Talk:Carbon sequestration/Archive 1

Merge with Carbon capture and storage

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.-69.87.200.226 10:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 151.203.42.159 (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs)

Methods of CO2 Sequestration

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Confusion on Cost of Transport

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

Section move

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 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

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)[reply]

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

agriculture section

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

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

add another

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)[reply]

sequestration in lime water

Could we add a clarifying description of how exactly these methods contribute to CCS? See:Wetland restoration, deep soil.ChambaKikii (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olivine

Isn't using olivine another method that should be mentioned ? http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf

~~

Another method to separate carbon dioxide

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 jesseblenn@gmail.com 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 201.237.156.34 (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forestry

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

Proposal to merge with Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support - articles are redundant. —Cupco 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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 84.48.33.234 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comments in the text above relate to merging Carbon sequestration with Carbon capture and storage. That's a completely different issue from this one. Why do you oppose the proposal to merge this with Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems? Please remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 02:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Carbon sequestration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon sequestration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803085453/http://www.alertnet.org:80/thenews/newsdesk/SP39844.htm to http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP39844.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon sequestration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130409230000/http://www.puaf.umd.edu/papers/nelson/carbseq.htm to http://www.puaf.umd.edu/papers/nelson/carbseq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carbon sequestration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527191416/http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/glossarys.htm to http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/glossarys.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alertnet.org:80/thenews/newsdesk/SP39844.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://bioenergykdf.net/sites/default/files/zpdfzholderz/NREL_Data/KC_091102094516.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sections Expanded

I just expanded the Peat Production, Urban Forestry, and Financial Costs sections of the article. I expanded the peat production and urban forestry by explaining a little bit of what they both are and how well or not they work at sequestering carbon. I also added citations to all 3 of the sections to go along with the information I added. I mainly kept the original information that was in the sections, I just tried to reword them so that the paragraphs flowed together a little better. Tsmalley8 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthesis?

Isn't it weird that photosynthesis isn't mentioned in the article, since p. is the major source of carbon fixation? I also just found that there is an article on carbon fixation which also isn't mentioned or linked here. Well even if this article is meant to be more general, it should have some reference to p. or carbon fixation at the least. --Mindravel (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's weird, although forestry is mentioned. Photosynthesis and bamboo are not. 27.33.39.35 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section on ocean carbon sink

I removed a section on the ocean as a carbon sink. I am not entirely sure what the goal of the paragraph was, I was having trouble parsing the meaning. The citation was also to an unreliable source. Happy to discuss more here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo

There is still no mention of bamboo, which is higher yielding per hectare per year than trees from what I've read. Alec Gargett 61.68.207.107 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge carbon dioxide removal into this?

Possibly more than one merge required, including merging carbon dioxide removal into this one. 61.68.207.107 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so because there are many methods of carbon dioxide removal, not only sequestering. I feel that each page is noteworthy enough to have their own page. Alvin4142 (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of this; however, I think we should think about which should be the main article. --Daviddwd (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvin4142: I am confused by the meaning of "sequester". Firstly what are the other methods of carbon dioxide removal apart from sequestering? Secondly if CCS is not a synonym of "Carbon sequestration" what is the difference exactly?

I support the merger. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the merger. I think anyone who does support the merger should be shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.134.105.71 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daviddwd: Yes as the meaning of "sequestration" is unclear (nowadays it seems to be used by the IPCC as part of "soil sequestration" so perhaps that is what @Alvin4142: was referring to but that is covered by the existing Carbon farming article I think) and the term CDR was used in https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/ I think carbon dioxide removal should be the name of the article.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merger. "sequestration" means separating something out in order to store it. It's the same thing as removal in this context. Alec Gargett (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Carbon sequestration" means "removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere". Alec Gargett (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts the page carbon dioxide removal should be moved to "artificial atmospheric carbon dioxide removal" because it is specifically about that. Alec Gargett (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are there that group things this way? E.g. are there some reports that cover all natural methods and no artifical ones, and other reports that cover all artificial methods and not the natural ones? dioxide removal? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term carbon dioxide removal sometimes refers to actions taken to prevent global warming by removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, in explicit contrast to preventing global warming by reducing emissions. E.g. people say things like, "It's really hard to eliminate emissions from aviation, so our strategy needs to include carbon dioxide removal to offset those emissions."

Confusingly, the term "carbon dioxide removal" is also used to refer to one aspect of carbon dioxide removal. E.g. there's a report here called "Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration."

Another thing to keep in mind is that some sequestration technologies, e.g. geologic storage, literally only sequester. They have to be used in conjunction with another technology that pulls CO₂ out of the air. Maybe a good solution is to have a single article called Carbon dioxide removal and sequestration which clearly describes the various uses of the terms, and have both Carbon dioxide removal and Carbon sequestration redirect to it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De-Sequestration

What is the opposite of “Carbon sequestration”; is there a phrase for “Carbon release”? MBG02 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47897342 and then improve this article.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon emission. Klbrain (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sequestering?

