Goodbye Global Warming!...Hello Terraforming?

silance writes "Here is an article from Science Daily detailing a new method for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a large scale and at normal concentrations. Previous systems require placement near high concentration centers such as power plants, and do not address low-concentration sources (such as internal combustion engines) which are responsible for half of the world's carbon dioxide pollution. The article descibes the technology as scalable to the point of repairing Earth's atmosphere to pre-Industrial-Age levels! Next stop, Mars..." I seem to remember something like this in SimEarth ^? - but I'm not going to hold my breath (Ha! I pun!) waiting for this.

Comments

What about trees?

[evilviper]

When did trees go out of fashion?

Why invest so much money trying to replicate what just about all plants do naturally? I mean, geez, perhaps we will surpass plants' abilities to process Carbon Dioxide, but do you think it will run on water, Carbon Dioxide & dirt?

Re:What about trees?

[HiQ]

to harvest carbon dioxide from the air, reducing buildup of the so-called "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere and allowing it to be converted into fuel.
Well, the last part says it all. They can convert it back into fuel. On the other hand, a tree is also fuel, but you try shove a tree up your tank the next time you go for gas!.
Mind you, hope they don't suffocate the trees by extracting too much carbon dioxide.

Re:What about trees?

[Hittite Creosote]

not really an argument, the tree just stores, and when it dies....

...we make it into furniture.

Re:What about trees?

[WetCat]

Actually, it's a common misunderstanding.
Trees has breathing, too.
And the balance from the trees are near zero.
The most part of CO2 -> O2 is done by phitoplankton in oceans.

Re:What about trees?

[hey!]

Actually, a better choice would be to plant crops that could be converted into fuel such as biodiesel. That way the C02 emitted at the tailpipe would be balanced by the C02 captured by the fuel plants, less lossage. I don't know if this is a permanent solution because of the long term demands on arable land, but it could be a way of replacing some carbon emissions whose source is mineral with carbon emissions whose source is atmospheric.

Re:What about trees?

[Cade144]

Trees went out of fashion because they are vulnerable to the very problem we are trying to solve, global warming.
Most species of trees have limited hability zone, raise or lower the temperature or annual rainfall, and the trees die. Dead trees decompose and give off methane (also a greenhouse gas) and C02.

Also, when was the last time you saw engineers tearing up a freeway, parking lot, or strip mall to plant a forest? Current land-use trends are for less greenspace, not more.

Re:What about trees?

[Exedore]

On the other hand, a tree is also fuel, but you try shove a tree up your tank the next time you go for gas.

In some parts of the U.S. we already do... up to 10% of the fuel at most gas stations around here is ethanol. Well, okay, it's grain alcohol not wood alcohol, but you get the idea.

It was an interesting concept at its inception back in the late 70's/early 80's (I think), but it hasn't quite lived up to expectations. I think it's stuck around more as a farmer subsidy kind of thing than an effective way of reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Oh, and I think engine and fuel system longevity is harmed somewhat, too.

Re:What about trees?

[Rupert]

You can put a tree in your gas tank. You just have to bury it really deep and wait a few million years.

Re:What about trees?

[JordanH]

There are huge areas of Russia and Canada that would support more plant life if it were warmer. Also, very hot (and humid) regions support some of densest growth known.

A general heating of the atmosphere may support a great deal more plant life than we have now.

Seems like a fairly dangerous experiment, however. But, if as some are saying that some global warming is here and there will be a trend for some years that's irreversible even if we drastically cut emissions, it might not be a bad thing.

Re:What about trees?

[sydneyfong]

if you want to turn carbon dioxide into fuel you'd need to input energy during the conversion. A LOT of energy too. Most of our energy comes from fossil fuels. and we aren't using the energy we got from fossil fuels to convert CO2 back into fuels!!! I don't think anybody is interested in doing that, unless the gas gets really annoying and there's a much better alternative energy source to provide the energy for conversion.

Re:What about trees?

[hansover]

Seems like a great technology to be coupled with Solar Cells, considering that some of the larger problems with Solar energy is the need to use it or lose it and the limited portability of large collections of cells. If Solar energy is used to supply the energy for the conversion process then we would again have storable, portable octane or other carbon based fuel of choice.

Re:What about trees?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Hey if engines are harmed, then it's also a Detroit Auto Maker subsidy also....if the engine (most expensive part of a car) is killed, you may as well buy a new car! ;)

Re:What about trees?

[letxa2000]

The harvested CO2 is removed from the earth's carbon cycle. This is not a valid long-term way of dealing with the problem.

Why not? I thought the whole global warming problem was that we were pumping too much of it into the atmosphere. If we use this method, aren't we just counteracting our own CO2 production? (assuming we don't take out more than we put into the system).

Or is our CO2 production now considered "natural" and we should just let it run its course? I would personally agree with that, but it doesn't jive with the environmentalist platform...

Re:What about trees?

[bluGill]

Engines are not the most expensive part of a car. A new engine is about a grand. (gas, and big ones are most) A car with a bad engine can be fixed with a new engine. A car with a bent frame cannot be fixed. (Friends in the auto body buisness tell of a $50,000 SUV, 1000 miles that needed $46000 woth of body work after an accident, and that was just to make is drivable, not to make it like new!)

Re:What about trees?

[PD]

Another consideration is that trees will grow more quickly in a CO2 rich environment, until they exhaust some *other* nutrient that they need, such as nitrogen in the soil. At that point, the growth of the tree will fall back again, limited by the shortage of that other nutrient. There's a limit to how quickly and for how long a forest can act as a CO2 sink.

Re:What about trees?

[morcego]

Well, isn't that tipical. Hey, let USA produce CO2 and all other green house gasses, and let the rest of the world take care of it.
Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personaly, but this is something really anoying. Why has the USA refused (AFAIK, the only one to refuse) to sign that protocol/treat that would stablish rules about CO2 production (and other atmospheric emissions) ?
The USA is currently the country that polutes our atmosphere the most, while also trying to boss all other countries what they can do with their forests. I live in Brazil, so I know every well how much USA is bossing about the Amazon Forest. Then I ask, where are YOUR forests ? Oh, did you cut all the trees ? Thought. Now, take care of your all problem.
If you really want to have a part of the Amazon forest, what compensations do you of offer ?
And that is not only the USA. It's a thing we see all contries doing. Brazil does it too with other countries (not about forest, but about other issues). It's the same old story about dumping ones junk on the neighbour's year. If each country would be primarily concerned about it's own junk, we would solve most of the problem.
This CO2 extractor follows the same principle. It tries to circunvect the problem, not solve it. How long before the production of CO2 is greater then these extractors can handle ?
Brazil is a small fish of a country, but we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%, using alchool based fuels, and another few percent points by mixing some of this alchool on out gas. As far as I know, it's the only country where the usage of alchool fuel for cars really worked (not like ethanol in USA, where it's only in some isolated places).
Yes, removing some of the CO2 from the atmosphere is good, but we don't work on reducing the amount of polution produced, we are only delaying the inevitable.

Re:What about trees?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Trees emit ozone in addition to other gases besides breathable oxygen. Further, a square acre of trees will not give the same CO2 processing capability of a square acre of the above-mentioned processing plant. And processing plants aren't subject to drought, disease, bugs, and forest fires.

Re:What about trees?

[GreyPoopon]

Well, the last part says it all. They can convert it back into fuel.

Later in the article, they actually say that the CO2 is used to process the petroleum. In light of that, I found the following interesting.

Cost of the entire process is equivalent to about 20 cents per gallon of gasoline - a nominal cost when one considers the recent price fluctuations at gasoline pumps across the nation, Dubey said.

So, does that 20 cents per gallon include an estimated return on providing petroleum processors with the large amounts carbon dioxide they need? If not, would include that into the equation yield a solution that is cost neutral? Or maybe even cheaper overall? That would be cool. Those places out west that get to pay a premium for gasoline could reduce their costs because there is a CO2 reprocessing center in the nearby desert.

Re:What about trees?

[JordanH]

• Why has the USA refused (AFAIK, the only one to refuse) to sign that protocol/treat that would stablish rules about CO2 production (and other atmospheric emissions) ?

I really don't want to get into this, but. First, a lot of countries have not signed Kyoto. Second, Kyoto has more to do with transfer of economic power from the US to other countries than it does with reducing greenhouse gases. Under Kyoto, countries like China are largely exempt and will begin producing more heavily. Either you are for reducing greenhouse gases or you aren't, I say. This treaty is a sham designed to hurt the US.

• I live in Brazil, so I know every well how much USA is bossing about the Amazon Forest.

Bossing? I think we're just buying them. If you don't like losing them, stop selling them to us. Of course, this ignores the fact that US activists are in the forefront of trying to protect rain forests, even establishing funds to buy up huge swaths in an effort to protect them.

Aren't a lot of the rain forest cut down to support indigenous agriculture? If this is the case, stop increasing your population and stop blaming the US on all the ills of the world.

• Oh, did you cut all the trees ? Thought. Now, take care of your all problem.

We didn't cut down all of our trees. There are huge forests in the US. I believe I read that there are more trees now than 30 years ago through careful management. We may have increased our consumption our trees from Brazil, but that's because many of the fine woods are not and have never been available in the US are plentiful down there. Oh, I think you'll find the Japanese and others, not just Americans, buy a lot of that wood, too.

• Brazil is a small fish of a country, but we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%, using alchool based fuels, and another few percent points by mixing some of this alchool on out gas. As far as I know, it's the only country where the usage of alchool fuel for cars really worked (not like ethanol in USA, where it's only in some isolated places).

I'm no chemist, but I think you'll find that alcohol produces very similar CO2 output to Gasoline for the same energy produced. Alcohol doesn't produce the Sulphur, CO1 and other nasty pollution that Gasoline produces, but similar CO2, I believe.

Re:What about trees?

[fishebulb]

it's too bad that the ethanol is a horrible additive for fuel. Instead of the polution going into the air, it just goes into the water supply.

not to mention the lower fuel effiency you get, the damage to your engine.

talk about political donations being used by companies for their benefit. check the money trail on that one

Re:What about trees?

