ASEE Life Member Responds to ‘Carbon Creativity’
‘Carbon Solution or Risk?’
We engineering educators, with our creativity and need to do relevant research, sometimes seem to be so in love with our ideas that we miss some important long-term hazards. A case in point is “Carbon Creativity” (Prism, March-April, 2014).
Whilst I am excited about the ways in which reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) can be accomplished, especially with useful outcomes, I have some long-term doubts. We extract carbon (coal) and hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) from the ground, and burn them using oxygen, mainly to release usable energy. In the process, we produce carbon dioxide and hydrogen oxide (H2O). The first acts in part as a greenhouse gas, the second is apparently harmless as water.
One overall proposal (in this article, and previously) is to inject much of the carbon dioxide into the ground to “sequester” it, or to use it to enhance recovery of further hydrocarbons to burn. In the process, we return the “used” carbon to the ground but also bury the vital oxygen (O2) we need to be able to survive — leading in the long term to oxygen depletion in our Earth’s atmosphere. Lack of oxygen leads to greater difficulty in sustaining any life on Earth, not only human life.
Another proposal is to use (electrical) energy to modify the carbon dioxide into more useful materials. Where does that electrical energy come from? Maybe by burning more hydrocarbons?
This sounds like a vicious circle leading to even more oxygen depletion.
I am retired and certainly will not live to see my concerns become reality. Nevertheless, we engineers should think not only of short-term (years to centuries) commercial gains but also of long-term effects that can be foreseen — this distinguishes us from most other professionals.
Yours sincerely,
W. Ernst Eder
ASEE Life Member
eder-e@kos.net
Professor Emeritus, Royal Military College of Canada
Kingston, Ontario, Canada