal with the "problem" is launch Al Gore and his whack-job enviro-nuts into space on a one-way journey to 'la'la land!


...................................

yes ikts only in confined spaces or if lets say you are in a low lying area and one of these storage sites leaks close to you, they had a lake in africa a few years ago that had a massive underground pocket of co2 suddenly erupt killing
hundreds of people on the lake and around it but they said the vegatation was very health after wards

Wow.. it's official...

Climate Change advocates are absolutely retarded...
This guy should be removed from his post, along with anyone that supported him. For the good of the people, its now a matter of safety, "Green" needs to be stopped..

Remember when Ethanol was all of the rage a few years ago? I heard someone talking about using a type of algae to produce ethanol. It was supposedly more efficient than corn and could help limit CO2.

It would help cut back CO2 emissions in an ingenious way. Pump the CO2 from the ethanol plant in to pools of water containing the algae. The algae would grow faster, healthier, and more abundantly. Then the plant could use the algae to create ethanol that would power their own plant and reduce CO2 emissions at power plants or from cars.

What ever happen to that idea? It seems that it makes a ton more sense than pumping it in to the ground for storage.

Does anybody else remember hearing about this stuff?


[edit on 15-11-2009 by MikeNice81]

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
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

Didn't you hear the bad news about trees? Those dark green leaves and needles store heat during the day and then release it at night. So more trees would actually contribute to global warming by storing the sun's heat all day. Then they would change weather patterns at night with their sudden release of heat. Storms would become more intense and violent. That means extra trees would actually be harmful and damage the environment.

This really is an argument that the envirolobby has used before. I don't agree with it, but it is out there.


[edit on 15-11-2009 by MikeNice81]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Although you have some very good ideas here, I don't see why we have to do anything at all with it. It poses no threat to the environment, IMO.

By George, I think you've got it!

CO2 is not 'lethal', not 'toxic', and should never be labeled as such. It is a mostly inert gas, only useful for photosynthesis, and only dangerous when it displaces oxygen (or, admittedly when breathed under pressure). Nitrogen is the same way.

Have a star!

TheRedneck

Lol, that's what I've been saying all along. You might want to take the star back though because of what I say next - which is also what I've been saying all along.

CO2, although not toxic nor deadly in ventilated areas (i.e. the atmosphere), is very deadly in confined, not well ventilated spaces (i.e. insulated homes, etc.). Exposure to elevated levels of CO2 over time at very least affect mental clarity.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Yeah, and water is also very deadly in confined environments, as are lots of things, but they are talking about pumping CO2 into the ground that would normally be pumped into the air.

The only people who would be fighting this are people who don't have a clue on the concept.

reply to post by poet1b


So tell me, what happens when people homes are already built and then CO2 is pumped into the ground beneath them putting them on top of this repository and it starts leaking? Uh, don't you think that the CO2 could seep into their homes? If you don't think that this could happen, then why would they be talking about creating new bylaws for these towns that say that you can't have a bedroom on the first floor of the house? Hmmm.... sounds like they may be anticipating leakage into the houses to me. Now, what happens when someone has insulated their house? Uh, the CO2 that seeps into their house can't get out? Sounds like a prescription for disaster to me.

Do you want to live atop one of these repositories?????

Also, I have absolutely no idea why they would want to store up the CO2 in the first place... it IS NOT a problem in the environment.

[edit on 15/11/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Nah, I don't do take backs.

I will critique your statement:

CO2, although not toxic nor deadly in ventilated areas (i.e. the atmosphere)...

Absolutely correct.

...is very deadly in confined, not well ventilated spaces (i.e. insulated homes, etc.).

No more so than any gas save oxygen.

Exposure to elevated levels of CO2 over time at very least affect mental clarity.

There is no scientific basis for this statement. Any mental confusion created by exposure is due to an oxygen deprivation due to the displacement of the oxygen in the air. It is temporary, and subsides when blood oxygen levels are returned to normal.

Again, don't fall for the propaganda. It is a bad idea to store CO2 underground, but not because it is deadly in itself. It would also be a bad idea to store helium, neon, nitrogen, or any gas underground in pressurized containers.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/15/2009 by TheRedneck]

Carbon dioxide isn't a "deadly" gas, any more than nitrogen is. An *excess* of carbon dioxide will kill you - but so will an excess of oxygen, which you need for life. Too much or too little of many things can be harmful.

The danger of carbon dioxide is that in large quantities it can replace the normal air available for breathing, meaning you won't get the oxygen you need. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it tends to fill in basements and other low-lying areas, somewhat like water would do.

The danger of the storage would e that, if the carbon dioxide escaped, it would blanket the surrounding area with a layer of gas that would asphyxiate the people in that area (and the animals, as well).

This happened in Africa, in a village near Lake Nyos. Underwater accumulations of carbon dioxide, that had apparently been there for thousands of years, suddenly boiled up to the surface. It filed up the valley, killing over a thousand people and thousands more cattle. This took place at night, which meant that few people escaped the gas.

So, while carbon dioxide isn't particularly lethal, it's still dangerous in large quantities, especially in those cases when it is possible for the gas to escape. The idea is to store the gas in natural underground chambers, which sounds great until you conisder what could happen during an earthquake. Or terror attack. This is probably not a good idea.

The notion of using trees to absorb carbon dioxide is flawed. Trees eventually die, and when they do they decay, releasing carbon dioxide and methane back into the atmosphere. In order to lock the gas into some harmless form, you'd need to convert the vegetation into coal, which would take millions of years.

What we really need to do is stop burning fossil fuels.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It is a bad idea to store CO2 underground, but not because it is deadly in itself. It would also be a bad idea to store helium, neon, nitrogen, or any gas underground in pressurized containers.

From what I'm getting from documents on CO2 sequestering, they have to liquify the CO2 to pump it underground, because it's too cold and ruins the pumping equipment.

Unless I'm wrong but I don't see liquid CO2 being a hazard since it's now not a gas under pressure.

reply to post by Chadwickus

CO2 is not inherently cold; as a gas it can exist at very high temperatures. It is associated with cold because it forms a very useful ice when solidified at temperatures below -109°F (dry ice). So it follows that the coldness of gaseous CO2 would not necessarily be a concern.

Dry ice does not melt; it sublimes. That is, it changes from a solid to a gas directly, without ever becoming a liquid. The only way to obtain liquid CO2 is under high pressure and low temperature. Liquid CO2 must be kept cold to prevent it from becoming a super critical fluid; perhaps that is what you are referring to?

Since the liquid form only exists under high pressure, any leak will release gaseous CO2.

This story simply does not make sense to me. CO2 stored underground is absolutely silly; it can be converted to carbon and stored that way much easier, assuming someone actually believes it needs to be stored underground like nuclear waste.

There simply has to be more to this...

TheRedneck