[evilviper]

At some point in that forest's lifecycle, you will have a steady state where CO2 uptake from new plants will be equal to the CO2 sources from decomposition.

First off, it's now perpetual energy you're talking about. Doing work without introducing any more fuel; CO2 being the fuel in question. Even if half the plants were alive, and half were dead and decomposing, it wouldn't be possible for the output of CO2 to match the rate at which the living plants are consuming it.

Secondly, where would all this decomposition be happening? You aren't going to have half the plants dying every year. Leaves make up only a small percentage of a tree's mass if you are counting on falling leaves.

Re:What about trees?

[jafac]

At the consumer level, the most expensive part of the car is the financing.

At the manufacturer level, the most expensive part of the car is actually the wire-harness and electronics. Which, of course, suffers a similar threat from Microsoft software. . .

Re:What about trees?

[morcego]

• Kyoto has more to do with transfer of economic power from the US to other countries than it does with reducing greenhouse gases.
  This treaty is a sham designed to hurt the US

A sham to hust US ? You can't be serious. And of course it would hurts the USA. US would have to spend money to decrease poluting gasses production. Know what else ? All others would too.

• If you don't like losing them, stop selling them to us.

Again, you must be kidding. Brazil never sold one inch of the rain forest to USA, or any other country, for that matter.
And USA is trying to dictate what Brazil can do and can't do with the rain forest that is on its own territory.

• stop blaming the US on all the ills of the world

I'm blamming the US on all the ills of the US, not all the ills of the world. Please, reread my post.

• We may have increased our consumption our trees from Brazil,

Where did I say anything agains it ? If the Brazil is selling trees, what is wrong with USA buying it ? If there is something wrong with it, it's with Brazil seeing, not USA buying. But that has nothin to do with what I was saying.

• I'm no chemist, but I think you'll find that alcohol produces very similar CO2 output to Gasoline for the same energy produced. Alcohol doesn't produce the Sulphur, CO1 and other nasty pollution that Gasoline produces, but similar CO2, I believe.

Read what I said:
we managed to reduce the polution created by cars in about 20%
Not: we managed to reduce the CO2 emission.
And again, it does produce less CO2. Not that much less, but some.

Re:What about trees?

[Paul Komarek]

I think that part of the problem is that we might be screwing up the cycle. Removing some CO2 now would fix one symptom, but not the problem. Note that these are guesses, and I'm no expert.

-Paul Komarek

Re:What about trees?

[Paul Komarek]

I don't want to comment on everything you've written, just one statement:

"I read that there are more trees now than 30 years ago through careful management"

I've seen a fair number of replanted areas, and number of trees is not really the issue. The trees I've seen were pathetic toothpicks compared to the trees removed. They were overdense, and tended to break during winter freezes or high winds. You couldn't use them for lumber (well, you might get one 2x4 from each, and I suppose you could chip them), because they're too small. If these are the trees you've read about, then we haven't yet replaced any of what we've taken. It's not clear to me that these overdense tree plantings will ever resemble the forests they replace.

-Paul Komarek

Re:What about trees?

[electroniceric]

We didn't cut down all of our trees. There are huge forests in the US. I believe I read that there are more trees now than 30 years ago through careful management.
Be cautious - this is the Weyerhauser spin on trees. There may or may not be more than 30 years ago (which was a really low point of environmental stewardship for our country), but the trees which have been "carefully managed" are softwood - i.e., pulp trees. In places where trees have been replanted, the ecosystems are not the same as they were.

This treaty is a sham designed to hurt the US.
This is energy company spin. While your points about the transfer of economic power are interesting, putting the "they're just out to get us" angle back in there makes your reply a counter-screed to the parent screed. Second, if the US derives economic power from activities which put a burden on the rest of the world, then we gotta make restitution, even if that involves a transfer of power. You gotta pay to play.

If you don't like losing them, stop selling them to us.
The "just stop selling them" argument is a little simplistic. By the same rights, the US has no business fighting a war on drugs abroad - we should "just stop" buying them. Even worse, it's totally cynical. You're suggesting that because we as the US have money, we're totally devoid of responsiblity for what happens when we throw it around, because after all, all those Congolese people "chose" to "sell" us their diamonds. Yes, there is an onus on Brazil to control it's own population and make sensible policy choices about their resources. But the onus is also on us to help them, because it's in our interests, as well as theirs to have less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re:What about trees?

[gnovos]

When did trees go out of fashion?

Why invest so much money trying to replicate what just about all plants do naturally? I mean, geez, perhaps we will surpass plants' abilities to process Carbon Dioxide, but do you think it will run on water, Carbon Dioxide & dirt?

No no, we have to cut down all the trees to burn for energy to run the co2 scrubbers!

Re:What about trees?

[letxa2000]

If we strip the athmosphere of CO2, at some point plant life will run out of air, though I guess that point is way off.

If we get to that point we can either stop stripping so much CO2 out of the atmosphere, or we can just increase greenhouse gas, ehr, CO2 production. Imagine that... increasing pollution to help the plants. Wait, that already makes sense. :)

Consider it like this, chop off a tree and burn it and the CO2 you create will at some point be the "food" of another tree. Chop it down and store the CO2 away and that tree won't have any food

But we don't normally burn trees, at least not on purpose or on a global scale.

Oil reserves are only trees chopped down a long time ago

And, since they've been oil so long, the environment's "cycle" assumes that a certain amount of CO2 will be out of that cycle. Whether it's stored in oil or consumed by our machine is not important.

Just for instance, at flying level, the H2O the planes create (out of Kerosine and O2) is just as damaging to the athmosphere as the CO2.

Sssh. Don't tell an environmnetalist that |gasp| clouds probably have a bigger affect on the whole show than all the CO2 produced by man and nature combined...

Re:What about trees?

[JordanH]

• • This treaty is a sham designed to hurt the US.
  This is energy company spin. While your points about the transfer of economic power are interesting, putting the "they're just out to get us" angle back in there makes your reply a counter-screed to the parent screed. Second, if the US derives economic power from activities which put a burden on the rest of the world, then we gotta make restitution, even if that involves a transfer of power. You gotta pay to play.

You might have a point if Kyoto would actually help matters. Fact is, the reductions of Kyoto are very small or even non-existent (depending on the growth of the exempted countries). There are a lot of atmospheric scientists who think that this level of output is untenable. What Kyoto does is transfer production of greenhouse gases from current have nations to current have-not nations. Since it doesn't really help the Greenhouse gas equation, it's just about retribution against the nasty Americans.

Kyoto is worthless. If there is global warming due to greenhouse gases (not clear yet, could be Solar cycles) and if CO2 is the culprit (not clear yet, could be that reductions in other gases would have much greater benefit), then we need a real global treaty that would take real measures against it. Not just some token move that just penalizes the US out of spite.

• • If you don't like losing them, stop selling them to us.
  The "just stop selling them" argument is a little simplistic. By the same rights, the US has no business fighting a war on drugs abroad - we should "just stop" buying them.

OK, I agree with that. Next.

• Even worse, it's totally cynical. You're suggesting that because we as the US have money, we're totally devoid of responsiblity for what happens when we throw it around, because after all, all those Congolese people "chose" to "sell" us their diamonds. Yes, there is an onus on Brazil to control it's own population and make sensible policy choices about their resources. But the onus is also on us to help them, because it's in our interests, as well as theirs to have less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Well, you've removed all the context of the previous discussion. I was pointing out the irony of his contending that we are "bossing" Brazil around with regard to the rain forests. Turns out, he was objecting to the US (and others, I assume) telling Brazilians that they can't destroy the Rain Forests if they want to! (I didn't realize that Brazilians felt this way, but I guess I should have.)

For the record, I don't think that the US or anybody should be encouraging the clearing of Rain Forests. As I pointed out, the primary reason for this cutting is indigenous agriculture, not lumber, anyway. I guess we need to encourage Brazilians to cut back on their population growth and move toward more productive farming methods. Good thing the US can help here.

I just thought it was odd that he'd be arguing that we were "bossing" them around by buying their trees. I thought this was odd language to use, but I was mistaken about his motivations. He seems to want to have us leave them alone so they can cut down all the rain forest they want and to advise us that we should switch to alcohol for our cars instead.

But, I can see you and I have a basic disagreement here anyway. You do seem to believe that buying and selling is coercive. I suppose you think that working is wage slavery, too.

I agree that we have a responsibility toward the Rain Forests and I pointed out the Americans are in the forefront of efforts to save the Rain Forest.

Re:What about trees?

[eam]

The big problem with relying on ethanol to reduce petroleum dependence is the fertilizer used to grow the grain is a petroleum product. Like so many ideas, this is just an example of moving the petroleum away from the consumer so they don't realize they're still dependant on it.

Re:What about trees?

[Paul Komarek]

From a purely travel point of view, I'd rather go to Finland! I've been to Canada plenty of times.

Thanks for the more optimistic view. It's true that I haven't seen every tree replanting in the US, much less the world. I'm glad to know there are counterexamples to my experience.

-Paul Komarek

Re:What about trees?

[electroniceric]

Now we're at the rub:

But, I can see you and I have a basic disagreement here anyway. You do seem to believe that buying and selling is coercive.

I believe that like all other human activites buying and selling can be highly beneficial for both parties or tremendously exploitive, depending on the relationship between the buyer and the seller. I don't know you, but I'd guess that we agree about on this on some basic level, and probably not at more subtle levels. That is, usury is pretty clearly wrong, but we may disagree about the terms the WTO sets.

I confess that I may bring in the fact that buying and selling can be coercive when sometimes I ought not. It's pretty hard, however, to evaluate the fairness of US trade with have-not nations without noting that we've freqyently intervened with our military in order to set trade terms highly favorable to us. Hence the Congo example.

As for your points about the language of the original poster, your arguments are interesting and cogent. Nicely put.

I suppose you think that working is wage slavery, too.
Touche. How about a compromise where we both limit the invective?

The use sounds too good...

[flipflapflopflup]

Surely there must be some way to turn this into a weapon of some sort.

It would make it easier to get funding.

Re:The use sounds too good...

[sinserve]

Well, we can add "global warming" to the axis of evil.

--

Ooh, SimEarth...

