Slashdot Mirror


$25M Bounty Offered for Global Warming Fix

SaDan writes "Richard Branson is offering $25M as a bounty for a fix to global warming. The person or organization that can devise a method to remove at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the atmosphere will be able to claim the bounty. There are a few catches, of course. There can't be any negative impact on the environment, and the payment will come in chunks. A 5 million dollar payout will be paid when the system is put into place with the remainder of the bounty to be paid after 10 years of continuous use."

10 of 766 comments (clear)

  1. Thats simple, Plant marijuana by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is in the top 10 for CO2 fixation! It has over 25,000 uses of which smoking it is just 1!

    We can make cloths, shoes, rope, cardboard, paper, and other goods from the fibers.
    We can make bread, cooking oil, ethanol, bio diesel, and bird food from the seeds.
    We can smoke the buds to relax.

    Problem solved! We just plant it everywhere! Along the roads, in the unused fields, around the government buildings, just everywhere. No more global warming!

    Interesting how the CO2 levels started to rise just after the government banned growing it!

    We can also reduce the "War on Drugs" budget and redirect it to research on global warming. There is an instant $6,000,000,000 per year to find alternate energy sources. :)

    Problem solved, now take that $25,000,000 prize and give it to the Marc Emery defiance fund.

  2. Re:Solve global Warming and more by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't know if you realise this, but a very similar solution to a very different problem was proposed a few centuries ago:

    http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

    (Read it through. It's worth it)

  3. Re:Plant Respiration by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Algae goes wild when you dump fertilizers in a stream, and can utterly choke off all life in a river or lake. I'd be very very wary about any plans to grow it "en masse" in the ocean, seems like the type of thing that'd easily get away from you.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  4. Re:Ok but that brings me back to the 2nd question by angrymilkman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    fire it into the sun?? what if the rocket explodes like the challenger and we get showered by highly nuclear waste?

    --
    ...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
  5. Ridiculous PR Stunt by mpapet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's been a while since I've done these calculations, but I think the present value of the so-called $25 million bounty is $6.2 million with the payment schedule given. That's what $25 million with the payments laid out as proposed is worth today at 4% return.

    We don't pay anyone already producing lots of oxygen with their undeveloped lands, why would anyone buy the earth-saving properties of the as-yet unmade device?

    Not only is the bounty $6.2 million, but the innovator doesn't appear to have any kind of way to sustain the earth-saving properities of this device.

    This is an example of why we are in what most indicators suggest is a global warming scenario of our own making.

    Despite what the popular political opinion attempts to have us believe, So-called "Free-markets" do not accomodate the health and general well-being of humans or their environment.

    Discuss amongst yourselves

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  6. Re:Plant Respiration by reverseengineer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Warning: back-of-envelope calculations follow. The bond energy of the two carbon-oxygen double bonds in carbon dioxide is about 374 kilocalories per mole of carbon dioxide. At 44 grams CO2 to a mole, a billion tons of carbon dioxide (using 1000kg=ton) is on the order of 2x10^13 moles. This would require 3x10^13 megajoules of energy, which to provide in one year (31556926 seconds) would demand 950 gigawatts of power, which will undoubtedly require more than 25 million dollars to generate. This assumes perfect efficiency in the process, of course, and does not factor in any carbon dioxide released in the generation of that much power.

    The reason this process works so well in plants is that frankly, that's not how it works in plants at all. While photosynthesis involves the net breakdown of carbon dioxide and water to form oxygen and glucose, it's a complex set of separate, but connected reactions, rather than just using sunlight to blast oxygen atoms off carbon dioxide. For instance, the oxygen produced doesn't come from carbon dioxide- it comes from water split by sunlight, with the help of an enzyme. The carbon dioxide that enters plants is never actually split apart- it's simply fixed into an organic molecule, and used to generate a glucose precursor. Breaking down carbon dioxide to its component elements is simply too energy intensive.

    I suppose that's an idea though- if there were a catalyst that could fix carbon dioxide into an organic molecule, and do so at reasonable conditions of temperature and pressure, it might provide a useful way of recycling carbon. For example, if you could react carbon dioxide with methane to produce acetic acid, you could pull two greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and use them to make an industrial product (and one which could be conceivably then be used as a feedstock for plastics and fuels). Currently, this process uses carbon monoxide and methanol (made from steam reforming of methane, actually), in the presence of a metal catalyst- it seems like it could be done with CO2 and methane instead. Even if the economics might not be as favorable, the benefit in sequestering greenhouse gases might be worth it.