The Article uses this sentence to illustrate Carbon sequestration:

Natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and reservoirs, such as by chemical weathering of rocks.

Does the chemical weathering ever “capture” carbon? MBG02 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47897342 and then improve this article.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animals

Does Sequestration include “storage” into animal life - not just plant life (and rocks)?

Does “growing” a cow (for example) offset extra CO₂ (and everything else)? MBG02 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47897342 and then improve this article.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialization - Mycelium for Pollution

What indusrial and commercial efforts have been made in carbon sequestration? I could find HiveMind, that is investing in ectomycorrhizal mycelium. Thi8s 'HiveMind' is NOT the 'real life simulation' game (personal gaming) of that name: HiveMind.

Mycelium has been urged for reduction in some forms of chemical and thermal pollution through sequestration in soil. Is mycelium an effective sequestration technology and can it scale sufficiently to have a significant climate impact? HiveMind is at the beginning stage of commercializing a biological climate solution through ectomycorrhizal mycelium to capture and sequester significant amounts of atmospheric CO2 in soils. The firm has two of the world's top ten carbon emitters, Cummins Diesel and Shell Oil, as clients. Shell has ordered pilots on a series of service stations in London before considering the firm for possible global adoption to 44,000 service stations worldwide. HiveMind seeks additional working capital to fund these projects, so some investors believe in carbon sequestration through soil, though many scientists may not yet fully believe in its feasibility, which working projects would need to demonstrate quantitatively.^[1]MaynardClark (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Can mycelium reverse climate change?

Merger proposal

The Carbon sequestration and Carbon sink articles cover essentially the same things. What do you think of merging them? In the last month, Carbon sequestration has received an average of 665 page views per day, and Carbon sink has received 395.[2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the difference that carbon sequestration is the human initiated process which may include protecting or including natural carbon sinks but may also include tech solutions such as direct air capture? If so I am not sure there is enough overlap to justify merging. Maybe the carbon sequestration article should be tidied so that some sections refer to (sections of) the carbon sink article as the main article?Chidgk1 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term "carbon sink" usually refers to natural carbon sinks such as forests and soils. However, I've also seen the term used to encompass anything that stores large amounts of carbon, including geologic sequestration. The NASEM report on negative emissions uses the term with this broader meaning. Currently the first sentence of the Carbon sink article says carbon sinks are natural, but a large section of the article is devoted to artificial sequestration. I'm not seeing very much difference in the intent of the two articles.

The Carbon sequestration article can very easily explain in its lead what a carbon sink is, and its sections should talk about what the capacities of various types of carbon sinks are. It's a simple concept. I can't think of anything that we would put in a carbon sink article that wouldn't also belong in a carbon sequestration article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. According to the carbon sequestration article in Encyclopaedia Britannica at https://www.britannica.com/technology/carbon-sequestration carbon sinks and carbon sequestration are distinct and different:

'Reservoirs that retain carbon and keep it from entering Earth’s atmosphere are known as carbon sinks. For example, deforestation is a source of carbon emission into the atmosphere, but forest regrowth is a form of carbon sequestration, with the forests themselves serving as carbon sinks. Carbon is transferred naturally from the atmosphere to terrestrial carbon sinks through photosynthesis; it may be stored in aboveground biomass as well as in soils.'

There is much peer-reviewed published academic research into carbon sequestration and into carbon sinks. Just because both Wikipedia articles are not very well written, researched or structured, and fail currently to explore both subjects in sufficient depth is no reason to merge them.61.69.154.54 (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I also see more merit in improving both articles. Including ruthlessly deleting large sections if they are off-topic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're mostly opposed to merging, but I'm not sure exactly what direction we're asking editors to go in. What kinds of information would be suitable in the Carbon sink article that would be inappropriate in the Carbon sequestration article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a question of appropriate or inappropriate but rather level of detail. The Carbon sequestration article should reference Carbon sink and provide enough detail to convey the meaning and significance. But the Carbon sink article itself should remain as a place for greater detail and information. This is similar to many other terms used in the Carbon sequestration article (e.g. carbon dioxide, biochar, ocean fertilization, peatlands, reforestation, no-till agriculture, etc.). Each of these terms has its own page and each contains more detail than would or should be included in the Carbon sequestration page. Similarly, Carbon sink should still have its own page. That said, I agree that the Carbon sink article contains much that should be merged with the Carbon sequestration page. Kwdanner (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments! I've removed the merge tags from the articles, as consensus is clearly against merging. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryogenic carbon capture

There is nothing yet on wikipedia regarding this topic despite broad commercial working applications:

CCC uses phase change to separate CO2 and other pollutants from exhaust or process gases. CO2 is cooled to such a low temperature (about -140 °C) that it desublimates, or changes from a gas to a solid. The solid CO2 is separated from the remaining gas, pressurized, melted, and delivered at pipeline pressure. The captured CO2 can be used in many applications, including enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and biofuels production. The gas that remains after the CO2 and other pollutants have been removed is nearly pure nitrogen, and can be safely released to the atmosphere. ^[1]