[zaren]

I managed to get Mars terraformed in SimEarth within 50 years... wonder how quick it'll be able to happen in real life, since there aren't many ice meteors floating around for us to grab...

Then again, it doesn't have to be done all at once. Scientists can start by just terraforming one chunk of Mars, and then build out from there. It would make sense to start near one of the poles, where there's a large concentration of ice; that would definitely make things easier at the start.

-----
Aww, FSCK!

Other effects on the environment?

[jacobcaz]

OK, this sounds fine and dandy, but if we're vigorously scrubbing our environment of CO2 isn't there to much of a good thing?

I mean, at what low levels of present CO2 is plant life starting to be affected? I would hate to crank up a system like this and see vast forests just dissapearing because of lack of CO2 levels. I assume there have to be some checks to how much we remove, but if profit is as stake, will there really be those checks?

How can they really simulate this to test all the effects on our environment?

We're looking at MASSIVE changes in our environment if they think they can just rollback the air to pre-industrial revoluiton air quality!

Re:Other effects on the environment?

[Yet Another Smith]

I assume there have to be some checks to how much we remove, but if profit is as stake, will there really be those checks?

This would undoubtedly be a corporation doing it for the government. While there'd be the inevitable cost overruns, I have no doubt that profit motive wouldn't cause the company to overdo it. The reason is this: The government will pay the company its costs plus a reasonable (or not so reasonable) level of profit, regardless of its effectiveness. If CO2 levels get too low, the gubmint will undoubtedly be just as happy to pay them not to take C02 out as they were to pay them to do it. Just look at how profitable it is to not grow corn or pigs or tobacco!

In all they heady corporate growth of the '90s, people of lost sight of that other great motivator of foolishness, bureaucratic inertia. The bureaucrats will have us paying for this long after its served its purpose, but they probably won't make it run amok.

Still, we shouldn't go all the way back to 1750 CO2 levels, since that would probably leave us back in 'mini-ice-age' CO2 levels, which might not be optimal.

By the way, if they're looking for a barren, lifeless desert to put it in, I nominate the Los Angeles Basin. There's nothing there that anybody would miss that much, and it would cut back tremendously on the work the CO2 scrubbers would have to do. Everybody wins!

Re:Other effects on the environment?

[Ioldanach]

By the way, if they're looking for a barren, lifeless desert to put it in, I nominate the Los Angeles Basin. There's nothing there that anybody would miss that much, and it would cut back tremendously on the work the CO2 scrubbers would have to do. Everybody wins!

Actually, I know you're kidding, but think about it... to the east of the LA basin what is there? A bunch of desert (Yeah, they're not right next to it, but for purposes of this plant, its close enough.) Stick this on the edge of the desert and let it suck up all of LA's pollutants.

Of course, the only thing this would have a negative impact on would be plant life, and even that would only be a problem if co2 levels were reduced beyond the normal environmental level, so if it did nothing more than eliminate co2 down to where it should be, you could put this thing smack dab in the middle of LA and it would do nothing but improve the quality of life.

The figures are extremely optimistic

[arivanov]

As a chemist I can say that the idea of capturing CO2 with CaO on an industrial scale is extremely optimistic.

It will consume huge amounts of energy to convert back and the efficiency will be very low. The figures come out so optimistic only if you forget about the fact that CaO gets covered by Ca carbonate quickly and in the absence of water the diffusion of CO2 to the remaining CaO will slow to a crawl.

Only alternative to this is to disperse the CaO to micron sizes which means emitting insane amounts of dust into the atmosphere. Same is valid for extracting back. Unless you make the CaCO3 granules of micron or less size the energy efficiency in recovering CaO is very low.In either case you either need huge amounts of water or you will pepper with CaCO3 dust everything several thousands miles windward.

This reeks of "reaserch" sponsored by specific global warming villains. Just the mentioning of "there is enough fossil fuels" about says it all. No names mentioned... We know them all...

Re:The figures are extremely optimistic

[TeaDaemon]

If you read the article, the CaO is in solution, with the CaCO3 precipitating out, so the dust problem should be adequately controlled.

I do agree with you about the amount of energy required to convert the CaCO3 back to CaO, I wonder if that will be from renewable sources that do not produce CO2?

Re:The figures are extremely optimistic

[Aceticon]

I do agree with you about the amount of energy required to convert the CaCO3 back to CaO, I wonder if that will be from renewable sources that do not produce CO2?

They can just setup a couple of Gas-Fired Powerplants upwind from the CO2 remotion plant.

(Actually, this started as a joke, but it might even work if the ammount of energy generated in the Powerplants for each CO2 molecule produced is lesser than the energy spent removing each molecule from the air.
It mostly depends on:
- The energy gained when generating CO2 from gas + O2
- The efficiency of the gas-fired powerplant
- The energy that spent converting CaCO3 to CO2
- The efficiency of the CaCO3->CO2 conversion
)

[Insert rimshot here]

[eples]

a new method for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a large scale and at normal concentrations

In the study, the old method called Planting a tree, was found to be too conventional and made the landscape too pleasing to look at.

But seriously, this is a GoodThing(tm).

Total Recall

[ZaneMcAuley]

"2 Weeks... euugghhhheuueuueuu.. 2 weeeeekkss..."

Wow...

[Derkec]

This is very, very cool. But we should be very, very careful we know what's going on before we start experimenting with terraforming earth.

The SimEarth Effect

[rgoer]

We'd better watch out... if we've now got terraformers, the next thing you know someone will have kept placing alien monoliths straight onto one protozoa until, lo and behold, "Protozoa have gone sentient!" Now we just have to wait for all those damn nanotech protozoa cities to blast off into orbit...

Don't go too far...

[Bonker]

repairing Earth's atmosphere to pre-Industrial-Age levels!

While I beleive that there is a definite global warming problem and that most people don't understand what that really means... (More severe, chaotic weater, just not hotter weather)

I think that any radical change to the atmosphere should be taken with *EXTREME* caution so as to not make a bad situation worse.

Anyone read Niven's 'Fallen Angels'?

Before the turn of the century, it was not Global Warming that scientists were worried about, but Global Cooling. Several harsh and long winters, some due to violent volcano explosions, had decimated crops and reduced the world's food supply.

Let us not forget that an ice-age will trap valuable freshwater that could otherwise be raining down on crops in the form of glaciers.

Stopping the increase in and even reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses may be a very good thing, especially if it helps reduce the amount of incredibly severe weather caused by global warming.

Reducing it to a set level just because we 'ought to' is not a bright idea.

Re:Don't go too far...

[buckeyeguy]

Might happen anyway... between the aforementioned volcanic activity (I'd say we're due for a big blast, but then I'm not a geologist) and other natural factors, like iron-rich dust blowing off of Africa and spawning large algal blooms in the Atlantic (mentioned here), we could just as easily go backwards on the CO2 chart. Or, as mentioned here, it may be the Amazon kicking it up a notch.

Either way, like the old margarine commercial said, It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!

Re:Don't go too far...

[Gordonjcp]

Global Cooling was the big environmental scare of the 1970's. By the mid-80's it was Global Warming.

Here's a quick newsflash - there's *nothing* you can do about global warming. The greenhouse effect is tiny. What's happening is that we're moving out of a cloud of dust and gas, between us and the sun. In about 1000 years, not just the Earth, but all the outer planets too, will be much warmer. We also won't get meteor showers any more...

Re:Don't go too far...

[medcalf]

Let us not forget that an ice-age will trap valuable freshwater that could otherwise be raining down on crops in the form of glaciers.

Can you get an umbrella big enough to deal with rain in the form of glaciers?

Re:Don't go too far...

[Ioldanach]

Here's a quick newsflash - there's *nothing* you can do about global warming. The greenhouse effect is tiny. What's happening is that we're moving out of a cloud of dust and gas, between us and the sun. In about 1000 years, not just the Earth, but all the outer planets too, will be much warmer. We also won't get meteor showers any more...

Ok, I admin, you've piqued my curiosity. Can you cite a source, please?

Re:Don't go too far...

[Gordonjcp]

There was an article in New Scientist a while back. I saw it in the dead tree edition, and my mind is like a sieve at the best of times, so it would take a while to find it. As soon as I do, I'll tell you where it is.

In the mean time, you could try nasa.gov, or googling "mars icecap melting".

Re:Don't go too far...

[dbrutus]

So how much salt would you hav to dump off the east coast of Canada to restart the conveyer belt? I suspect that about 20 years into this supposed ~50 year process, we'd start mining salt like mad to make such a dump. In a decade, we might even manage it.

DB

Power

[Kensaro]

Hang on, you'd have to cook the stuff to get your lye back as well as pure CO2, wouldn't that require power? Hmmm, lets burn some fossile fuels to get that, we can burn unlimited amounts of fossile fuels now since we can just extract the CO2 from the air again.

Oh, and I've got this model of a perpetum mobile for sale.....

Just dont crack the planet in half..

[ZaneMcAuley]

*recalls a scene from the new Time Machine movie remake where the moon gets destroyed* :D

There is no room for mistakes.

Re:Just dont crack the planet in half..

[Saib0t]

thank you (not) for spoiling a movie I haven't seen yet. Between you and others, I have seen the whole movie without reading a single article discussing it.

Mayor Quimby!

[Chayce]

But Quimby promised if he got elected as president he would HELP global warming so that we could turn antartica into a tropic paradise and also we could have all the fried fish we wanted from the gulf of mexico... I voted for him for president, why didnt you?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Here at Los Alamos, we can do both!

[bachelor3]

Los Alamos enhances global security by ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, developing technologies to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction...

Just covering all our bases, I guess :)

other solutions?

[Apps]

For 20 cents per gallon, you could subsidise a better fuel such as Biodiesel which absorbs more carbon while growing than it emits while being used as fuel.

Also you could plant a lot of trees!!

Re:other solutions?

[foobar104]

thing with biodiesel is the whole food vs. energy... are we really going to grow crops to power vehicles when so many people starve?

We've had this conversation before. The idea that there's a world food shortage is a misconception. In fact, there's a fairly significant annual food surplus. Some of the surplus food is stockpiled, while some is just lost.

