INTRODUCTION

Carbon emissions. Everyone has heard this term, if not in a lecture hall or science textbook, at least in media hype or in movies. And no matter what source people are educated from, each conclusion reached is the same: carbon emissions are bad. The question is how bad are they though? Are they worth all of the commotion they are causing? And is there anything we can do to stop their damage? Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gas naturally occurring in atmosphere that allows sunlight to reach to earth but also prevents some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space, thus warming the planet. Scientists call this warming the greenhouse effect. When this effect occurs naturally, it warms the Earth enough to sustain life. In fact, if we had no greenhouse effect, our planet would be an average temperature of minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 30 degrees Celsius) [source: UNEP] and we all had not been in existence to witness it. Yes, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect are necessary for Earth to survive. But human inventions like power plants and transportation vehicles, which burn fossil fuels, release extra CO2 into the air. Because we've added (and continue to add) this carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more heat is stored on Earth, which causes the temperature of the planet to slowly rise, a phenomenon called global warming. The effects of global warming are severe. Long studies in Antarctica have shown that in the past thousand years the planet was cooling down. It was cooling down until about 1900 or so. And there's the temperature up there in 2009. We've warmed the globe about a degree Centigrade in the last century. Records for similar span of time at the same place shows that rise in temperature to about one degree to one and a half degrees Celsius caused the ice sheet to become very dynamic and the sheet was very easily melted. So many of us are convinced now that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is starting to melt. This is a serious consequence. As a matter of fact, Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas (GHG). Others include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Scientists estimate that global GHG emissions due to human activities increased 70 percent between 1970 and 2004. Carbon dioxide emissions alone grew 80 percent in the same period [source: IPCC]. Many researchers believe that the process of carbon capture and storage can help us to get this number down to a healthy level. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing and storing CO2 emissions from power plants and industrial manufacturing plants. The captured carbon dioxide gas is compressed into a liquid form and is stored in areas which are capable of holding the gas securely and preventing it from leaking out (deep underground or deep in the ocean).

Carbon sequestration describes long-term storage of Carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon to either mitigate or defer global warming and avoid dangerous climate change. It has been proposed as a way to slow the atmospheric and marine accumulation of GHG, which are released by burning fossil fuels. How to do Sequestration: Natural methods: The Earth has several natural methods of sequestering CO2.These methods however, are incapable of dealing with the massive amounts of CO2 emitted due to human activity. One of the most prevalent of these sinks is forests. Approximately 25 percent of the CO2 emitted due to fossil fuel is sequestered by forested areas each year. CO2 is also naturally sequestered in soil in the form of oil organic and inorganic carbon. The natural sequestration methods cant deal with all of the CO2 and thats why we need newer methods of Carbon Sequestration. Newer Methods: Carbon Sequestration is the process of capturing carbon and storing it in a reservoir. Trapping Carbon Dioxide: Carbon Capture Technology Carbon capture has actually been in use for years. The oil and gas industries have used carbon capture for decades as a way to enhance oil and gas recovery [source: CSS]. Only recently have we started thinking about capturing carbon for environmental reasons. Currently, most research focuses on carbon capture at fossil fuel-powered energy plants, the source of the majority of man-made CO2 emissions. Many of these power plants rely on coal to create energy, and the burning of coal emits CO2 into the atmosphere. Some researchers envision a future where all new power plants employ carbon capture. There are three main steps to carbon capture and storage (CCS) -- trapping and separating the CO2 from other gases, transporting this captured CO2 to a storage location, and storing that CO2 far away from the atmosphere (underground or underwater). Carbon is taken from a power plant source in three basic ways -- post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-fuel combustion. With post-combustion carbon capture, the CO2 is grabbed after the fossil fuel is burned. The burning of fossil fuels- produces something called flue gases, which include CO2, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. In a post-combustion process, CO2 is separated and captured from the flue gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuel. This process is currently in use to remove CO2 from natural gas. The biggest benefit to using this process is that it allows us to retrofit older power plants, by adding a "filter" that helps trap the CO2 as it travels up a chimney or smokestack. This filter is actually a solvent that absorbs

