NOV 06

This is effectively creating a carbon time bomb which will surely go off at some time in the future.

The solution to excess carbon output is simple. We need to revert the Earth's population to the levels of the 1700s.

Um.. What? How is Calcium Carbonate (limestone) a time bomb?

Also, if you want to 'evert the Earth's population to the levels of the 1700s', which was about 600 million, how about you kill yourself to start the reduction?

The entire planet could be held to ransom by any nation with sufficient quantities of acid. How can you not call this a time bomb?

As for you suggestion, I don't believe that kind of language is appropriate here.

While I don't want to aggravate the situation between the commenters above - Philthy, that was a stupid remark. How are we to 'reduce' the population to 10% of its current level without mass culling? If you are going to make silly remarks, don't be surprised when you receive them in return.

That said, I can't see putting CO2 in rock as any sort of solution to our present predicament.

Firstly, if these rocks are in remote areas, how many resources are going to be wasted in transporting CO2 to these places?

Secondly, there's all the expense of collecting it.

Thirdly, and most importantly, isn't this just sweeping the problem under the carpet? If you want to lose weight, binging on chocolate bars but hiding the wrappers won't see you on the winners podium at the next Miss World contest (especially if you're a guy).

We don't need to find technologies that can 'hide' our pollution, we need to reduce our pollution. Simple. And yet, we just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

This really is elementary school level logic. It amazes me that, like elementary school kids, we are finding any and every ridiculous argument we can to try not to accept the logical conclusion.

Steve N. Lee
author of eco-blog http://www.lionsledbysheep.com
and suspense thriller 'What if...?' http://www.steve-n-lee.com

So, how long before the owners of these already carbon sequestering rocks try to sell carbon credits/offsets? If forest owners can get away with the same thing (selling an existing practice as a carbon offset without doing anything extra), the New Guineans can't be far behind.

@Philthy - You first! ;)

Seriously, though, there's no free lunch to carbon sequestration. Like someone else mentioned above, it's gonna take energy to capture the CO2 and put it in the water. Then it's going to take energy to drill the holes in the rocks. Then it's going to take energy to pump the water into the holes. And we have to get that water from somewhere, too. All that energy has to come from somewhere, and we predominantly use CO2 producing methods of energy production. Talk about pushing rocks up hill.

The best CO2 solution is to stop producing it, and then we don't have to get rid of it.

what kind of percentage are we talking about here? How much carbon can these rocks swallow? Are they to absorb all the excess carbon we added to our atmosphere already? Or are they ment to give fossile fuel industries a longer future?
What energy is concerned in relation to the amount of carbon sequestered?

Enough questions?

You realize that this kind of reaction occurs all the time.... Lime (CaO) hydrates to Ca(OH) then carbonates to CaCO3, calcium carbonate. In fact, most rocks are a form of carbonate, usually the calcium variety.