People starve because there is a local food shortage where they live. We could get our (where "our" refers to anybody who lives where there's a food surplus, like here in the US) surplus food to them if only it weren't for the excessive cost of fuel.

Full circle.

Re:other solutions?

[Zathrus]

It's more than just fuel costs... there's also issues with warfare. There were numerous stories regarding Somalia and Ethiopia a few years back about how Western countries were sending food to be distributed to the starving populace. And it was rotting on the docks.

Why? Because various warlords wouldn't allow the supply caravans through their territory, or wanted "protection money", etc. to ensure safe passage. Which wasn't budgeted for. So people on the other side starved.

Yeah, I guess with enough fuel you could just airdrop the stuff, which leads back to your argument (which is valid - the concept of a food shortage is a fallacy).

Re:other solutions?

[jafac]

um - doesn't diesel exhaust also cause a buttload of health problems from asthma to cancer? No thanks on the diesel.

Where does it get its power from?

[cperciva]

Wouldn't such an operation require rather a large power budget?

I think the first step in reducing athmospheric CO2 must be to stop the use of fossil fuels for large power plants where clear alternatives (eg, solar/wind/wave/tidal/nuclear) exist.

Re:Where does it get its power from?

[cperciva]

From a scientific viewpoint, nuclear power is a very clear alternative to burning coal. Not only are the available fuel reserves much larger, but the production cycle is much safer (think about how many people die in coal mines), the emission of NOx and CO2 is avoided, and there are much lower dangers posed by harmful waste products (think about how many deaths are caused by inhaling pollutants from coal power plants).

The only problem with nuclear power is that democracy is a tyranny of idiots, and said idiots are incapable of understanding the difference between a stable nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons.

Re:Where does it get its power from?

[dbrutus]

It's not strictly politics, it's more our tort system. Pretty much everybody in the 1st world has a loser pays rule. In most cases, filing a lawsuit is a significant risk because if you lose, you get to pay not only your lawyer but the other guy's lawyer.

Without a loser pays rule, it's cost effective to just sue and sue and sue as long as you have staff lawyers and low fixed costs. Nuclear plant protestors have almost no cost while utilities idling construction workers due to lawsuits have a very high fixed cost.

Pass a tort reform law with loser pays (Republicans are for, Democrats against) and watch nuclear power take off, the healthcare system get radically cheaper, and lots of other good effects.

It's a tough issue because the plaintiffs bar has a lot of rich lawyers funding the opposition.

Re:Where does it get its power from?

[dbrutus]

It's not only your bill that will go up, land prices go up (renewables are low-density power generators) and all other prices go up (electricity is a production cost for just about everything). The only thing that will go down is employment.

It's OK, there's a cure...

[digitalhermit]

Oh, I get it. There's no need to cut down fossil fuel emissions or take active measures using existing technologies because this method of CO2 reduction will cure everything. We can continue living our lifestyles unaffected. Woohoo!

I remember when the media latched onto the AIDS epidemic. People abstained because there was no cure. As soon as word got around that some researcher somewhere thought of an idea that could "cure" AIDS, the risky behaviour started again.

Extremes are always dangerous..

[tcc]

You pollute to the extreme, you see something happening... you wait till the last extreme minute and you do another 180 degree extreme solution to repair it.

I mean this is like punching someone's face untill he's almost dead, and then applying bandages until he suffocates and overdosing him with painkillers. yeah, it might work, but there's always going to be permanent damages in the process, you cannot just do something massive on a planetary scale and "think it'll act like this" with no doubts.

How can you tell that you could fix up the atmosphere to pre-industrial age and not suffocate plants (to name one "possible" example) if you cannot even predict weather correctly? how can you talk about a planetary system when you still have a hard time analyzing the data that you took a century to gather and trim?

Of course, applying such a technology let's say, locally (i.e. car exausts, petro-chems, etc) would fix a BIG part of the problem and be more plausible. I just don't trust someone that comes and claim this big. I am all for revolution but in this case we need evolution (that doesn't mean I wouldn't want RAPID evolution), that way we can rollback if there's something going wrong.

my 0.02.

How irresponsible...

[DickPhallus]

Imagine No Restrictions On Fossil-Fuel Usage And No Global Warming

I kind of found this headline a bit disturbing... I hate things like this because they really discourage any responsibilty... It reminds me of all those miracle diets; "Eat all the fatty foods you want and don't gain a pound." Seems like people today just don't want responsibility.

I'm sure it would be a lot better on the planet on a whole if we aimed to reduce emmisions gradually, thus *if* there were any consequences to the environemnt they could probably be dealt with a lot easier than massive forest die-offs or the like.

Of course reducing emissions need some sort of united effort *cough* kyoto *cough*...

Re:How irresponsible...

[DickPhallus]

On the one hand, this argument looks like arguing against liver cancer research because it discourages drunks from taking responsibility.

I don't know if all liver cancer cases are the result of alcohol abuse or not... and there are plenty of other reasons not to abuse alcohol other than just not getting liver cancer.

And on the other hand, building magic CO2 suckers is like taking methamphetamine to deal with being overweight. A very few people might actually need it, and most need to master certain critical exercises like the "Table Pushaway."

The point I was making is that I think it's irresponsible to invest in such solutions while things like walking, biking, public transit, and everything can help right now, for little or no cost other than personal comfort.

Re:How irresponsible...

[bnenning]

You're proving the point of the poster above who wrote

How many people want to wager that environmentalists will think this is a bad thing. Anything that will allow me to drive my SUV, can't be good, can it?

Seriously, if there were a way to generate enough energy and other resources for our current lifestyles with no environmental impact, how would that not be a good thing? If your goal is to protect the environment, then problem solved. It's only if your goal is to force others to live according to the lifestyle that you deem best that you wouldn't be pleased.

enginneering already in progress?

[Alien54]

Remember Chemtrails?

For anyone not following this bit of madness, Chemtrails are the contrails of jetaircraft that seem to have unusual persistence. The conspiracy folks have had a field day with this, and I remain somewhat skeptical.

One angle on this (see site here) is the speculation that the chemtrails are caused by additives to the jetfuel designed to reduce global warming by reflecting more of the solar radiation into space.

They even cite this US Patent (5003186) as proof of concept.

truely strange stuff.

The thought that someone may already be engineering or terraforming the earth is slightly disturbing.

Re:Environmentalists

[elvum]

They'll be rightly sceptical, because the holes in the theory as presented in this article are big enough for you to drive your SUV through them quite comfortably.

More to the point, how many people want to wager that the energy / motoring lobbies will take this single study and claim it as proof that people can pollute as much as they like, because their children will have the technology to clear up after them?

Trees only is not sufficient.

[AtomicBomb]

An averge citizen in developed world generates 12 ton of CO2 per year. Each hectare of forest can hold 200 ton of carbon in its life time. Assume the avg human life is 75 yrs, we need 4.5 hectare (45000 m2) of forest per person. Again assume the total population of the developed world will be 1 billion, we need to plant 45,000,000 km2 of forest, 4.5 times the size of China. Even if we can find enough land, the task is just gigiantic.

(Well, I understand the ocean can absorb a lot of CO2, we also know there are natual forest. But, they are in equilibrium before Industrial Revolution. If our final target is to become "carbon netural", we need to fix all the carbon that we released from fossil fuel.)

It seems obvious to me that cutting back the generation of CO2 is a must no matter what we are going to do next.

You call it "driving my SUV"

[Hektor_Troy]

other people call it "leaving a potential death trap of a planet for our grand children".

Of course, being a slashdotter, you probably won't get laid, and thus you don't care about the next generations of the species.

Re:You call it "driving my SUV"

[Hektor_Troy]

Well, being chased by various dinosaurs of the meat eating kind probably would be considered a "death trap", but here's a surprise for you:

The average temperature back then was only 1.2 C warmer back then.

Now, you'd better install some big-ass kangaroo-bars on your SUV, if you want it to survive an impact with say, a triceratops.

Enough worrying about global warming..

[xtal]

There isn't that much oil left to burn anyway. Of course, when the oil is done, out comes the coal.. Lofty treaties to limit emissions are doomed by the sad fact there are no good alternatives besides nuclear power, and research into those areas is either non-existant (fission) or outright shunned (cold fusion). Anyone who thinks you can replace the per-day energy consumption of the united states with solar panels and windmills needs a crash course on thermodynamics and a hard look at numbers.

Global warming is the result of a deal with the devil we made for having an industrial society. It's too late to go back now, there's too many people on this planet - 6 billion, or so - and every last one of them wants to live like western europeans and americans.

This sounds like a troll.. but this bitching over Koyoto pisses me off. It won't work. At least Bush has the balls to recognize that, although he hasn't said it outright.

Carbon *dioxide*?

[Hiro Antagonist]

Last time I checked, weren't we more worried about chemicals like carbon *monoxide*, heavy metals, and other compounds that can't easily be dealt with by good 'ole-fashioned carbon-based lifeforms all too well?

And "enough fossil fuels"...right. This article reeks of propaganda.

Re:Carbon *dioxide*?

[TheAwfulTruth]

You need to check again! CO2 is currently the most feared air pollutant. Acid rain will be nothing compared to raising the entire earths temperature by 10 degrees over the next 100 years!

(Not to belittle the other pollutants but CO2 is bay far the most severe problem)

sure, they got a perpetual motion machine too...

[YouAreFatMan]

So, to counteract the effects of burning fuel, they run the air over quicklime, then have to heat the calcium carbonate by burning fuel in order to keep the process going. Can a plant like this even keep up with its own emissions?

Why do I think that this makes as much sense as a car that uses an electric engine driving the back wheels and a generator on the front wheels that keeps the batteries charged?

"Clean" Coal from Los Alamos

[Jordy]

I believe this came out of a program started by Los Alamos called the Zero Emission Coal Alliance (ZECA), a project to turn coal burning power plants into environmentally friendly plants.

Basically, they combine coal, water and calcium oxide to produce hydrogen, calcium carbonate and ash. Hydrogen is used directly as the source of power (fuel cells.) The byproduct of the fuel cells is water and heat that it uses to separate the calcium carbonate back into calcium oxide with a byproduct of CO2.

