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."
How much carbon dioxide does a single tree consume in a year of respiration and how many trees could be planted for $25 million?
Either that or find a way to build large scale air scrubbers that simulate plant respiration (stripping the carbon atom off a CO2 molecule and releasing O2), then compress the pure carbon into bricks for use in industry. If it could be done cheaply enough it might not just be eco-friendly, but profitable as well, with the $25 million payment as a bonus.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
All we need to do is drop a large ice cube in the ocean every now and then. Thereby solving the problem.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
It's called an air-conditioner. Duh.
Yes, Martha, I'm fully aware that the Carnot cycle shows that air conditioners cause a net heating of the environment when the heat dump and the cold reservoir are summed. That is to say the above is a joke.
Why, that's just ~32 tons of CO2 per second. Piece of cake.
Global warming? What is that, some new street drug? And $25M for one shot? Crazy...
I have discovered a truly marvelous
Trees....lots of trees.
Solar powered. Self-sustaining, self-propagating...pretty much self-everything.
It's pretty obvious to do any carbon dioxide scrubbing on a large scale, it's going to require a process that requires as little artificially-induced energy input as possible.
How about large saltwater algae beds in arid regions adjacent to the ocean? Harvest the algae, press out the plant oil, and make biodiesel. Algae is probably the most efficient crop for something like this.
Carbon sequestration is relatively easy. Plant more trees, create artificial algae blooms...Anything green and growing will take in a lot of carbon. There have been studies recently dealing with certain types of pine trees that even suggest that the trees are growing faster in the higher CO2 environment we're making for them, which suggests that natural processes will step up to take advantage of the carbon rich environment.
The problem is, all these solutions are geologically short term, and they're not as space-efficient as say, coal. Forests catch fire, algae blooms sink to the bottom (which is good) but are bad bad bad for the water ecosystem in which they're created, and everything else gets used and processed.
Basically, we're screwed on a quick fix until someone bio-engineers us some quick growing trees that sequester so much carbon that they're shiny. The best solution is to reduce our output of carbon, and allow the carbon cycle to re-balance itself.
In the meantime, if you're wondering whether to take up snow skiing or water skiing, might want to go water.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It is our mission to defeat Mother Nature in her attempt to wipe us out.
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.
Richard Branson owns an airline, if he wants he could reduce co2 by a large amount by changing his business.
Of course if he pulls out of the market then others take his place.
Dropping a nuclear bomb every once in a while on a large cosmopolitan city would definitely do the job...
iTx Technologies: Open source development in Montreal
Mother nature's solution to global warming operates on a geologic timescale and will not help us. In fact since if we leave the situation unchecked things will get worse before they get better, the earth will probably demonstrate its lack of use for us in the meantime.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But it would require energy. The whole reason hydrocarbons are a good source of energy is precisely because the C + O2 -> CO2 reaction gives off energy. So to make it go the other way, you need input energy. Plants get it from the sun, where would we get it from. Then, of course, assuming you have a source the question is why not just cut the middle man and use that source directly?
Simply declare co2 to be the worlds currency and pretty soon it will all be safely locked away in swiss vaults.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Eat the homeless, now we have enough housing. Eat criminals, no more over full jails, possible drop in crime rates. Eat everyone who live in a house with an odd number, halfing amount of cars on the road. And with all that eating we solve third world hunger too.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Why not just dispense with the whole "convert CO2 to carbon and oxygen" and just use nuclear as a direct power source? We already know how to do that, quite well in fact. So if nuclear is the answer, why not just use it?
My point isn't that there aren't energy alternatives, it's that there's not a real reason to do the CO2 -> C + O2 thing.
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.
That's like asking a baker to take all that unhealthy fat out of a doughnut, but not have it have any impact on the taste. It would be foolish of Branson to think that you can make a dramatic change to the chemical makeup of our atmosphere, but not have any "negative" consequences. Plants need CO2, so removing it from the atmosphere might harm plant life. Temperatures will decrease (probably), and I'm sure that there's at least some species of wildlife that's now thriving with the warmer temperatures. Wind paterns will change. Climate patterns will change. To expect absolutely no "negative impact" on the environment is foolhardy.
Running out of oil will do this quite effectively, and that will happen within not too many years.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
My method doesn't actually remove 1 billion pounds, rather it prevents that 1 billion from being released. I cannot talk about all the details until the patent is filed, but let's just say it involves Rush Limbaugh and a really large cork.
