Talk:Carbon sequestration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chemical and Bio Engineering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Carbon sequestration is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Carbon capture and storage[edit]

I propose moving the contents of this page to a subcategory of Carbon capture and storage as carbon sequestration is a component of the CSS process. --B Carey 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see now that this page is essentially a duplication of the Capturing/Extracting CO2 section of the carbon dioxide page. I now propose that the topic "CO2 sequestration" be redirected to Carbon capture and storage and that the CSS page have a link to the Capturing/Extracting page.--B Carey 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this stub is excessive article fragmentation, and should be merged into other articles, with a redirect from this current title. However, although the "CO2" part of the title does not have much appeal, the "sequestration" word is key here, so we need to arrange things so that people searching for that word readily find the main article about this subject, whatever it is actually called.- 10:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is much of a jumble of facts and unwikified too. Redirect and if necessary pluck out parts and facts of this article to add to Carbon capture and storage, but definitely not copy/paste.Jens Nielsen 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the above advice, the present article is not necessary, the original Carbon capture and storage is better. Please note that I changed the "Mergeto" proposal towards Carbon capture and storage, instead of the (wrongly attributed) Carbon dioxide sink which is quite different, and not really related, see advice below.--Environnement2100 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not knowlegeable on the topic(s), but from the articles, it seems carbon capture and storage is a superset of carbon dioxide sequestration. If so, I agree they should be merged. -Pgan002 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The writer advocating merger is mistaken, if not just an industrial whore. Mechanical sequestration, such as injection into exhausted oil reservoirs, has little to do with natural sequestration, such as forest regrowth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

I vote to not merge the two, but to link. The term CO2 sequestration as used in our industry (oil and gas production, etc.) is specific to current topics of debate and research (surrounding environmental issues and legislation), and usually refers to man-created and implemented projects. It is worth having a coherent article about this in particular, for those researching an item they may hear about on the news or read about in an article, much like the user above notes (third item from top). I suggest leaving this article as the "stub" that it is, and inserting a link to the subject of CCS processes (natural, mechanical, etc.) for those that wish to research deeper into the broader topic.Klueless (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Make separate pages for CO2 sequestration per se (e.g., pumping it into oil wells) agricultural carbon sequestration, which is noncontroversial, and ocean fertilization and other geoengineering techniques. Keep this page as an overview.Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I support some rationalisation of this article with Carbon capture and storage and other related topics. Merging is one way to rationalise, Klueless's suggestion for separating topics and linking may be even better. Note that Carbon capture and storage#See also has some useful links to possibly relevant articles. As a low-impact first step, I added wikilinks between here and Carbon capture and storage, in the See also sections. --Jdlh | Talk 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to wetland storage of carbon, there is new evidence and this citation could be a live link -- Brigham, S.D., J.P. Megonigal, J.K. Keller, N.P. Bliss, and C. Trettin. 2006. The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889-916. The author's contend that: “Because of higher rates of C sequestration and lower CH4 emissions, coastal wetlands could be more valuable C sinks per unit area than other ecosystem in a warmer world.” I would like to add Coastal wetlands particularly tropical mangrove forests and temperate tidal marshes are capable of storing impressive amounts of carbon as a natural function of growth and limited decay in the anoxic layers of sediments that lie beneath these tidelands.--Joseph Vincent Siry 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsiry (talkcontribs)

Methods of CO2 Sequestration[edit]

I propose that this list needs to be reviewed and revised. The prior definition of the term CO2 sequestration incorrectly included CO2 "capture" as sequestration as well. Please see [1] and other sources. Sequestration refers only to the long-term storage of CO2. The items in this list that refer to technologies for collection should be removed. Klueless (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: replace entire "Methods" section with a link to the well-written ==CO2 storage (sequestration)== section in the CCS article. Klueless (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on Cost of Transport[edit]

Clarified to cost of CO2 transport in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Thank-you for not deleting outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klueless (talkcontribs) 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Section move[edit]

Today i moved the section on methods into the CCS page. Capture methods really don't belong on a short sequestration article, as they're the 'other' part of the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talkcontribs) 13:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Move for accuracy pls - it's not always CO2 that's sequestered. SHouldn't be controverisalAndrewjlockley(talk) 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be that what needs to happen is more differenciation between this article and Carbon capture and storage. NJGW (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

agriculture section[edit]

this needs work. can anyone help? Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried... Lfstevens (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

add another[edit]

I just watched a show on experiments with different methods of carbon dioxide sequestration. One technique they experimented with was dropping large darts, with a dry ice payload, into the deep ocean floor. The dart they experimented with was about 1.5 metres long, and about .2 meters in diameter. It got to a speed of 70 km/h, and did bury itself in the ocean floor.

They didn't say anything about the ocean floor that was their target. But I know some areas of the deep ocean floor are about as solid as yogurt. Of course a CO2 dart would penetrate this kind of floor. But what would happen once it penetrated, and the CO2 warmed up to the ambient temperature. At what density does CO2 remain solid at room temperature?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

sequestration in lime water


Isn't using olivine another method that should be mentioned ?


Another method to separate carbon dioxide[edit]

To sequester carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere it needs to be separated. A few years ago workers at Los Alamos by accident found that they could separate gases with sound waves. They thought it was a new idea and they now have a US patent 6733569 for their method, which is said to consume too much energy to be useful for such things as removing co2 from the atmosphere.

However, in 1935 a Mr. C. W. Banton at the Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute tested a LOW ENERGY acoustic method of gas separation, and it worked. If perfected it could likely be able to separate atmospheric CO2 at an economical cost. I will gladly send the scanned info (12 pages) to anyone who is interested. contact A good understanding of physics in needed, but it is a simple system.

If it can be made to work a perfect system would be to use wind power in high wind areas like the Tierra del Fuego to do it. The CO2 could be sequestered underground nearby if feasible or if not liquified and sent on gas ships to suitable locations, where it could first be passed through turbines where it would expand for energy generation (cooling the area, how about using to cool buildings in Arabia?) before being sequestered underground.

Here are some excerpts from the report The Acoustic Separation of Gaseous Mixtures, Daniel Guggenheim Airship Institute, C.W. Banton, 1935

"Since the only work required to separate a mixture of non-reactive gases is very small and is only the work against entropy, it would be very desirable if some process could be devised by means of which gases could be separated by supplying only approximately this small amount of energy….The acoustic method of separation described below is an attempt to realize such a process.

When a good adjustment has been reached, the separation may be carried out continuously with dependable results, but the composition of the mixture, temperature, and pressure must remain constant.

A sample of producer gas (from wood chips) was handled with very good results in apparatus of the form described above." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Added bio-energy with carbon storage to the acronym BECS Greenopedia (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)greenopedia 1/29/10

Proposal to merge with Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge. Aurochs (Talk) 18:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems is an unwikified white paper with pretenses of "provid[ing] recommendations for scientists and policy makers." We already cover carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems here; there is likely a small amount of information that could be moved over, but I don't see any need to have a separate article about it, especially one that's so close to being an original synthesis. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 16:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - articles are redundant. —Cupco 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's been over six weeks now since I proposed this, and there's only one comment. Are there any objections to this proposal? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There are several replies in the text above. I would recommend NOT merging the two. For the Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems I would rather propose to remove all mentioning of AGW related arguments. Reason: politics have no place in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This discussion is over two months old, and no reason for keeping the source page has been given. I'm closing it now. Please find the last revision of the source page here. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 18:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.