The CO2 is then combined with powdered soapstone to create magnesium carbonate. Since magnesium carbonate is inert, it can be disposed of easily.

Apparently this entire process works at something like two times the efficiency of standard coal burning plants and has zero emissions into the air.

More information is available at http://www.zeca.org/

Re:Are you one of Bush's aides?

[xtal]

Funny when the only thing you can flame there is spelling (and I'm Canadian, which makes it difficult to be a Bush aide..)

Re:Quicklime

[BeeShoo]

You can download it from www.quicklime.apple.com...
No wait... In the words of the immortal Roseanne Rossanna Danna, "Nevermind".

Re:Preserve the seaweeds

[grytpype]

>I've heard that NASA spent 2 years developing a pen capable of writing in 0g. The russians used a pencil.

Not really. Some pen manufacturer invented and produced the pen at their own cost, and offered it to NASA.

Oceans gobbling up more carbon dioxide

[Slashdolt]

Ok, so more CO2 goes into the atomosphere = more plants. Oh no, more plants!

We're not destroying the planet by producing CO2. Heavy metals in drinking water is a problem, as are many other types of polution, but CO2 is simply not any more of a problem than Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO).

Get a clue and stop buying into all of this alarmist crap. Work to stop real forms of pollution. Scientists need funding to continue research. To get funding, you have to prove that you are working on something valuable. What could be more valuable than "I'm trying to find out if we're destroying the planet!" Don't think that these people are not in this for the money any less than any corporation out there.

plentiful?\

[Scrameustache]

"Fossil fuel supplies are plentiful, and what will limit the usage of fossil fuels is the potential climatic and ecosystem changes you may see as a result of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere," said Los Alamos researcher Manvendra Dubey.

Oh, yeah, fossil fuel reserves are ENDLESS! There will be there for ever and ever! Amen!

And on top of that, this magic neverending fuel source burns so cleanly that we oly have to worry about the CO2, there aren't any other molecules released after buring fossil fuels, no soot, no nothing!

By all means, lets not waste our time and energy (pun?) with research in renewable energy sources when we have magic petra oleum lying around begging to be burned!

the old CBEs are half is a falsehood.

[Shivetya]

Recent studies have shown that the Amazon river outputs an excessive amount of CO2. If that river outputs as much as it does then other rivers can be assumed to also expend CO2.

This means that the old "cliche" that combustion engines account for half of all CO2 are total bunk. They need to go back to the chalkboard and figure out just how much mother Earth actually does herself. While man does impact the system we give ourselves far too much credit for just how much an effect we can have.

Many Environmentalists Won't Like This

[smagruder]

As there are many environmentalist/socialists intent on destroying the global capitalist economy via greenhouse gas reduction standards (and letting Red China off the hook), there will be many against doing something that actually *fixes* the problem. The good environmentalists, who want a healthy planet *and* a vibrant economy, should do everything possible to support ideas like the CO2 extractor. Humankind was "industrious" enough to create the problem, and thus we can fix it too. Perhaps we'll finally be able to have our cake and eat it too... that is, until the fossil fuels run out.

Re:Many Environmentalists Won't Like This

[smagruder]

It *does* work that way. Humankind has oftentimes created solutions to problems created by earlier solutions. That's how progress happens.

The U.S. *currently* has the largest per capita CO2 emissions. But also consider that China has a much larger population, and their economy is developing rather quickly. Before long, China will rival the U.S. in CO2 emissions. So, it's a wonder that short-sighted environmentalist/socialists continue to want China to be let off the hook.

Nevertheless, this American supports increased efficiencies, not just because it helps the environment, but also the economy. And developing alternative power sources is an excellent thing to strive for. Before long, solar and other sources will be far more cost-effective than fossil fuels.

Trees aren't necessarily the answer

[ObligatoryUserName]

I've seen a couple of highly rated posts here mentioning that everyone should just plant trees and then we wouldn't have this problem. As much as I agree with the sentiment there have been a few studies recently that point to the idea that forests aren't really all that efficient in storing carbon dioxide.

Study from this April
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSScience0204/10_carbon-ap. html

Study from 1998
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2 36000/236276.stm

Also, don't forget that planting vast numbers of trees is something that in many places would be a huge ecological change. Just because they provide lots of nice benefits to people doesn't mean that trees wouldn't kill off native species in areas not currently forested.

Climate regulation a dangerous path...

[PeteTheBrickLayer]

Human climate control has been bantered around for some time now. In fact the Global trade in CO2 emissions encourages the idea. The simple fact remains that the existing CO2/O2 global regulations is poorly understood. (The ages of Gaia)

Some more feasible suggestions include the fertilising plankton with the bio-available iron to promote blooms that would mop up a significant amount of CO2 and deposit it on the ocean floor. It is then bound in the sedimentation process.

But despite the ideas there is only one planet and no chance for a f*** up.

I personally subscribe to James Lovelock's Gaia theory of global climate regulation. The climate has controlled itself quite well for the last 3.4 - 4 billion years (with no climate regulation tax or middle management layer!) the real need is to limit our climate impact.

Climate regulation is a dangerous idea steaming from fix-it style engineering ethos.

Enjoy
A pantheist :0)

Re:Preserve the seaweeds

[BadDoggie]

Probably fighting agains rivers/seas pollution is a better idea, since seaweeds are responsible for 90% of the oxigen production are done by them.

Cite that 90%.

I've heard that NASA spent 2 years developing a pen capable of writing in 0g. The russians used a pencil. Cite that 90%.

A lot of people have heard that. It's wrong.

That's exactly the point, don't just start acting, try the simplicity, haven't we learned anything with the fight Windows vs. Unix?

What does Win v. *nix have to do with removing CO2 from the atmosphere?

In case you missed it, Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is rising exponentially, seaweed is limited in where it can grow, and growth is held in balance with the animals the eat it. Oh, something interesting about seaweed.

Simplicity is much better, try preserving seaweeds instead of build expensive CO2 extractors and planting trees.

Nature is NOT simple. Have a look at how simple glucose metabolism is, and then consider it's one of the most basic processes for the majority of animal life.

Oh, and don't forget about the Hydrogen-cells engine, now a days it can be produced, but due to financial problems it is not as popular as it should be.

It's called a "fuel cell", and it's not extremely simple, either.

I'll give you credit and say, "There's one more troll sated."

woof.

I'll bet his answer to the Middle East situation is situation is, "If you guys would simply stop fighting, everyone will be happier."
The world is not a simple place, despite being filled with simple people.

Emission sources - Cows are #1?

[emil]

I heard in a lecture given by Carl Sagan some years ago that the flatulence of cows was the #1 CO2 emission source - fossil fuel was a distance 2nd. Was this/is this true?

The figures they are not releasing

[ipsuid]

Lets take the chemistry a bit further...

Converting the CaCO3 back into CaO will take a minimum of 176kJ/mol CaCO3. (CaCO3 + 176kJ -> CaO + CO2). Not even getting into thermodynamics, it will actually take more energy than that - since it can't be done in anything other than a CO2 atmosphere (since they want to recover the CO2).

But for sake of argument, we will use the 176kJ figure. Now, it will take an enormous amount of HEAT to to release the CO2. How are we going to create this heat? How about fossil fuels!

Let's say we use gasoline to heat the CaCO3 and recover the CO2. Gasoline is nearly the hotest burning fossil fuel. Oxidation(burning) of gasoline follows 2C8H12 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O + 5249kJ.

Wow that's hot! Problem though - we just released 16CO2's in that reaction! No problem, we'll just scrub them out with all the rest of CO2 in the atmosphere (notice this machine is getting more and more complicated as we speak).

The energy required to suck that CO2 that we just produced back into a bottle is going to cost us 2816kJ. Which leaves us with 2433kJ to extract more CO2. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect and we are assuming 100% efficiency.

What does that mean in the real world you ask? Well, given a 100% efficient blackbox into which we feed gasoline and air:

To extract 1 ton of CO2, we will use about 1/4 ton of gasoline (.255ton), almost a ton of O2 (.894ton), and will produce nearly a half ton of H2O (.402ton).

So for all our time and effort, we just created a larger demand for fossil fuels for a process which not only removes CO2 from the atmosphere, but also a NEARLY EQUAL AMOUNT OF OXYGEN!!!

Re:The figures they are not releasing

[Muad'Dave]

What about using solar power? As the article stated, these things should be placed in desert regions, which typically have very high insolation levels. They're also very lacking in water, which is a by-product of this process. I can imagine one of these in the middle of a desert running autonomously creating a mini-oasis to support a small village.

Re:The figures they are not releasing

[Salsaman]

I like that idea. It could also help to wean the Middle Eastern countries off their dependancy on exporting oil. They could start charging other countries to clean up their carbon emissions.

Distributed CO2 Capture makes even more sense

[oxytocin]

KISS:
Most cars have a catalytic converter as part of their exhaust stream, right?

Add this kind of contraption to cars and even slight reabsorbtion of CO2 would become very significant.

As well, as a technology slated for mass distribution, the price would drop fast, rather than a humungus plant in the desert, like they mention.

In summary, there could be a _good_ use for all these things called cars. FWIW I hate the love affair with cars we Americans++ have... Very simplistic calculations show me that with 15-20% less _new cars_ each year, there would be, as predicted in the late 60's by '2001:The Movie', moon bases and all that. Why? E.G.: Ford with about 15-20% of the total car market takes in about $US160B / year ... if you and me spent that $160B/year on 'other things', we could launch 4 missions to Mars!, even at a whopping $40B each -- and still pay lots of people to work their jobz (just for M2M rather than FixOrRepairDaily). And that does not include efficiencies that come from scaling... And, oh yeah, that was _every year_! Well enough OT ranting :)

So lets hope for new cars that consume CO2 rather than produce it! And if we buy a new car every 4 years rather than every 3, maybe someday in "just 30 years" we'll be able to take a Pan AM space elevator up to orbit to board the Mars Express. Any takers?

(btw my math is simplistic but if you want more details, just ask; I could use more eyes on the bugs)

Re: What about photosynthesis?

[CDWert]

Do you know where the majority of the photosynthesis occurs in nature ?

