Slashdot Mirror
First Successful Demonstration of CO2 Capture Technology
An anonymous coward writes "Global Research Technologies, LLC (GRT), a technology research and development company, and Klaus Lackner from Columbia University have achieved the
successful demonstration of a bold new technology to capture carbon from the air. The "air extraction" prototype has successfully demonstrated that indeed carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured from the atmosphere. This is GRT's first step toward a commercially viable air capture device."
I assume that this is more energy efficient than the usual refrigeration based methods for generating pure CO2. This is a good thing. However, they don't say what they're going to do with the CO2 once they purify it. If you can't answer that question, you haven't solved the sequesteration problem.
I find this idea somewhat concerning. All too often the human race is guilty of doing things because they can, before they learn whether or not they should. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions, but in all honesty, what the hell will we break if we start trying to extract too much carbon from the atmosphere.
Mind you, find a way to quickly and efficiently separate the carbon from the oxygen, install in long range space craft and you suddenly have near limitless air for deep space voyages.
Actually the more people need paper the more trees get planted to supply that demand, trees unlike other forms of carbon is completely renewable.
Also recycling paper is a load of crap, it adds to polution by needing all sorts of nasty chemicals to bleach the paper so it can be re-used, not to mention all the petrolum needed to cart stuff from peoples homes to recyling centres, here they use multiple trucks, one for waste one for recycling.
It costs the US$8bill a yr in subsidies to pay for recycling and cleaning up the chemical by-products, it costs much less to plant and cut down trees.
Right, because trees grow instantaneously, bleach themselves, and require no transportation or other effort to be made into trees.
As others have pointed out, this article is almost entirely useless.
Can someone provide a link to something that answers the obvious questions:
1. How does it work?
2. How much energy does it take to extract it's 10 tonnes of CO2 per year?
3. How does this compare with refrigeration or plants as a means to reduce CO2 concentration?
4. What is it's likely cost?
(and the process of modernization and industrialization of previously subsistence populations into a global economic framework. Basically a lot of people became really poor and desperate to make money once neo-liberal policies forced the integration of local economies into the global market. Survival instincts quickly take over and once the race to the bottom takes full swing. Who can make deals with corrupt officials the fastest and stake a claim to land & burn the most rain frost possible, grow your net worth, integrate indigenous populations into a profitable business. Have them work for you instead of for themselves in a system outside of global capitalism.
Ofcourse even the boss won't make shit compared to the corporate execs, pushing the deals, pushing the neo-liberal reforms, and "new" economic models of production... but that is the beauty of capitalism makes selling out/buying in much more attractive than the actual participation.
For the majority at the bottom, raising beef simply becomes much more particle when local means of substance are debased via privatization of previously subsistence resources such as land, watter and the flooding of the local food markets with foreign subsidized imports eliminating diversity in local economies and pushing people into the global market where burning Rainforst is simply the best they can offer.
And what to do... We live in a culture where the aesthetics of consumption is hole-heartily disconnected from the means of production. Consuming the bigMac brand and animal caucus is completely disconnected from torching the Rainfroest and watching the last family of a particular species of some fury creature in a failed attempt to escape a fiery inferno.
But I imagine most people understand from since childhood when they first see a picture of earth from outer space at night and bother to ask what are all those lights doing in the Rainforest Mommy? That's the rain forest burning for progress, economic growth and global market integration honey, now finish your bigMac or you won't get a frosty (or whatever the fuck they call their ice cream now) :P
Yes, but the paper companies only plant single species fast growing trees. Those can not replace the complex ecosystem in the rain forests.
N %20-%20Trees%20are%20the%20Answer.pdf
--
Modding that post as 5, Informative doesn't make any sense unless it was to illustrate popular misconceptions and propaganda.
Lumber companies, like any other farmers, would prefer to plant in places where the crops will grow and can be harvested for a profit and new crops grown. Rain forests are particularly POOR places to grow trees. The primary reason the U.S. imports so much lumber is because of Clinton-era restrictions on tree harvesting.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy. Think about it, the infrastructure needed to process and move the crop would have to be continually rebuilt. How many farmers do that? They will rotate the harvest areas as a way to let the soil regenerate but they don't strip the surface and continually move on.
Recycling paper, FWIW, yields a far inferior product in many, many ways. The more paper fibers are handled, the shorter they become. Compare an American corrugated box to one from China or Southern Europe. You'll find the recycled paper does not have the same strength. New fiber must be added or you eventually end up with a useless substance.
The idea that only one species of tree is planted by lumber companies is pure propaganda and incredibly naive. Like any other plant, different types of trees have different types of fibers. Different types of fibers are used to make different types of papers. It would no more be feasible to plant only one type of tree than it would to plant only one type of any other crop because the soil would become depleted. Paper companies are lumber companies. Are all the boards at a lumber store the same type of wood? Of course not.
Lumber companies are farmers. Remember that and use it as a way to filter out the propaganda. You might be interested to learn the opinion of one of the founders of Greenpeace: http://www.corrugatedmachines.com/2007-04-09%20BC
His comment that people should fight the auto and oil industries is more than a little whacked. Imagine what it would be like without plastics and the internal combustion engine. We'd be living the same as people did before the industrial revolution which would be a far shorter lifespan and much, much harder lives...burning coal and wood which genreate far more pollution/energy but that's a whole different topic...
So the plan is actually to stick this stuff in barrels and bury it?
Here in Canada, we've been hearing a lot about how the Conservatives plan to focus on capturing and sequestering carbon instead of actually reducing emissions, and living up to our Kyoto obligations. I think it might be a tiny bit shortsighted to think we can continue pumping this crap into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates, then capture it and stick it underground along with the nuclear waste and other garbage that we bury.