carbon dioxide. The solvent can later be heated, which will release water vapor and leave behind a concentrated stream of CO2. Post-combustion carbon capture can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant's carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. But the post-combustion process requires a lot of energy to compress the gas enough for transport. Pre-combustion, as the name implies, involves capturing CO2 before a fossil fuel is burned. That means the CO2 is trapped before it's diluted by other flue gases. Coal, oil or natural gas is heated in pure oxygen, resulting in a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This process involves extracting CO2 by partially oxidizing the fuel in a gasifier, which results in the separation of CO2 from CO (carbon monoxide) and H2 (Hydrogen). The hydrogen can then be used as fuel. The advantages include that the process is relatively inexpensive. The disadvantages include that the process cannot be retrofitted to older plants. Precombustion carbon capture is already in use for natural gas, and can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant's emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. With oxy-fuel combustion carbon capture, the power plant burns fossil fuel in pure oxygen instead of air, which creates CO2 and water vapor. The water vapor is condensed leaving almost pure CO2, which can then be transported to a storage area. Oxy-fuel combustion can prevent 90 percent of a power plant's emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. The advantages include an effective method of carbon capture. The disadvantages include the cost of supplying pure oxygen. All three of the above carbon capture processes require that the captured CO2 be stored. Once the carbon is captured, how is it transported to a storage location? Transporting Carbon dioxide The current method of transporting CO2 is through a pipeline. A CO2 pipeline usually begins at the source of capture and travels directly to the storage site -- although, in some cases, it might travel as far as it can in the pipe, then transition to a tanker or ship to finish off its journey. Pipelines commonly transport carbon dioxide in its gaseous state. A compressor "pushes" the gas through the pipeline. Accidents with pipelines are rare, as we've found in decades of use. Only 12 CO2 pipeline leaks occurred from 1986 to 2006, with no human injuries reported. Carbon Storage There are two places we've found to store CO2 -- underground and underwater. In fact, estimates project that the planet can store up to 10 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. This would allow 100 years of storage of all human-created emissions [source: Science Daily]. (Though we'll obviously survive much longer than that) .

The technologies under investigation for sequestering carbon from the atmosphere can be discussed under three main categories: 1) Ocean Sequestration: Carbon stored in oceans through direct injection or fertilization. PROCESS: Dissolution: Injecting CO2 by ship or pipeline into the ocean water column at depths of 1000 3000 m, forming an upward-plume, and the CO2 subsequently dissolves in sea water. Lake Deposits: Injecting CO2 directly into the sea at depths greater than 3000 m, forming a downward-plume, delay dissolution of CO2 into the ocean and atmosphere possibly for millennia. Chemical Reaction: Combining CO2 with a carbonate mineral to form bicarbonates.

ADVANTAGES: Slow rate mixing: The surface waters and the deep ocean waters generally mix very slowly, on the order of decades to centuries. Injecting CO2 directly into the deep ocean would take advantage of the slow rate of mixing, allowing the injected CO2 to remain sequestered until the surface and deep waters mix and CO2concentrations equilibrate with the atmosphere. Largest active carbon sink: Oceans are at present the largest CO2 sinks present on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.

2) Geologic Sequestration: Natural pore spaces in geologic formations serve as reservoirs for long-term carbon dioxide storage. PROCESS: Types of repositories for permanent sequestration:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

oil reservoirs natural gas deposits unmineable coal seams deep saline formations shale rich in oil or gas basalt formations.

In each case, CO2 is injected in a supercritical state (a relatively dense liquid) belowground into a porous rock formation that holds or previously held fluids. By injecting CO2 at depths greater than 800 meters in a typical reservoir, the pressure keeps the injected CO2 in a supercritical state and thus less likely to migrate out of the geological formation. ADVANTAGES:

In oil and gas reservoirs sequestration costs can be partially offset by revenues from oil and gas production. Oil and gas originally trapped did not escape for millions of years. In coal mines CO2 remains there unless the seam is depressurized or the coal is mined. Saline formation is having large potential storage volume and common occurrence.

3) Terrestrial Sequestration: A large amount of carbon is stored in soils and vegetation, which are our natural carbon sinks. PROCESS:-In this process CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass and soils. As part of this process, the carbon present in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide becomes part of the plant: a leaf, stem, root, etc. Long-lived plants like trees might keep the carbon sequestered for a long period of time. Once the tree dies, or as limbs, leaves, seeds, or blossoms drop from the tree, the plant material decomposes and the carbon is released. ADVANTAGES: Sustainable reduction of CO2 without harms. Sustainably managed forests stores carbon for decades. provide multiple ecosystem benefits such as improved water quality, habitat, and biodiversity. Reclaims poorly managed lands. Prevent soil erosion and stream sedimentation.

Increasing carbon fixation through photosynthesis, slowing down or reducing decomposition of organic matter, and changing land use practices can enhance carbon uptake in these natural sinks. So we have seen how the carbon capture and storage works i.e. how the process is done. Lets see its effects and consequences. Is It Okay To Do This? Not exactly. We have advantages and disadvantages in doing this process. So we start out with advantages. Advantages of Carbon Sequestration: Carbon sequestration is an effective technique for controlling global warming, thereby capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions. 1. Decreases Carbon Content in atmosphere which was leading to global warming. 2. Carbon Sequestration can act as a way to enhance oil and gas recovery in oil power plants. 3. It stores the gas in a natural source used earlier for storing other gases. 4. It is less of economic burden than finding the alternative sources of energy. Carbon sequestrations purpose is to provide a quick fix until other energy sources can be developed and put into practice. Looks like it is playing its part well. But its only the half side of story, the other half is below:

Disadvantages of Carbon Sequestration: Yet despite all of the benefits and precautions being taken, the fact remains that there are still too many uncertainties and potential dangers attached to carbon sequestration and this process should not be used or promoted. 1. Even though care is taken to identify the right areas for storing the gas underground, there is always a likelihood of the gas leaking out. When that happens, a number of deadly changes can transpire: a) The leaked carbon dioxide gas which is in the liquid form can mix with ground water. This will make the ground water extremely toxic and unsuitable for human consumption. b) Gas stored below the ocean floor can leak out and increase the carbon dioxide content in the lower layers of the ocean. This makes it difficult for the flora and fauna thriving near the ocean surface to adjust to the changes and as a result, the whole ecosystem is disturbed. c) Leakage of the carbon dioxide gas from underground reservoirs can lead to the replacement of oxygen gas near the earths surface with carbon dioxide, leading to loss of plant, animal and human life in the area. 2. High cost of the carbon sequestration process: To store carbon dioxide gas underground, it has to be compressed into liquid form. This process is extremely expensive and requires a lot of energy. The injected gas also has to be monitored constantly for leakage over long periods of time. 3. Another major issue is that excessive usage of this method slows down the search for non-polluting sources of energy. Yet despite all of the benefits and precautions being taken, the fact remains that there are still too many uncertainties and potential dangers attached to carbon sequestration and this process should not be used or promoted. These possible threats are very important to consider, largely due to the fact that it is likely to manifest itself into a very real problem. Carbon sequestration has the capability of changing the chemical composition and habitable qualities of the oceans. These alterations might sound impossible or extreme, but they have a very high likelihood of occurrence, and if they take place, the consequences would be severe. Even if companies check to make sure that there are no faults or weak spots within the areas where the CO2 would be stored, there is always the possibility of change. The earths plates shift and move, and pressures can build beyond expected measurements. Not only is marine life potentially threatened by carbon sequestration, but human life as well. If CO2 rapidly escaped from its storage pockets, it could result in low-lying areas

near the breach filling with CO2 and people becoming asphyxiated (Dow-Jones, 3). In 1986, a large amount of CO2 exploded from Lake Nyos and more than 1,700 people died.

Ongoing Carbon Sequestration Projects:

Other Programs and Societies functioning concerning the Global Warming: Some of them are: UN-REDD+ Society: The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. Greenfacts.org: It states that its mission is to bring complex scientific consensus reports on health and the environment to the reach of non-specialists. Futuregen is a US government project announced by President George W. Bush in 2003; its initial plan involved the construction of a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage.
A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration Potential of Land Use Policies Favoring Regrowth and Long-term Protection of Temperate Forests

Recent modeling of old-growth forest carbon sequestration indicate they continue to serve as a net sink of carbon even after maturity- sequestering an average of 2.4 +/- 0.8 metric tons of carbon hectare-1 yr-1 and yielding a ratio of heterotrophic respiration (Rh) to net primary production (NPP) of approximately 0.65 +/- 0.02. These figures show the strongest correlation amongst temperate forest regions.

One calculation is made identifying the amount of carbon sequestered through a smallscale land protection organization, yielding a net carbon sequestration of approximately 224 metric tons of carbon per year. The other is based on the amount of land required to offset current anthropogenic emissions of carbon in the global carbon budget, showing approximately 235 million hectares of new forest growth would be required to offset current global anthropogenic emissions. One implication of these calculations is the traditional assumption of carbon neutrality increasing with age is incorrect, suggesting mature forest protection may be a favored policy choice for carbon sequestration strategies.
o o o o o o o o o Citations and works referred: Carbon Sequestration- How stuff works? University of Michigan- Carbon sequestration- Helpful or Harmful Carbon Sequestration- Wikipedia Dangers of Carbon Sequestration- Engineering @ suite 101 Ongoing projects tschakert ppt Green Facts.org Futuregen.org Images Google images on Carbon Sequestration Other related searches on similar topics.

Conclusion: Carbon sequestration is not a sustainable process but an escaping route. The carbon cycle is severely damaged and carbon sequestration is no solution to it. Conserving the forests back, restoring the ecosystem can be the only possible solution the original problem of increased Greenhouse Gases. As seen in the data gathered and the research conducted, carbon sequestration does offer some benefits. It answers the immediate problem and danger of the rising CO2 levels and is less of an economic burden than finding alternative sources of energy. Carbon sequestration has many negative effects too though, and they are large enough to invalidate the benefits. Chemical alterations within the oceans, permanent damage to the ecosystems down there, and threat of asphyxiation are only some of the consequences we know about. Instead of investing in carbon sequestration, we should look to other methods for sustainable energy. Wind, solar and geothermal are all greatly untapped powers, and ones that the earth naturally provides. And that is the lesson learned from this research: if we want to save the earth, we must go back to the earth. It provides us everything we need.