Simple, the blue green algae in the ocean.

Why not, (in a BG rich area of the ocean, anchor just such a platform, "bubbling the co2," to a fair depth, by the time it surfaces you should have extracted a good percentage of the dissolved co2.

Using the principals they speak of,using wind as a tranport vector, using area in the ocean, dont have to worry about nearby (surface) plantlife, and creating such a BG rich area would be an amazing boom to localsea life, wonder how feasable a floating shelf 200 square miles is :)

Re:Preserve the seaweeds

[Grab]

Re the hydrogen/fuel-cell engine, it can certainly be produced, but it's still big, bulky, inefficient, expensive, and uses large quantities of rare metals which require extraction processes which cause much pollution.

Electric cars are only a solution if local pollution in cities is a seriously big deal (eg. LA). It takes several times more fossil fuel to drive an electric car than a gasoline car; the difference is that the burning of fossil fuels occurs at a physically remote place, ie. the power station.

Re preserving seaweeds, most of it is in the middle of oceans where the "humans-pumping-crud-into-the-sea" effect is minimal. The most likely reason seaweed will have a major die-off is due to a sudden rise in ocean temperatures, and that sudden rise could be caused by - hey, here's our old friend CO2 again!

Simplicity is better. And this idea is as simple as it gets - instead of trying to influence CO2 levels indirectly by planting more trees or relying on existing trees (which no-one yet knows will work, see the latest New Scientist), get the CO2 out of the air directly. Job done.

Grab.

Non-Flammable Fuel!

[Grendel Drago]

Tee hee. From the Biodiesel page:

Among the many advantages of biodiesel fuel: [...] Non-flammable [...]

I'd really like my fuel to burn. You know, for the producing of the energy and the putt-putting of the engine.

Yeah, yeah, I know that they mean you can't douse a hobo with it and toss him a lit match, but it's still funny marketing material.

--grendel drago

Re: What about photosynthesis?

[AssFace]

I thought part of the issue with pollution (at least in fresh water systems) was that as CO2 increased, the algae levels grew in a huge way and blocked out various things that were needed in the water - light being one - and effectively changed the ph of the water with their CO2 to O2 conversion and this was bad....

but you are talking of bg algae, which I am less familiar with (other than the health nuts think it is a source of much energy and other properties to eat), and also salt water systems... perhaps that makes all the difference.

Re:Ever heard of "economizers"?

[ipsuid]

Yes, I couldn't find a good graph of this reaction. A good amount of information can be found in regards to CaO production - since it is the whole point of sintering in the cement industry.

I did take a little leeway with the calculations - but thats what happens with a napkin and 5 minutes. There were quite a few things I did not account for - all of which would take up energy. For example, the ingestion and extraction of CO2 would need to occur in two seperate units - likely requiring energy to move the CaCO3 between the units. Also, CaO readily absorbs other interesting gases like the SO's, which I'm not going to drag the CRC back out, but I'm assuming they would require even more energy than the CaCO3 to reclaim the CaO.

As far as efficiency goes - a typical fossil fueled power plant is around 30% efficient. Can be up to 40% maybe even 50% if they implement newer heat reclaiming devices. If you managed to reclaim 50% of the heat from the CaCO3 formation, and you have a 50% conversion efficiency in your blast furnace - you end up in the same place as what I gave. That's why I stuck with giving a 100% conversion efficiency example, and didn't account for reclamation of CaCO3 waste heat.

Can we check the math and the geography?

[John Murdoch]

Hi!

A typical extraction facility that could extract all current carbon dioxide emissions would require only an area of one square yard per person in the developed world. A facility of sufficient size could be located in arid regions, since discharged air that is deficient in carbon dioxide could have consequences on nearby plant life.

Okay--one square yard equals 9 square feet. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre, so 1 acre worth of quicklime would recapture CO2 for 4,840 people. There are, as of April 1, 2000, 281,421,906 people in the United States. So we'd need 58,145 acres of quicklime to process CO2 for just the United States.

Quiz: How big is Rhode Island?
Let's just skip the obligatory comparison to the size of the state of Rhode Island--and concede that we're talking about a lot of land. And, oh yeah--we're also talking about a huge amount of quicklime. Which will, of course, need to be replenished all over those tens of thousands of acres. And building a collection system to capture the calcium carbonate from all those tens of thousands of acres wouldn't be child's play, either. And then it has to be processed, and so forth.

This is the kind of government proposal that used to give the Keynesian macro-economics professors a head rush. Just think of the economic multipliers--think of all the jobs created finding and surveying and buying some 60,000 acres of land. Think of all the money spent on massive construction equipment necessary to find, dig, and move 60,000 acres worth of quicklime. Think of all the steel involved in building the equipment necessary to collect all that calcium carbonate. Think of all the steel, electricity, and machinery that will be required to do all this processing. Think of the tens of thousands of jobs we're talking about. Whoopie!

And, oh yeah! Think about the amount of CO2 generated by the electricity used to produce all that steel; and all the CO2 generated by all those cars driven by all those employees, and all those earth-movers scraping depleted quicklime out, and pushing new quicklime back in.

Still with me? Now consider this: there aren't a lot of vacant 60,000 acre tracts of land available in the Washington, D.C. metro area. So a project of this magnitude would require moving all those tens of thousands of people to wherever this (by definition) arid wasteland would be.

This isn't simple, and almost certainly not feasible
Okay, I'm just a simple programmer and part-time college professor. What could I possibly know? It seems pretty clear to me that this announcement wasn't peer-reviewed, or if it was, the peer-review processing happened at a really good office party. The chemistry might be "simple," but the project would not be.

Re:Can we check the math and the geography?

[BCoates]

Quiz: How big is Rhode Island?

776,960 acres if i did my math right... so less than one tenth of a state you could drop on wyoming without anyone noticing. And it doesn't really have to be one huge facility...

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:Can we check the math and the geography?

[Alsee]

would require only an area of one square yard per person in the developed world

I did a google search and found this site that says "The population of the developed world is about 1.13E(9)". By my math this works out to a 365 square mile requirement.

If we can build a square mile per day (cough cough) we can have this sucker done in a year!

-

Re:Can we check the math and the geography?

[wedg]

How about 1 acre times 60,000 cities/towns/villiages? Or 10 acres across 6,000? 100 acres in 600? It's not *that* hard to find a 1 acre open lot in suburban areas, or to find 10 of them. You could probably easily find 100+ acres that'd be ready for conversion in the Chicagoland area (where I'm from), and the same could be said for other major metropolitan areas.

Furthermore, it'd be easy to couple this with something like a water treatment plant, - no one said the quicklime has to be sitting around on the ground, how about placing it on the roofs of a 10 acre treatment facility?

Sure, it wouldn't be easy, but no where near as difficult as you might suggest.

Re:Can we check the math and the geography?

[John Murdoch]

If you'd told a scholar in 1880 that we would build millions of wells around the world to extract a subterranean liquid, and ship it halfway around the world in giant ships, he would think it was a ridiculous, insupportable project. When people suggest using wind farms or solar plants to replace fossil fuels, these also require huge land areas (like this idea, hundreds of square miles).

That's rather my point: if anybody had set out in 1880 to build millions of wells to retrieve a subterranean liquid, and ship it halfway around the world, he would have been locked up in an asylum. What did happen was that in 1859 a guy named Edwin Drake figured out that the oil sheen on a local stream named Oil Creek must be coming from underground. If he could extract large quantities of it, he could sell it as a substitute for whale oil (which was becoming scarce). Oil City, Pennsylvania (see an unofficial local web site here) boomed.

"We" didn't drill for oil. "Society" didn't expend "it's" resources. Nobody got a government grant, or funding from a government laboratory.

And while petroleum boomed, it was a long time before demand for petroleum led to exploration happening around the world. It was more than a hundred years after Drake drilled for oil that we got to supertankers and deep-water drilling. "We" didn't create the infrastructure at all; and the infrastructure was not created overnight. And during that time a whole market full of consumers demonstrated the financial viability of the scheme. Which is a lot different that saying, "hey--let's build this gargantuan project at Lord knows what kind of bucks, and we'll scrub the atmosphere clean."

[Mounting soapbox...]

General principle:
Massive, and expensive, schemes funded by people who are investing their own money may be good, may be bad--but are probably a lot of fun to watch being built. Massive and expensive schemes funded by people voting to spend your money should be viewed with deep suspicion. Some turn out to be worthwhile (the Interstate Highway System, for instance), others (insert name of local taxpayer-financed football stadium here) are not.

[Climbing down from soapbox....]

1sq m per person?

[Bazzargh]

Hmmm... wonder where could we put that?

Eh? Use more fossil fuels?

[Mike Hicks]

Maybe I'm just turning into a conspiracy theorist, but this looks like it's trying to get people to waste more fuel, and possibly support drilling in more places, such as the oft-contested ANWR.

I don't understand why the US government seems to be so intent on getting people to continue using lots of energy (/me says as he sits in an air-conditioned apartment with numerous computers running constantly..). Okay, I do know -- damn near everyone in the administration came from an oil company. Bush, Cheney, hell, even Condoleeza Rice..

Anyway.. Conserving just a little here and there can do quite a bit, especially since folks here in the US already use the most energy per capita.

I agree with the other comments. Plant a tree (or ten, or a hundred..) Get a slightly smaller car, or at least one with a better engine/transmission. Support biodiesel or other renewable energy sources.

Also, the article doesn't appear to say you can make fuel out of the carbon dioxide -- they just found another way to get a supply for people who already use it (the big one being oil refineries).. So, okay, it allows you to re-use CO2 that gets into the air, rather than just leaving it there. Still, I think trees are probably more efficient at it than this idea (an unscientific quick glance at it, unfortunately).

Somehow, this article just seems to be misplaced optimism..

Pumping carbon dioxide into the ground!

[Taliesan999]

The solution doesn't seem on the face of it to be that bright an idea. Firstly fossil fuels are still a FINITE resource (however much there is it still has to be finite). Continuing to remove these resources from the environment is presumably going to end up with more remote and currently protected places being tapped for their fossil fuel wealth.

