There are eight or nine quite practical ways to halt or reverse the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, and governments are taking billions of dollars in carbon taxes every week. They can afford to solve the problem, not just study it.

The method that seems most practical to me is pulverizing and dispersing olivine. No pipelines are required: the CO2 transports itself. All sources are handled.

Interesting work coming from Columbia. A few questions that popped up in reading this snippit (I still need to read the full study) are:

1) what are the potential impacts of a large-scale seismic event on the CO2? Since it is heavier than water at those depths it may not be a major issue, and I wasn't clear on how long it takes the CO2 become solid Carbonate. If it is only a few years or even decades, the seismic issue shouldn't be critical.

2) since the majority of electricity generation in the US Northwest and British Columbia is hydropower, the costs of transporting liquid CO2 via pipe or boat is pretty darn high. There's big, rugged mountains between us and the rest of the continent.

Still, this study seems to be a good one and is another step in the right direction.

I can definitely see the benefits to this, however, I have a question. In the event that some unforseen disaster (that we'd have never thought of) does happen, and a lot of the CO2 is let loose into the atmosphere at one time, is that jolt of CO2 going to be more problematic that the gradual build up of CO2 that we have now?

One unforeseen problem is ocean acidification whereby carbonates are dissolved out. Oh right the basalts are protected by a clay cap. A quarry near home has carbonate veins in a magnesium silicate host rock. I'd guess that took millions of years but now with acid rain is giving out CO2 not absorbing it. Still anything beats actually cutting back on emissions.

Research at the University of Liverpool has found how Saharan dust storms help sustain life over extensive regions of the North Atlantic Ocean.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080718074110.htm

As an alternative to undersea rock sequestration of CO2, the referenced study suggests seeding the life depleted zones of the North and South Atlantic with phosphorous rich soil from Africa supplemented with iron by ship.

From the article as follows:

“These findings are important because plant life cycles are essential in maintaining the balance of gases in our atmosphere. In looking at how plants survive in this area, we have shown how the Atlantic is able to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the growth of photosynthesising plants.”

The difference between this technique and other iron seeding approaches is the addition of phosphorous to the mix.

IMHO, this approach looks to be much more economically effective in CO2 sequestration then CO2 sequestration in basalts. It may also increase populations of large fish in the Atlantic Ocean.

The associated financing can come from carbon cap taxes.

When the atmosphere was 400,000 ppm, not 390 ppm, CO2 dissolved into the sea or was bound up in dead flora and fauna. That was the climactic background when Corals evolved.

You could dissolve the entire atmosphere into the oceans and you could not acidify them. The Oceans are enormous and the atmosphere is comparatively tiny. What's left of trace CO2 is tinier still.

Corals and other plants and animals in question, are several hundred millions of years old. To say they can't handle and thrive in a rise from by a few ppm from 380 to 400 is unwarranted to any trained Science mind.

The atmosphere used to be 40% CO2, and it was in equilibrium with the Oceans of that time, when these flora and fauna evolved and bloomed.

The best Carbon Sequestration scheme I have seen, is to let the Flora do it.

They created the problem in the first place. They ate the CO2 out of the atmosphere until it got so low that it stunted them. We laymen thought their stunted growth was "normal".

Any botanist can tell you otherwise. The Plant kingdom has responded to the "problem" and are actively working on it.

We have the proof too, from satellite observations, and several hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers. The Flora are anywhere from 20% to 45% more lush worldwide now, feasting on the more available CO2 we have provided them.

They are taking advantage of the "free fertilizer" we have made available to them. As they bloom and die, Carbon is being sequestrated automatically, just like it was the first time. In a few million years it will become new fossil fuels too.

Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the more lush, fertile, and and green world, and let the Plants do it.

Only two O's in phosphorus.

CO2 injection is great for increasing oil production, but it will never work as a viable way to remove CO2 from that atmosphere. It takes too much energy to remove the nitrogen from the combustion gases and it takes too much energy to compress the CO2 to inject it in the ground. The drilling and compressor costs make it even more difficult to justify.

CO2 does not have to be injected thousands of feet underground to remove it from the atmosphere. The best way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is to convert crop residuals to charcoal and mix the charcoal into the soils as agrichar, also known as biochar. These biochars are beneficial to soil bacteria and enhance plant growth by retaining nutrients, fertilizer and moisture. Oh and by the way, the biochars lock the carbon in the soils for thousands of years. This then becomes a win-win for farmers. They get carbon credits for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, their crops grow better in the enriched soils, they need less water and fossil fuel-based fertilizers, and their soils get better over time instead of being depleted and eroded.

Don't take my word for it. Do an internet search on the words; biochar, agrichar or "terra preta".
There is also one other benefit. Using a downdraft gasifier to produce the charcoal also produces clean-burning combustable gases that can be burned in a gas turbine to generate electricity.

CO2 is not the problem. Heat is the problem. More CO2 increases crop yields as well as expanding available acreage.
We need to stop less than 2% of the current infrared solar radiation from entering our atmosphere. That's easy to do, launch orbital balloons around the equator, let them stand lower over our cities in the summertime and shade the sky over our towers. Easy.

