This is how lazy we've become. Rather than fixing the pollution problems at the source through research and development, people would rather continually spray massive quantities of fine particulates in the air, and hope that this new process doesn't have any side effects.

It's like we're shiatting on our lawn, and coming up with plans to hose it down every day with deodorizing spray to contain the smell. Alternative: Use a toilet.

chimp_ninja: This is how lazy we've become. Rather than fixing the pollution problems at the source through research and development, people would rather continually spray massive quantities of fine particulates in the air, and hope that this new process doesn't have any side effects.

It's like we're shiatting on our lawn, and coming up with plans to hose it down every day with deodorizing spray to contain the smell. Alternative: Use a toilet.

I don't see anything wrong with exploring solutions like this. I've always wondered why sequestering CO2 isn't given more consideration.

nekom: I've always wondered why sequestering CO2 isn't given more consideration.

It is, but small-molecule gases are difficult to affordably contain. Capturing it can be done, but given that carbon dioxide is close to valueless, you generally need to bury it somewhere. Over time, most geological solutions leak it back out into the atmosphere and ruin your hard work. Injecting it into marine environments slowly acidifies the water, which causes other problems.

chimp_ninja: It is, but small-molecule gases are difficult to affordably contain. Capturing it can be done, but given that carbon dioxide is close to valueless, you generally need to bury it somewhere. Over time, most geological solutions leak it back out into the atmosphere and ruin your hard work. Injecting it into marine environments slowly acidifies the water, which causes other problems.

Is there any reason why burying it in abandoned coal mines is a bad idea? That do that with fly ash here, I can't imagine it's any worse than that nasty stuff. I guess someone would eventually re-mine it and burn it though, it'd be too tempting not to given our fossil fuel addiction and energy usage. I don't know, more trees?

nekom: Is there any reason why burying it in abandoned coal mines is a bad idea? That do that with fly ash here, I can't imagine it's any worse than that nasty stuff. I guess someone would eventually re-mine it and burn it though, it'd be too tempting not to given our fossil fuel addiction and energy usage. I don't know, more trees?

Fly ash is a solid. Fly ash particles are a few microns wide, and gravitationally settle in still air. Fill up a mine, seal the entrance, and you're close to done. You're better off incorporating it into cement or whatever, but burying it isn't awful.

Gases will percolate through soil, small cracks, etc. For gases, diffusion and convection take over, and they'll happily move upwards, downwards, and sideways, even though pure carbon dioxide is somewhat denser than air.

chimp_ninja: Fly ash is a solid. Fly ash particles are a few microns wide, and gravitationally settle in still air. Fill up a mine, seal the entrance, and you're close to done. You're better off incorporating it into cement or whatever, but burying it isn't awful.

Gases will percolate through soil, small cracks, etc. For gases, diffusion and convection take over, and they'll happily move upwards, downwards, and sideways, even though pure carbon dioxide is somewhat denser than air.

Right, but it wouldn't have to be stored as CO2, couldn't it be converted into carbon graphite or something along those lines and the oxygen released?

nekom: Right, but it wouldn't have to be stored as CO2, couldn't it be converted into carbon graphite or something along those lines and the oxygen released?

You're proposing that they burn carbon for energy (converting it to carbon dioxide), then convert the carbon dioxide back to carbon. That loop cannot create energy, and entropy says it has to lose energy. Thermodynamics doesn't allow a free lunch.

Converting carbon dioxide to carbon takes massive quantities of energy.

The Internet-based poll of 3,105 people from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States is the first international analysis on the public perception of geoengineering and SRM.

It revealed what Mercer described as a surprisingly high level of public awareness about geoengineering techniques. More than half of respondents either correctly defined the technique or the similar term "climate engineering."

I would love to see the details on the poll. But I think chimp_ninja's correct. And as someone who lives in Pittsburgh--and I know nekom's nearby--most of the city is a fragile shell above these mines. Poison-laced water will gush out once a year, but now it would be a blackish slurry racing towards the Monongahela. Pittsburgh is an example of a city that has brought itself back from the brink, and is a great place to live (I'm not a native), but containing the damage of the past requires constant maintenance.

chimp_ninja: You're proposing that they burn carbon for energy (converting it to carbon dioxide), then convert the carbon dioxide back to carbon. That loop cannot create energy, and entropy says it has to lose energy. Thermodynamics doesn't allow a free lunch.

Converting carbon dioxide to carbon takes massive quantities of energy.

Well then we simply burn more coal for that energy, right? Yeah, I can see how that could be problematic.

Uncle Wiggly: And as someone who lives in Pittsburgh--and I know nekom's nearby--most of the city is a fragile shell above these mines. Poison-laced water will gush out once a year, but now it would be a blackish slurry racing towards the Monongahela. Pittsburgh is an example of a city that has brought itself back from the brink, and is a great place to live (I'm not a native), but containing the damage of the past requires constant maintenance.

Pittsburgh had a LOT to clean up from. Down in Fayette county you can't take 5 steps without tripping over old beehive coke ovens, they just burned them day and night for decades, dumped whatever wherever, it was probably the most polluted area in the world except maybe Chernobyl or Bhopal. Yes it's cleaned up and yes the cleanup has been expensive, but the giants of industry who were responsible for the pollution were long dead before the bill came due for that, which is why businesses don't really consider the long term costs of that.