Asteropata (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Can I add links to commercial company pages that use CCC? https://sesinnovation.com/technology/carbon_capture/[reply]

Hi Asteropata. Thanks for your constructive suggestion. The Carbon sequestration article gives a broad overview of all means of sequestering carbon, so it does not go into detail about any particular set of technologies. The best place to describe CCC would be the carbon capture and storage article. The sciencedirect.com link that you provide would be a good source. It wouldn't be appropriate to add a link to the sesinnovation website, but thanks for asking. Do you work for a company that's involved in this technology? Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic ice cap storage

Please help me with following to make it suitable to publish:

The Antarctic continent is the best environment on Earth for CO2 deposition because of low energetical effort needed to create dry ice. CO2 solid snow deposition begins at -79 C (133 K) and Antarcica temperatures often drops below -80C.^[2]^[3] There is very little energy needed to cool down Antarctica environment in order to obtain CO2 snowfall and form ice caps as these observed on planet Mars. The most effective temperature for CO2 snow deposition is 133 K at 1 bar or 152 K at 10 bars. Antarctic snow temperature below -50 C is cold enough to stabilize CO2 deposits. ^[4] 50 meters of snow or ice will stabilize solid CO2 at -50 C. The design of this thermodynamic cooling system based on operational conditions in Antarctica in closed-loop liquid-vapor cooling system, depicted as an adiabatic cycle was designed on Purdue University ^[5] Most convenient location are open rocky cliffs in central part of Antarctic. Long light tunnel shaped buildings with precooling chamber and main site with liquid nitrogen cooling chambers will be producing 40 cm of dry ice daily. Made from light easy to transport walls which will be disassembled and relocated in yearly cycle. Scale of the project to eliminate all anthropocentric CO2 from atmosphere (375 km3) within 10 years will need >30 TW of power provided by conventional solid fuel, fission reactors which in Antarctic conditions would not need a liquid water as a coolant. Excess of heat will heat facility buildings. Size of refrigeration buildings should be 5000000 m3.^[6]Asteropata (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asteropata, that's an excellent question. The references you provide in the above passage are from primary sources. Wikipedia policy is to generally use secondary sources, because primary sources don't give enough context for us to put the information into perspective. This policy is explained [here]. Good secondary sources would include review articles in scientific journals, IPCC reports, university textbooks, and reports from national scientific bodies that examine climate change mitigation strategies. If you can show that Antarctic storage is mentioned in secondary sources, you could describe it in a sentence or passage of length that reflects the amount of weight those sources give to the topic. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chunfeng, Song; Orton. "Cryogenic-based CO2 capture technologies: State-of-the-art developments and current challenges". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "E. Linacre and B. Geerts, Surface temperature in Antarctica".
^ Agee, Ernest; Orton, Andrea; Rogers, John. "CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropocentric Global Warming, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "National Snow and Ice Data Center. THERMAP - Ice Temperature Measurements of the Antarctic Ice Sheet". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Agee, Ernest; Orton, Andrea; Rogers, John. "CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropocentric Global Warming, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ von Hippel, Ted. "Thermal removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: energy requirements and scaling issues". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Difference from carbon capture and storage?

As it is hard for me and perhaps others to understand the difference could someone put a hatnote on this article and carbon capture and storage?Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done here - feel free to improve on it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic burial

I deleted the following as it has been unsourced for over a week and does not attempt to present all significant points of view about the risks/benefits of the strategy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landfills also represent a physical method of sequestration. Burying plastic waste is a kind of refossilization of the oil-based carbon. Store plastic in a landfill is a cheap method to remove the fossil carbon from the cycle. Burning plastic waste, on the other hand, is harmful and should be avoided at any cost because this step is increasing the amount of total available carbon in the cycle. A huge benefit that plastic is not part of the present carbon recycling, hence there are no microorganisms that would be able to decompose it. A big drawback is a benefit if treated properly. Buried biomass keeps the bound carbon for months, up to a few years before fungi and bacteria release the carbon. Plastic keeps the carbon for geological time scales.^{[citation needed]}

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Mactan Cebu International Airport Terminal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finance section conflates capture with sequestration

The finance section doesn't talk about the cost of sequestration but, rather the cost of capture and sequestration undifferentiated. Either merge this article Talk:Carbon_sequestration#Merge_with_Carbon_capture_and_storage or factor out the cost of capture from sequestration.Jim Bowery (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - I hope - please check Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Can mycelium reverse climate change?

[2] Chunfeng, Song; Orton. "Cryogenic-based CO2 capture technologies: State-of-the-art developments and current challenges". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[3] "E. Linacre and B. Geerts, Surface temperature in Antarctica".

[4] Agee, Ernest; Orton, Andrea; Rogers, John. "CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropocentric Global Warming, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[5] "National Snow and Ice Data Center. THERMAP - Ice Temperature Measurements of the Antarctic Ice Sheet". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[6] Agee, Ernest; Orton, Andrea; Rogers, John. "CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropocentric Global Warming, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[7] von Hippel, Ted. "Thermal removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: energy requirements and scaling issues". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]