Remember that the Americans still remain subjected to the same skillfully honed propaganda machinery.
One could argue that in the modern age of the Internet there is no excuse for being so gullible. Especially in the case of the Americans -- they have many of the world's papers and editorials available a mouseclick away in their own language!
Unfortunately, the Americans prefer TV. And seeing through propaganda isn't easy when it surrounds you all the time. So don't despise them.
One difference compared to the Iraq war is that with global warming the catastrophe will be on a far larger scale. This means that the embarrassment will be far, far greater than the embarrassment over Iraq.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
This is definitely a Catch-22.
It has to do something, thereby increasing entropy, and at the same not create adverse affects. What constitutes an adverse affect? Does contributing to the heat death of the universe?
Ok, perhaps just looking at entropy is a little extreme. I'm sure that's not actually written in the rules, and apparently there actually is some sort of judging involved here (oh look, Al Gore is a judge. Big surprise. "I took the initiative in solving global warming..."), but Branson's asking for a miracle here. Any work is going to require energy. If you don't just want to suck that billion tons CO2 out and store it somewhere, but actually break it down into more containable form, like graphite or useful hydrocarbons, it will take a lot more energy. This is effectively the same energy issue we've been flogging death for years, but in the guise of removing CO2, instead of avoiding creating it or just plain getting energy in the first place.
As Slashdot has been debating since...um, forever...every energy source we can come up with has adverse affects, not the least of which is cost. I don't know how much energy it takes per ton to filter CO2 out of the air and bury it in an abandoned gas well, but I would bet we're talking several orders of magnitude above the prize level just in energy costs. Not such concerns means much compared to "saving the planet" (TM), but that effectively makes the prize only a formality.
Beyond cost, there's also environmental affects with energy generation. Be it birds struck by wind turbine blades or disposal of the composites they're made out of at end-of-life, the chemicals used in making solar cells, nuclear waste, disrupted fish runs with hydroplants, altered ocean habitats for tidal solutions, possibly altered fault activity and limited supply from geothermal, and of course that practically irrelevant but still amusing increase of entropy problem from all of the above, they are there.
I'm not sure if the story should be flagged Catch-22, vaporware, or inthishouseweobeythelawsofthermodynamics.
A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. So my math might be bad but thats, roughly .0225 Tons a year, so you'd need about 2.25 * 10^11 trees in your $25 million dollar forest.
Source: McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation:Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993
Didn't James Bond already stop you once in Moonraker?
After the recent request to fund the Iraq war to the tune of $245 billion, it really puts our priorities in perspective.
Here's a couple (the second covers from 400,000 years ago to today)
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html
Your Google must be broken...
Easy enough to find. Here is one graph that goes to 2004. To 2006 should be possible to find with some searching.
Currently the outlook for nuclear power is not good - but with a bit of effort on accelerated thorium and other upcoming methods it may be more than just an expensive way to make steam and North Korean and Iranian nuclear bombs.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
4) Eat the environmentalists; less SUV use, less air travel, less hot air, less sewage. Yuck!
By SUV, I assume you are implying that they get poor gas mileage, and therefore produce more greenhouse gases. Not all do, of course. That said, someone who drives a Yukon is a hypocrite if they claim to be an environmentalist.
6) End Socialism. Economic prosperity will allow people to adjust to the changing climate better. More socialism is more death and misery.
The US, one of the least socialist countries in the world (I saw a picture of a cardboard shanty town in Florida earlier this week that definitely made me think of death and misery) produces a huge amount of greenhouse gas (per person).
Developing communist countries do as well, but compare the CO2 production per person from the US to China shows that capitalism generates more (using your logic). Canada is more socialist than the US, and Canadians generate more greenhouse gas than Americans do. Is it because of socialism? No, it's because it's colder and not as densely populated.
The western industrial democracies are quite capitalist, and we generate per-person more greenhouse gases than many of the poorer, "socialist" countries. Making more like us will make solve the problem? If we are relatively so much wealthier, then why aren't we willing to clean up our act, seeing as you claim the willingness to fix the problem seems to be related to wealth?
7) "repeal" Kyoto protocols. They don't work, they are counter productive, they will cause more global warming.