I'm not too concerned about the fly ash they're dumping in old mines (only one I'm sure they are is Blacksville no. 1 on the PA/WV border), I'm far more concerned about the fly ash in open dumps. One let go not too long ago in Forward Township, Allegheny county and really mucked things up. And by let go I mean the entire dump just rolled down the hill.

A full 72 percent of participants in the survey, published in Environmental Research Letters, said they "supported" or "somewhat supported" the study of solar radiation management (SRM). The technique seeks to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and offset the warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Did these people forget that sulfur in the atmosphere causes acid rain?

meh
unless we are going to STOP india and china from building the massive numbers of coal powered power plants, there is NOTHING that we can do to decrease the increase in co2 in the atmosphere.

on the other hand, building more nuclear power plants in the US and switching to more electric cars would at LEAST get us ahead of "PANIC PEAK OIL" problem.

otherwise we need to build more coal power plants

/you want wind or solar? read the straight dope article on the magnitude of the problem
//in fact, anyone who thinks alternative energy can replace fossil and fission power is either lying or ignorant.
/// IT'S THE MAGNITUDE, STUPID.

RexTalionis: A full 72 percent of participants in the survey, published in Environmental Research Letters, said they "supported" or "somewhat supported" the study of solar radiation management (SRM). The technique seeks to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and offset the warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Did these people forget that sulfur in the atmosphere causes acid rain?

Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

namatad: /you want wind or solar? read the straight dope article on the magnitude of the problem

Not for nothing, but the Materials Research Society's "Harnessing Materials for Energy" guide paints a very different picture, and the authors have a bit more background on the topic than your average advice columnist.

There are already countries that get 10-20% of their energy from wind, for example. Germany leads the world in photovoltaic deployment, and it's not because they're blessed with wonderful weather. In the meantime, PV efficiencies keep creeping higher as the amount of material needed to make a panel keeps falling.

We get 0.3% of our global energy from geothermal, and its share grows by 20% each year. 10-20 years down the line, geothermal could easily contribute 5-10% of the pool. We could drop electricity use by 20% or more with simple measures that are available today. Thermoelectric materials, electric vehicles, etc. are all in their infancy.

It's willpower, nothing more. If society correctly prices in energy's externalities, renewables are already the best option, even without the technological breakthroughs that will come with scaling up. Coal only looks cheap if you ignore what comes out of the smokestack and mine tailings.

Amateurs

Tito Puente is going to be pissed.

/if he's still alive

Xerxes did it

bill_01915: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't we require power plants and such to remove sulfur from smokestacks because it causes acid rain?

See snake-eating gorillas, above.

The transport phenomena associated with the particles matters as well-- if they migrate to ground level, they'll do a lot worse than cause acid rain.

There's other plans, like seeding the oceans to cause massive plankton blooms, thus pulling much of their weight from carbon obtained from the air and oceans. Assuming you could even do this at the required scale, the problem then becomes: What do you do with all that plankton, that won't just re-release that carbon?

MrEricSir: Wouldn't that eventually suffocate everything on the planet?

Briefly, no.

RatOmeter: Yep. In the '70s and '80s "acid rain" was the big boogieman. "Clean up the air!" was the battlecry. Well, they succeeded and now research has shown that the very act of ridding the air of sulphurous compounds has contributed to the new boogieman.

To a small extent-- aerosol dimming was slowing the temperature rise, but given that smog and acid rain was doing damage more quickly, filtering particulates is still a good idea. You won't hear anyone clamoring to go back to the old smokestacks.

"Better but not perfect" isn't a good reason to stop trying to improve things.

MugzyBrown: The idea for the sulfur would be injected into the upper atmosphere, not into the troposphere, thus no acid rain.

I'm no climate scientist, but isn't sulfur dioxide twice as dense as air? Wouldn't it eventually sink?

MrEricSir: chimp_ninja: MrEricSir: Wouldn't that eventually suffocate everything on the planet?

Briefly, no.

How is that? Would we import oxygen from elsewhere, or use up another resource to allow us to breathe?

We would notice that even with our best efforts towards burning everything in sight, carbon dioxide is ~390 ppmv in the atmosphere, whereas oxygen is ~21%, or 210,000 ppmv. Good luck sequestering enough carbon dioxide to put a dent in that.

RexTalionis: MugzyBrown: The idea for the sulfur would be injected into the upper atmosphere, not into the troposphere, thus no acid rain.

I'm no climate scientist, but isn't sulfur dioxide twice as dense as air? Wouldn't it eventually sink?

1) Atmospheric air doesn't work that way. If it did, we would all suffocate (among other problems) as the 1% argon sunk to the bottom, and the ~99% nitrogen and oxygen was displaced. Diffusion plus mixing goes a long way.

2) The geoengineering people are discussing sending up tiny sulfate (solid) particles. Depending on the size range, they can stay suspended for minutes, days, or months.

MrEricSir: That... doesn't address the issue at all.

Your scheme of causing suffocation by sequestering the atmosphere's oxygen atoms will involve sequestering a few metric petatons of carbon dioxide. I guess we could store it in your mom.