Trying to push air underground? That's about as silly an idea as it gets. Imagine the earth farting suddenly at well-sites killing everyone and everything for miles around. Nuclear power is flower power in comparison to this terribly dangerous and witless scheme.

Those orbital balloons around the equator might make the space program more difficult.

Satellites would need balloon deflectors and space junk might deflate the balloons.

The solar wind might push it into the atmosphere or into outer space.

The full proof design of the balloon system could cost trillions of dollars.

It might be cheaper to just stop burning coal.

The only crisis with CO2 is manufactured by fundamental alarmists. The CO2 fear factor is collapsing now on a daily basis. And with it the cynical manipulators of "AGW." Please find something new to catastrophize about - AGW is nearly dead. Which means all the money that may have been wasted on hare-brained schemes like this -- can now be directed to issues that may actually help the human race.

How many countless $Billions is this going to cost to cost to build and operate over the coming decades? (WHO)is going to be making the $$$$$$$ profits off it?
Instead why not use CO2 as food for algae's conversion to fuel.
And at least allow limited testing of Planktos Tech. sequestering CO2 in the ocean first.

Had this been a GM announcement there would be 99 posts explaining what a bunch of a-holes Wagner and Lutz are. But, being well behaved PROMs, criticism of Toyota is studiously subdued. Nice balance here.

error - above meant for Toyota announcement. Apologies.

The English political economist and demographer the Reverend Dr Thomas Robert Malthus expressed views on population growth and noted the potential for populations to increase exponentially.

Since energy consumption can not keep up with the potential of population growth indefinitely, population requires strong checks to keep it in line with carrying-capacity.

Men of good judgment must decide how to extended exponential consumption behavior as long as possible( increasing standard of living) but also must eventually determine how to cope with the limit imposed by carrying-capacity (sustainability).

It has become clear to many observers that fossil fuel use has reached an asymptotic takeoff point. Many indicators reflect the imminence of these conditions, such being atmospheric CO2 concentration, peak oil, peak gas, peak coal, and the like.

Other observers who desire to maintain increasing standards of living by denying that limits are being reached or want to bypass these limits one way or other.

Yet others want to keep the standard of living constant or reduced (sustainability).

Still others want to limit population or reduce if (Well its time for another a war).

But what human history has shown over and over again is that changing the behavior of society allows for a new era of exponential consumption over an increased period of time.

An energy technology revolution is the stance I favor. This approach is not constrained by natural resources but depends on the ingenuity of man.
New technology like solar, hydrogen, wind, led light, nuclear, geothermal, superconductivity…on and on… hold promise for unlimited prosperity into the far future.

Those that deny transition is needed only delay the process and prospect of that transition. If not today, if not tomorrow, if not next year … it is clear that the transition must surly come …and soon… to avoid the decline of the human race.

Here, here, Axil. Good points.

"Expensive and tricky", indeed. The Department of Energy’s lowest estimate of the cost of even land-based CCS is equivalent to more than $120 per ton of carbon captured (that is, $35 per ton of CO2 (1)). In contrast a fossil fuel tax of $30 per ton of carbon content would immediately make today’s non-fossil energy sources including nuclear, wind, and Solar cheaper than fossil energy sources. We must stop wasting time, money, and political will on pointless diversions such as CCS. The only practical way of using coal and oil to mitigate global warming is to leave them in the ground.

(1) http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/program/Prog065.pdf

A better application for geologic formation storage is excess heat generated by peak wind and solar. Looking at Richard's link - it becomes clear that CCS and future coal plant designs need very expensive cleanup technology. Why go down this path at all? In the end no matter how clean we make a coal fired plant - we are still strip mining and removing mountain tops for finite fossil fuel.

We now have a clear path to global energy independence. It is for the foreseeable future, electrification brought about via transitional biofuels. At this point it seems better to confront the waste issues from new-gen nukes than to continue to engineer around the detraction of fossils.

A concerted effort toward large scale southwestern solar, wind and high density storage to clean and expand the grid should accompany the electrification of transport. While some countries may have to face CCS and clean coal issues - North America is blessed with resources easily able to offset that. Solar, wind, geothermal, next gen nuke, are a far better trade than gouging the earth's crust for unclean fuel sources.

Wouldn't natural processes work better. Sequester in wood!

'Cheap bargains' help drive record Port of Baltimore exports

http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/04/21/daily30.html?surround=lfn

If the other countries of the world are able to burn huge amounts of our coal without control, what does it say about this hypocritical green washing by current decision makers?

East Coast coal exports off to the races

East Coast ports shipped 4.21 million tons to export in February, up 50% from January and 122% from a year ago, but terminal operators say expect even higher volumes in March with maintenance work complete and the Buchanan mine returning to full
production.

US coal export must be stopped until CO2 sequestration is demonstrated by the foreign coal user.

Mit Lecture vidio

Geosciences and Carbon Sequestration to Address Climate Change
Margaret Leinen

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/528/

Sequestration entirely in wood would require growing, harvesting, transporting, and disposing of roughly ten billion cubic meters (ten cubic kilometers) of wood every year. Where could we put that much wood where it would not decompose into greenhouse gases?