Discussion on:

Converting danger into energy: Rwanda to divert lake's lethal gases to power plant

One of the major reasons the lake will become more acidic is the return of the CO2 to the lake. It reads like their system will incorporate a CO2/methane separation filter such that only CO2 will be returning to the lake. My question is: why return it to the lake at all? Its redundant, and the cost of the system to do so will cost the same or more to install and maintain vs setting up large near-site greenhouses for the CO2 to be pumped to. A quick google search for 'CO2 plant growth greenhouse' will yield a plethora of articles and coverages about how beneficial increased CO2 levels to plants is capable of being. It not only will actually result in a lower lake ph level than if this project was never implemented but also create jobs working in the greenhouse, increase crop and food yields, and also increase plant and fish life (and therefore yield) in the lake from a healthier ecosystem, thus more fish for the fisherman, not to mention sequestration of the CO2. It shouldn't cost much more, and possibly even less than the return system, depending on CO2 amounts (something unfortunately not stated in the article).

Growing plants with the collected CO2 won't sequester it whereas putting it back in the bottom of the lake will. Any plants grown will be consumed by people or livestock and will be released into the atmosphere after being trapped for millennia.

Taking the methane out of the lake and burning it to produce power also converts it to CO2 which is a less powerful greenhouse gas. I have to think that is a good thing.

How many times have you lectured that the problem with CO2 is its longevity in the atmosphere, whereas methane, while a much more powerful "greenhouse gas" is relatively short-lived?

Methane is still about 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. If it's going to end up in the atmosphere anyway the sooner it's converted to CO2 the better. When methane (CH4) oxidizes in the atmosphere you get one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules (mostly).

Sounds too good to be true but I am hoping it is a go. It is truly a brilliant idea if safety is job one. But that is the problem. When the scientists and engineers go home for the day, all too often it is the Homer Simpsons that are running the place.