Largest Carbon Sequestration Plant To Pump 3.3 Million Tons Of CO2 Into Ground

Why is it whenever we have a problem, we try to bury it somewhere?

These ideas seem to come from people who sweep messes underneath a rug instead of cleaning them up to begin with.

There is a thing called an earthquake that can open up the sea floor and release this gas all at once, killing every sea creature in its path.

Maybe this is one of the better ideas and has been thought out completely by scientists and geologists and 1.5 miles may be deep enough, but history has shown that hiding things always seem to show up eventually.

Sparta

okay, for one 1.5 miles, is probably not deep enough, but reality is that co2 been hidden under ground for millions of years and it still would be if us humans didn't start "digging" it out......at the moment there's millions of tons of c02 hidden at the bottom of the ocean.

Is this liquid CO2 or gaseous?

It seems to me that this is just a waste of carbon.

Carbon is VALUABLE, just ask any gardener (who likely spends a great deal of time working carbon into their soil for increased fertility).

Our planet is constantly suffering from top soil degradation as erosion and over farming deplete the soil of CARBON.

Indeed, fertilization routines, particularly for ground carbon hungy plants, like high producing corn, only increases the need for gound carbon.

So, let the CO2 free. Your plants will thank you.

If you want to reduce the CO2, forget shoving it back underground, find ways to incorporate CO2 back into the plants and soil those fossil fuels came from.

For example, growing poor-soil carbon eating plants (pine trees, for example), burning them for energy biogas sytle (releasing some CO2, but paying for the endevor), and then returning the biochar to improve soil tilth (sequestering the remaining carbon somewhere not forgotten, but useful) both improves planatary topsoil (the limiting factor on food and life production on the planet surface) and removes some carbon from the air (while producing energy).

Acre intensive? Yes. But if you want to reverse trends in energy CO2 creation, just making a dirty fuel slightly cleaner only slows the problem (which I still hold is not a problem, because my garden loves to turn CO2 into O2 and yummy carbon based fuel food for me).

ok most like it will NOT kill any plant/animal life in its path. O_o the idea is ridiculous

oh and who really needs carbon for soils when we will probably die of overheating before that? and fertilizers? what for? which idiot will spread fertilizers on hills and slopes where he can plant no shit? so soil degradation is moot

i do believe however that CO2 level increase will help plants tremendously...just as high O2 levels allowed organisms to grow to such enormous sizes during the Jurassic ages and stuffs. oh and nature has its way of providing negative feedback loops to the environment.

so if we fail to survive, kudos to natural selection- we're part of it

Do people remember the entire lakeside village in Africa where there was a methane or some other gas plume that came from the deep of the lake and killed everything within a square mile?

Well, I have been thinking that even though CO2 is a lighter gas and rises, it could have the same affect.

What would happen if a seismic shift happened and that gas got released all at once? It would sink ships by changing the density of water, kill sea life by starving them from oxygen, and create a potentially dangerous cloud of CO2 that could roll across the landscape killing mammals and birds alike.

This sounds like a great idea. How many solar panels could you build with the money that this project will cost? Did they think to consider the manufacturing footprint of making 1.5 miles of steel pipe, putting it in the ground, and the energy to pump and scrub the CO2?

Scrumplate, CO2 is havier than air: it would not rise. By the way, studies have shown that CO2 increases after average temperature increases, not before. Has there ever been a case of a ship sinking because the water density under suddenly decreased?

Matson, there haven't been any confirmed cases; however, much research has been done on areas that do in fact release large methane "eruptions" from the ocean floor. The results were that ships could be sunk by said eruptions, and in fact there is a sunken ship in the center of a large eruption site known as Witches Hole.

Would CO2 have the same effect? It may be detrimental to the health of sea-faring vessels, but it certainly would be different.

On that note, seismic activity capable of releasing the CO2 in the fashion Scrumpulate mentioned would probably also destroy the processing facility nearby and rupture the gas reservoir. CO2 gas bubbles would probably be a low priority at that point.

For the money this project would cost which I'm sure is HUGE, I think it would make better sense to build modern thermal solar plants instead. And oh, yes how about improving our descrepit power transmission system??

Since the atmosphere is in a long-term CO2 famine, and the completely faked "warming" science is finally being discredited by actual (instead of paid-to-BS) scientists, I'd put the project on hold. When all the Gore-Bull is fully exposed, there'll probably be subsidies for maximizing CO2 production.