Great! Now I won't have to give up my Hummer afterall. I'll just tow around a bathtub full of mineral water (imported from France of course, I do have class).
The CO2 is one of the mandatory component of the feeding of the whole flora. A recent article published in the journal Nature, showed the global greening of the Earth since twenty years, 70% of it coming from MORE CO2. Besides, what would be the balance between transporting CO2 in "choosen places" to implement the "solid rock" process and the emissions ? Instead of spending Zilions$ in such stupid researches, better use this money to preventing, adapting, recovering, specially in "poor" countries, the consequences of meteorological extreme events, whatever their causes are (natural, anthropogenic or...both).
The underlying question I have is How does this transformation take place, Is it a pure chemical reaction or is there a biological mediator assisting the rapid transformation..
If there are bacteria involved they are the interesting part, how to isolate and culture them for treating effluent directly, rather than having to transport all that Perrier water to Iceland, BTW I think they already have enough CO2 emitting thermal vents to keep themselves content without shipping in everyone else's trash...
Robert in Vancouver
This won't matter to the anti-oil radicals. They are fundamentally against companies that make a profit and business in general, unless the business is owned by their financial supporters like Al Gore (and his partners at Goldman Sachs) and George Soros.
How about injecting co2 into molten rock of volcanoes?
Mark Radell
"How will we wean ourselves off fossil fuels if there is little incentive to do so?"
If we find a effective and safe way of using fossil fuels why do we need to wean ourselves off of them? The objective is to be good to the environment and if this technology proves effective and safe and why do we need to bother researching other alternative?
@Mark Radell, If you're asking what the reason is for researching alternatives to fossil fuels - it's a non-renewable source of energy and will eventually run out. If you're asking what the reason is for researching alternative ways of managing CO2 - it helps to improve current methods and discover better ones.
@watersworm - the research you quote has been demonstrated to be a red herring. Yes we are getting some greening on land, but the ocean is still acting as the primary carbon sink for the emitted CO2. This is causing ocean acidification which is resulting in massive coral bleaching, ocean die offs, and general ecological mayhem in the oceans which accounts for more than 70% of the Earth's biomes. This was observed with the same satellites used to observe the greening of parts of the land mass. Then there is the looming specter of increasing the co2 content of the oceans triggering a bacterial reaction to anoxic water and causing a hydrogen sulfide bloom. Which we know happens, but not the precise conditions that will set it off, just that if it happens on a large scale it will be very bad for anything that breathes.
So in short while we can see more green on land the oceans are being disrupted and the oceans account for the vast majority of the life on the planet. Meaning the observed greening will have slim to no impact on the cascade failure of the ecology that will occur in if we cannot stop or reverse the CO2 acidification of the oceans. From an evolutionary perspective this would provide a mass extinction and reboot as has happened in the past so the Earth will not care, but life as we know it would be gone and that includes humans so we have some interest in preventing that occurrence.
Fretting Freddy the Ferret pressing the Fret
There is more to the fossil fuel problem besides CO2. As already stated, it is limited. It is also responsible for a lot of premature deaths as a result of air pollution. Burning coal and oil release toxins such as mercury, SO2, fine particles, volatile organic compounds and NOX.
Given past CO2 sequestration techniques, I've never taken the techniques seriously considering the risks and expenses to make it somewhat viable, and it still didn't make a lot sense to me. This new technique looks promising.
Unfortunately it appears Carbon injected underground is being converted by microbes to Methane. Which is even worse.