The US did not sign Kyoto. George Bush did not believe in global warming, so he reneged on the agreement made by Clinton to sign the protocol.
Eco-Nazi talking about spending money
It's his money. You are a big fan of capitalism, and he's a capitalist (that's how he made his money). Who are you to criticize how he spends it? That sounds very socialist to me.
1) Why not create huge 30' tall, 100' wide air air filters? These can be hung between large buildings downtown or attached to blimps and used to "scrape" contaminants out of the air.
:-)
2) Or, have a huge turbines, like those used to generate electricity. Then, take these turbines and attach air purifiers to them. All the air which moves through is then removed of particulates. This large sucking action would particularly work in smoggy areas like L.A.
3) Or, have huge green nets. Just like the nets you use to clean out an aquarium. But, with very fine netting that removes particulates. Use these nets to "scoop out" the bad air.
Hey! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!! Stop copying my sig!!!
The effect on global warming of burning forests is greater than from burning fossil fuels. So let's stop burning forests in South America and Indonesia. The best way would be to cancel the economic incentives which promote burning -- which is mostly using the cleared land for other cash crops or for grazing. Another way would be to clear the land, but not burn the biomass. Use it for making paper, wooden items, buildings, etc.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
The US did not sign Kyoto. George Bush did not believe in global warming, so he reneged on the agreement made by Clinton to sign the protocol.
Clinton did not sign the Kyoto agreement because the Senate voted 98-0 to reject it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohackin
"Ecohacker Michael Markels claims he has a megafix for global warming: Supercharge the growth of ocean plankton with vitamin Fe and let a zillion CO2 scrubbers bloom."
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
... with solar panels, and still not have enough capacity to power Chicago. Much of the world does not live in Southern California! We have strange weather phenomena, like clouds! And this isn't a once in a while problem, its EVERY FREAKING DAY! In the spring, at least. In the winter, we have clouds and snow and ABSCENCE OF SUN for weeks at a time. Perhaps we could put Lake Michigan on stilts and use it as a battery. (Seriously, most pumped water storage is like hydroelectric power, heavily constrained by having local geography which is conducive to it. If you don't happen to have two bodies of water at vastly different elevations nearby then you get to build one or both of them yourself, and it AIN'T CHEAP -- per MW capital investment is similar to building a nuclear plant, and that is on top of the cost of the solar/whatever you need to actually fill the battery. It also isn't ecologically neutral -- ask the million folks China displaced to get their Three Gorges facility working. You need an awful lot of water falling from a relatively high place to a relatively low place, and that does not just spontaneously happen frequently in nature.)
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- greens need to get over their dogmatic, irrational reluctance to use nukes.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Grasslands can sequester enormous amounts of carbon in the form of soil organic matter, especially humus. Unless disturbed by plowing or poor land management, humus can remain stable for hundreds or thousands of years. Healthy grasslands can sequester considerably more carbon than forests, because grasslands can keep growing soils indefinitely. This is how grassland soils 1-4 meters (3-12 feet) thick -- the agricultural soils of today -- got built over much of the temperate zone.
Advantages of sequestering carbon with grasslands:
Let's do some calculations:
How do grasslands sequester carbon? Here's how it works:
This is how grasslands and grazers evolved to function. This type of "pulsed grazing" can sequester enormous amounts of carbon, and grow 10-30 mm of new soil per year.
Animal behavior is crucial
The trick to making this work is the behavior of the grazing animals. Grazers must behave in the ways grass plants are adapted to. That means moving onto the land in a tightly bunched herd (as wild grazers did because of predation), grazing and trampling intensively, then moving on and giving plants adequate time to recover before they get grazed again.
If grazer behavior is correct, the grasses don't much care whether they are grazed by bison, kangaroos, or cattle. If the behavior is incorrect (too-frequent grazing that weakens plants that are not yet fully recovered, or too-infrequent grazing that we
Around ten years ago scientists were investigating something somewhat similar to what you are proposing, except minus the genetic engineering and toxic blooms. Some parts of the oceans are iron poor. Iron is of course an essential component for life. By adding small amounts of it to these parts of the ocean, significant quantities of phytoplankton grow, consuming large quantities of CO2. There is an article on this here.
-- From Wikipedia.
So, were you ignorant of this fact or just being disingenuous? Neither option lends much credibility to your opinions, I'm afraid.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.