It also requires energy to convert the Limestone into quicklime (which produces CO2) the produced CO2 is then pumped into the ground! How long before the site is saturated with CO2? The other option mentioned is reacting it with minerals to lock up the CO2. Minerals that presumably have to be mined and moved to the site in question (using more energy) and are a FINITE resource.

Who pays for this. If these plants are government funded, they effectively amount to a subsidy to the oil industry. If they are funded by a tax on fuel, then perhaps a positive side effect would be making alternative (and renewable) forms of energy more competitive with non renewable forms of energy.

Just a few thoughts.

How many miles per gallon does this thing get?

[cryptochrome]

Seriously, the absolute first thing I thought of turns out to be the one they don't address. How much energy does it take to run this thing? All that shuttling rock around and heating will eat up a few joules, that's for sure. In a worst case scenario it'll produce more waste than it captures.

The fundamental value for any energy source is not how much it costs in dollars, but how much it costs in energy. An energy "source" that requires as much or more energy to harvest and use as it produces is not a viable energy source at all. This is a common dodge, which is often hard to measure. For instance the energy it takes to mine uranium is huge - possibly more than you get from using it in your nuke, to say nothing of the plant construction and maintenance. More directly, many photovoltaic cells require 1/2 or more of the energy they capture in their lifetime to produce (however cheaper, newer thin film cells require considerably less, despite their lower conversion efficiencies).

Re:How many miles per gallon does this thing get?

[tbo]

For instance the energy it takes to mine uranium is huge - possibly more than you get from using it in your nuke, to say nothing of the plant construction and maintenance.

This is just one of those ridiculous lies propagated by the anti-nuke crowd. A pellet of uranium an inch long and half an inch in diameter produces almost as much energy as a ton of coal. If mining uranium is that costly, coal must be far, far worse. Yet, somehow, many civilizations did quite well (energy-wise) using coal for decades.

You don't have to hold your breath

[ahde]

carbon dioxide won't kill you.

Bollocks!

[Cally]

(1) there is no machine, gizmo, doodad or computer that can magically and painlessly fix global warming. Y'all are going to have to get used to paying the price for petrol as the rest of us: about $7 per (British) gallon.

(2) Terraforming Mars? *sigh*... why is it that so many apparently smart people seem to be trapped at a mental age of 14? Grow up, folks, it's NOT - GOING - TO - HAPPEN.

(3) if anyone wants to put some money on this, mail me or reply below.

What about horses?

[KFury]

Trees are about as efficient for straining out CO2 as horses are at transporting people.

If we didn't replace horses with cars, we wouldn't have to replace trees with this thing.

Besides, trees aren't cutting it at the moment (err, so to speak) and trying to acquire and protect a new forest the size of the United States is harder than finding 60Km^2 in a desert.

Re:Solution to a non-existing problem?

[MillionthMonkey]

Am I the only one to find this strange : each time a story talks about taxing cars, taxing fuel or signing the Kyoto protocol (for example) to help solving the global warming problem, a whole lot of people come in and claim that global warming doesn't exist, that it's a natural process, or that G.W. Bush is right not to do anything to solve it.

You forgot the derisive comments making fun of the Big Bang and evolution, which are completely offtopic in these threads but always come under attack. And the suddenly atrocious spelling everyone has.

Life terraformed the earth.

[Codifex Maximus]

There is nothing more powerful in chemical conversion than life. Life converts chemicals faster than any acid or agent known to man short of the sun or other nuclear reactions.

Life, however, is subject to a narrow band of habitable conditions. Raise or lower the ph, temperature, gas content of it's growth medium, or food availability and certain forms of life ceace.

Left to it's own devices, life will adapt but maybe not as we would wish. We think of ourselves as intelligent - let us prove it by stopping our meddling with natural processes. Creating manmade forms of removing gasses from the atmosphere will only create more expenses and costs - not to mention byproducts. We need to work WITH nature rather than battling it.

For energy we have the sun. Almost all forms of energy can be traced back to the sun in one form or another. Nature has found a way to convert solar energy into stored energy in the form of sugars. We have found ways of converting solar energy into usable gases which have a net zero effect on pollution - hydrogen/oxygen electrolysis for recombination in a feul cell. Lets develop this technology and avoid the original problem altogether. We could make better or more efficient alcohol or hydrogen burning engines at the very least.

Our very health is dependant on economic considerations. It seems that there isn't much money to be made from fixing the problem - profits are being made treating the symptoms - bottled water and air filtration systems. I guess those who profit feel that they can buy a livable atmosphere and potable water and poison free food while the rest of us suffer and die. What a bleak future we're likely to have - what a promising future we could all have if we just think. Assist or allow nature to fix itself.

Re: What about photosynthesis?

[ryanflynn]

Wired had an article about a year or so ago (can't remember the issue...sorry) about scientists that tried to promote blue green algae growth by dumping iron shavings into the water (iirc... it was something weird)... in an attempt to get the algae to combat global warming.

It failed. Not only did they not grow enough algae to call the experiment a mild success, but there were side effects, i believe they managed to kill off alot of fish.

I know I'm light on the details, but history is full of these kinds of things... someone thinks there is a simple answer to a problem, but their efforts are short-sighted and only create a larger problem (the US gov't has done this a million times).

Unfortunately, I've looked through www.wired.com/wired ... the article was a minor one. I believe the article with in the first half of 2001 if anyone wants to check their archives

CO2, Methane

[SkewlD00d]

Remember that movie "The Arrival" ? Power-plants, I mean teraform factories.

Btw, you know there's a form of solid methane called Methane Hydrate on the ocean floor?

Re: *cough* kyoto *cough*...

[bnenning]

The US was never in the Kyoto treaty; the Senate had already unanimously rejected it.

Why don't we...

[SkyLeach]

Do what we have known forever is our best economical bet: switch to 100% ethonal alchohol.

In HS I did a science project with ethonal. I produced enough alchohol from fermenting garbage to power a small remote control car. The alchohol provided a much higher octain rating than gas, burnt much more cleanly, and kept the engine cleaner.

The main reason that alcohol isn't taken seriously as a fule alternative is because many people make the claim that it is too expensive to produce. That's like saying the PC would never sell because it was too expensive to produce. Alcohol could benefit just as much from mass-production as any other resource. Some conjecture suggests that the natural temperature in the mid-western states would allow construction of massive solar-powered brewing facilities to produce the alcohol from waste grain, third-grade hops and organic garbage. These types of facilities should be capable of producing enough alchohol to fule the majority of the cars in the US: just from waste resources.

But don't expect OPEC and the oil industry to let that happen without tons of lobbying and some mud-slinging.

Re:Why don't we...

[red5]

The main reason that alcohol isn't taken seriously as a fule alternative is because many people make the claim that it is too expensive to produce. That's like saying the PC would never sell because it was too expensive to produce. Alcohol could benefit just as much from mass-production as any other resource. Some conjecture suggests that the natural temperature in the mid-western states would allow construction of massive solar-powered brewing facilities to produce the alcohol from waste grain, third-grade hops and organic garbage. These types of facilities should be capable of producing enough alchohol to fule the majority of the cars in the US: just from waste resources.

Is it me or did you just describe the american beer industry.

Re:Why don't we...

[SkyLeach]

LOL. American beer isn't... well... ok perhaps you're right.

Re:Why don't we...

[SkyLeach]

Oh GAWD, I was a Sr in HS, about 17. Now I'm 26: I don't know where any of that stuff is anymore. ;)

60,000 acres is reasonable

[jeff.paulsen]

60,000 acres is the size of a moderate wheat ranch in Montana. It's a tiny fraction of the size of the US, and it doesn't have to be centralized. We're talking about facilities comparable in size and complexity to sewage treatment plants, on a per-capita basis. If we can build power plants and the infrastructure to support them, we can certainly build these.

As for the industrial side of getting all that quicklime, that's not a huge endeavor compared to any other kind of mining. We pull so much copper and bauxite and titanium and coal out of the earth that extracting a few million tons of quicklime wouldn't change the scale of the world's mining industry perceptibly.

Would it work? Maybe, maybe not. BUT, the argument against it on size and complexity does not appear valid.

Re:60,000 acres is reasonable

[jeff.paulsen]

concentrate on imagining a one square mile machine. This is not a farm, you don't throw seeds in the ground and walk away. This is a massive facility that needs to be built, serviced, and resupplied.

You mean, like an oil refinery, or a one mile section of any industrial area in any city in the world? OK, I'm imagining it. We've got thousands and thousands of them worldwide. Building and running an industrial complex is something that modern civilization understands and has lots of experience in.

As for your other arguments, I agree that scrubbing is not the best general solution, and might not be a net win at all. BUT the size and complexity of the scrubbing system is well within our capabilites.

Re:1 square yard per person?

[dbrutus]

There's a lot more than 2007 square miles of unoccupied desert in just the US alone. We could stick this in the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia and nobody would even notice other than the government accountants who would get money from other countries for something other than oil.

Re:As with usual PopSci / PopMech articles...

[dbrutus]

Actually, flying cars/personal seem about ready to roll (http://www.moller.com), we're just waiting on an air traffic control system that can handle them (expected rollout date 2015). I'd expect that we start seeing a corporate intercity taxi service about 2008.

Re:Preserve the seaweeds

[evilviper]

I've heard that NASA spent 2 years developing a pen capable of writing in 0g. The russians used a pencil.

Despite the fact that this isn't true, it brings up an issue.

Russia, The USSR, the country that we were deathly afraid of for decades, didn't have the technical capability to build a ball point pen that didn't leak. They could make the machines of war, including atomic bombs, but their manufacturing & engineering was so primitive that they were paying large sums of money to import American pens because they couldn't produce a decent one themselves.

If I remember correctly, the source of that information was a book called 'If you were born in Russia'.

This just in!

