0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What CliffordK was saying is that the fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) can be utilised such that you effectively use up the hydrogen within them, without touching the carbon and so not releasing CO2. I've not heard of it before, and it sounds like a neat idea.
Another option would be to grow trees. If one can prevent the wood from decaying, indefinitely, then we are in effect taking the carbon out of the environment. For example, use for framing in your house. However, if that wood is ever allowed to rot, then the captured carbon is lost.
I am unsure why the Algae doesn't get decomposed by bacteria or other microbes when they sink like usual but it seems like a pretty good plan to try out.
There have been proposals to essentially just burn the hydrogen, and leave a type of concentrated carbon/coke.
A gradual reduction in global population would reduce the food/fuel pressure.
Quote from: SorryDnoodle on 10/12/2013 17:27:18I am unsure why the Algae doesn't get decomposed by bacteria or other microbes when they sink like usual but it seems like a pretty good plan to try out.It was tried last year... and apart from wondering what action was taken against this 'business man', I note that we are not all singing his praises and repeating this idea all over the oceans.Simplicity is often very attractive when it comes to fixing a difficult problem eh! And apart from the further acidification of the seas that is likely to occur, it seems somewhat premature to suppose that a little added iron is going to be the quick fix humanity wants.
What were the results of the attempt? Also, I believe the melting ice in the south sea releases iron on it's own so it's a natural phenomenon, but so is CO2 release, and we obviously cannot predict what all of the effects can be without testing.
100 tonnes of FeSO4 in the Pacific? What on earth is the point of that? Every shipwreck deposits thousands of tons of iron in the sea (about 5,000,000 tonnes of Japanese merchant ships alone were sunk in the Pacific during WWII) and every major river carries tons of the stuff into the sea every day. Probably 100 tons of meteoritic iron falls in the Pacific each day. Or was the Press report several orders of magnitude too low?Where's the science - or even common sense - in this?
A shipwreck deposits iron at the bottom of the sea where it is dark, and as a big insoluble lump.