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  7. Re:I'm sure we could by yog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Put a couple thousand square miles of solar cells out in the desert, and for every megawatt they generate, reduce coal/gas/oil energy production by that much.

    Install wind generators up and down the coast, and similarly replace coal.

    Use some of this energy to create hydrogen from coal, and use that to power automotive fuel cells.

    Mandate (and pay for) bicycle lanes on every thoroughfare in every city. Offer health insurance discounts to people who bike to work most of the time. Make biking a safe, cheap, and convenient way to travel and people will use it.

    Implement modern, safer nuclear technology. Rocket the waste into the Sun, or maybe dump it on the Moon or a passing asteroid.

    Create solar powered ozone production plants with 5-mile-high smokestacks to replenish the earth's O3 layer.

    How do we pay for all this? Halt the war in Iraq, and use the hundreds of billions we save from that. Also, exploit space; send robot mining ships to obtain 10000-ton platinum and gold asteroids and the like; one or two of these will pay for everything.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  8. Re:Plant Respiration by grcumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mass genocide of all developing countries humans then use that now vacant land to plant the trees. Your idea has merit, but it would be far, far more efficient to kill the rich, as we spew out orders of magnitude more pollution per capita than the poor.

    Don't think we haven't thought of this....

    signed,

    The Developing World

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  9. Re:Ok but that brings me back to the 2nd question by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Going to nuclear is only a transformation of waste. Simply this is a shift in waste not a solution. Then suddenly its no longer CO2 but it is some radioactive stuff that needs to be buried for thousends of years underground. One might store CO2 in the first place underground and skip the expensive uranium in between. Remember uranium isn't an endless power solution either, thats why we try to research fusion. Uranium is a limited feul on earth. Current estimated accessible uranium reserves are enough to last approximately 500 years, at the current rate of consumption. If all electricity production (hydro and other "clean" power included) was converted to nuclear, there'd still be enough for nearly 80 years. This is assuming the current wasteful method of not reprocessing fuel. Waste reprocessing, which itself generates energy, would increase the fuel utility by a factor of 10, and would eliminate nuclear waste entirely. In short, we have enough fuel to run fission reactors in place of all the conventional CO2 generating power plants for over 1000 years. Fuel is not the problem. The problem is enviro/peacenik whackos who conflate nuclear weapons with nuclear power and tar them all with the same brush. People like that create a groundswell of popular ignorance that leads to things like Jimmy Carter signing an executive order banning the building of ALL breeder reactors. A particular type of breeder reactor is used to make weapons-grade plutonium. Fuel reprocessing breeder reactors, however, create an inseperable mix of plutonium that is utterly unusable as a weapon. Now why Carter, a trained nuclear engineer, would ban all breeder reactors is a question with only two possible answers: a) the man's an idiot and faked his way through school, or b) he was making a purely symbolic, political gesture. The issue of nuclear power has been thoroughly politicized, to the point where it's hardly about science anymore.

    The best things here would be a natural energy source. All energy sources are natural, from water running downhill, to hydrocarbons combusting, to atoms splitting. You can't apply a "back to nature" philosophy to the production of energy!
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  10. Re:Plant Respiration by Apu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suppose that's an idea though- if there were a catalyst that could fix carbon dioxide into an organic molecule, and do so at reasonable conditions of temperature and pressure, it might provide a useful way of recycling carbon. For example, if you could react carbon dioxide with methane to produce acetic acid, you could pull two greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and use them to make an industrial product (and one which could be conceivably then be used as a feedstock for plastics and fuels). Currently, this process uses carbon monoxide and methanol (made from steam reforming of methane, actually), in the presence of a metal catalyst- it seems like it could be done with CO2 and methane instead. Even if the economics might not be as favorable, the benefit in sequestering greenhouse gases might be worth it. Question... Did you think of this idea before the back of envelopes calculations or after? Because, if after, than the bounty is already doing its thing. Whether or not your particular idea is really feasible isn't the key -- as others have pointed out, it would probably take more money to make sure every idea was really feasible. The bounty is making people think of things they didn't think about before and imagine the possibilities. "Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Carl Sagan