[Ogerman]

April 15th, 2034 Dissociated Press
---
New research suggests that the use of CO2 scrubbers in our planet's atmosphere during the past 20 years may indeed have permanently damaged the delicate balance of our environment. Scientists have dubbed this phenomenon "the drafty window effect" and believe it may be the principle cause of Global Cooling. Last week, environmentalists were outraged when the latest satellite data suggested that massive new ice shelves have begun forming in Antarctica. "We need the government to recognize the severity of this situation and take action immediately through an international treaty," one protester commented. Last month, the current Republican administration rejected the Otoyk Treaty, which would have mandated that all CO2 scrubbers be shut down and new fossil-fuel power plants be installed to help increase atmospheric CO2 levels. "There's really no scientific evidence that CO2 scrubbers are having a significant impact on the environment. Harvesting CO2 for landmass creation is a valuable industry that we're not ready to abandon," one official told reporters, "this so called 'global cooling' could all be a natural cycle. We really don't have enough data to say for sure." Some scientists claim that Global Cooling is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a period of reduced solar and seismic activity. "We've known for years that volcanoes are the largest producers of 'drafty window'-insulating gasses," one researcher mentioned. Regardless, it's clear that this debate will continue for some time.

thanks; that was an amazingly thorough explanation

[emil]

I had no idea that methane was such an active greenhouse gas.

A problem for who?

[HiThere]

Carbon Dioxide isn't a problem for the planet. It's a problem for the species of life that live on the planet. Some of them aren't bothered much. Some find it an opportunity. Some find it an annoyance. And some find it deadly.

Humans fall in the middle range here. Unfortunately, many of our cities are built at around sea level. Scientific American recently published a rather alarming article about New Orleans. Basically it said that the city was in a shallow bowl at near sea level, and now the height above sea level was small enough, and the barriers to surf were small enough, that we could expect the city to become submerged to a depth of up to 30 feet the next time a hurricane came in from an unfavorable direction. It also listed the efforts that were underway to correct the problem, but to me they looked like the "too little" variety. They aren't (yet) "too little, too late", but things are clearly headed in that direction.

Note that this doesn't threaten the human species. This threatens a bunch of individual people. The only way that the CO2 emission would threaten the human species is if rising sea levels instigated a war for living space. But that doesn't seem impossible. (Still, is it fair to attribute that problem to global warming? Perhaps one should realize that causation just isn't simple, and say that global warming was a contributary factor.)

Species that can't move for one reason or another (e.g., they are in a preserve, and surrounded by people), or which are sensitive to the amount of CO2 around (e.g., coral reefs that are more soluble in a more acidic ocean) are more directly threatened. Species that can move north (or south) are less threatened. They can adapt by moving to a new location.

The earth has often been warmer in the past than it is now. But the life on the planet is adapted to the current climate. Changes will cause a lot of stress, and numerous deaths both directly and indirectly. So it's not minor, either.

Other methods studied as well

[Cy Guy]

ChooseClimate.ORG has a article that reviews many alternative climate engineering approaches for either removing CO2, or perhaps more intriguing, reducing the amount of sunlight that gets to planet's surface.

The article reviews an otherwise unrelated strategy that also involve using quicklime, but notes that burning the fuel needed for quickening the lime produces almost as much CO2 as the lime is able to absorb.

I think this system will only work if the CO2 absorbent material is produced in way thast doesn't produce any signitficant amount of additional CO2, for example using either nuclear energy, or waste heate from another process, to convert the lime, or finding a material that takes solar energy to produce a CO2 absorber (wait a minute, we already something that does that, its called photosynthesis).

Re: What about photosynthesis?

[Cy Guy]

Wired had an article about a year or so ago . . .

Here's a link to the WIRED Article. The experiment you're talking about was called the Southern Ocean iron release experiment [SOIREE].

Some additional information on this strategy can be found here and here.

The problem behind any algae based solution is A) get enough nutrients to algae (thus the iron), and B) get the algae to sink to sea bottom where the CO2 won't just be released back into the atmosphere when the algae decomposes. The problem with this experiment was that A) worked, but B) wasn't addressed.

Re: What about photosynthesis?

[CDWert]

When I said extracted, I meant the Blue Green Algae should have extracted,

Yes I am thinking I want to PUT the Co2 into the Water and the Algae will "extract" much of it for its own uses (reproduction its air, etc)

I dont want to pull it out of the ocean youre right that wouldnt make sense, I wan the Algae to extract it (or most of it)

The Diesel engine was INVENTED for this.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

For 20 cents per gallon, you could subsidise a better fuel such as Biodiesel [biodiesel.com] which absorbs more carbon while growing than it emits while being used as fuel.

In fact the Diesel engine was originally develooped to burn renewable fuels such as vegitable oil - mainly in response to shortages of crude oil in wartime due to lack of local oil resources plus blockades.

Diesels can also use the byproduct fats and used oils from food processing that are no longer suitable for human consumption. THAT's not a food/fuel tradeoff.

Geez. You can STACK it!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Okay--one square yard equals 9 square feet. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre, so 1 acre worth of quicklime would recapture CO2 for 4,840 people.

They're talking one square yard of SURFACE area, not a square yard of GROUND. (Unless the engineers are dumb enough just to let the quicklime lie around and scrape it up with bulldozers for recycling.)

You can STACK it - trays in rooms in floors in skyscrapers. You can GRIND IT UP into powder to get LOTS of surface area in a tiny volume, then put a massive volume inside a container.

Three-D has LOTS more surface than Two-D, as much more as you want.

It's time to think INSIDE a box.

Why not move to food? Because...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The real question is why people stick around in an area with a food shortage? ... Why not just move the people out of there? ... Is there something I'm missing here?

Yes.

There are already people living and working in the areas with food. A sudden influx of starving foreigners who really "will work for food" depresses the labor market and their standard of living - quite possibly down to that of the starving immigrants, or even lower.

So there is resistance to such migrations by the people in the "area with food" - or land or whatever. This can be very violent, even if the people in the moved-to area are of the same race, culture, and citizenship. (Read the history of the "dust bowl" in the US for an example.) When the immigrants are NOT clones of those already there it gets worse, to the point of genocide.)

Examples of this abound, even in the US. (Consider the treatment of the Irish Ptoato-Famine immigrants, especially in the West - or their effect on the Indian population.) The US is able to absorb immigrants now without major wars resulting - but only because of its massive surplusses of food and goods. Yet even here there are repercussions and conflict.

But to really understand the violence invovled, recall that all the "colonialist genocides of indigineous people" are the result of just such migrations as you propose as a solution to a short-term (decades) resource shortage.

In the most visible current example of how migration can lead to cofilict the migration was over land for establishing, and then securing, a state, rather than food. But you can still see in the Israel/Palestine conflict the result, after only half a century, of a migration for resource acquisition.

Isn't it better to try to figure out how to grow food, or make something to trade for food, where the starving people currently live? Even if it means they're dependent on charity until they get their infrastructure bootstrapped?

Not Quite

[BlackGriffen]

Plants actually switch over to metabolizing oxygen in to CO2 at night, so that over a 24 hr cycle, plants do very little to change CO2 to oxygen, except for any energy stored.

The vast majority of O2, IIRC, comes from microorganisms in the ocean. So if CO2 is building up, we may be polluting the oceans too much, or the little buggers may just not be able to keep up.

My problem is how the machine was presented. They said something to the effect of "Trap CO2 with lime, heat lime to let out and bottle, repeat." The energy to heat the lime has to come from somewhere, where will it come from? If they burn anything for that energy, they'll operate at a loss (guaranteed). Solar? Wind? On site nuclear reactor? How are they going to minimize the loss of lime as the thing operates? Just engineering concerns, I suppose, but there are lots of things that are possible except for "engineering concerns."

BlackGriffen

Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny...

[sydbarrett74]

...when Vinny is interrogating some redneck and asking him to identify 'these little green things blocking your view.' Yes, TREES, people! Are these scientists slightly more-educated versions of this hick? Have they never heard of trees? Why waste money and time on complex, esoteric technological solutions when simply planting trees will work? I laugh at all these yuppie suburbanites who have manicured lawns and spend so much time and money. Why not revert the land to its natural state? Replace the grass with trees and shrubberies. Not only is it more environmentally friendly (less water, no pesticides or herbicides, more CO2 extraction), but it also takes negligible effort to maintain! What is this American obsession with having a sprawling lawn? It's silly. I'd much prefer to see a house in a wooded, natural setting than one in the middle of a denuded lot with a couple of loblolly pine-trees planted as a token gesture.

seems familiar

[doooras]

didn't they do something like this on Apollo 13 with the cover of a notebook, a plastic bag, and a sock?

Let Me Get This Straight ...

[StormyMonday]

We run air over calcium oxide, which absorbs CO2 and turns into calcium carbonate. We then heat the calcium carbonate to turn it back into calcium oxide and CO2. Now we react the CO2 with something to take it out of the actmsphere. Like, say, calcium oxide.

How do we make calcium oxide in the first place? Heat calcium carbonate to drive off the CO2.

Looks to me like the greenhouse gas version of perpetual motion.

Re:new car vs. engine swap (OT)

[Forge]

Rust is a major problem hear too. Jamaica is an island after all and nothing suplies salt mud like a good sea breas on a rainy day.

And the engine prices sound about right. Except for Toyota engines. I can replace mine for U$350 or so.

Next Stop Mars!?

[Lars T.]

Okay, what am I missing here? What does this have to do with terraforming Mars? Do you want to somehow ship the extracted CO2 to Mars?

Just one example: In 1989: Total CO2 Emissions from Illinois cement production was 1,345,950 tons[short tons]. The Space Shuttle can transport a max. of 29 (metric) tons into orbit. I guess you can all calculate how many starts it would need to ship all this CO2 to Mars. (AFAIK to terraform Mars we'd need much more CO2 than that anyways).

Maybe we can come back to that plan when we can beam CO2 to Mars ;-)

Re:Preserve the seaweeds

[Grab]

I'm part of a team working on one of these at the moment. Yeah, they're pretty good, certainly better efficiency than pure electric cars.

Of course, this has been buggered senseless by the marketing ppl. Honda and Toyota went out and said, "Let's build a car that's really efficient. And if we're going to make it efficient, let's use a small, well-tuned engine (which is adequate for any day-to-day use) and make the car nice and light."

Ford OTOH (my employer) said, "Screw that. We're building an SUV with a 2.3l engine. It only gets 30mpg compared to the 50-60mpg of the others, but hey, it's an SUV." Great...

Grab.