New Material Can Selectively Capture CO2

Socguy brings us a story from CBC News about a recently developed crystal that can soak up carbon dioxide gas "like a sponge." Chemists from UCLA believe that the crystals will become a cheap, stable method to absorb emissions at power plants. We discussed a prototype for another CO2 extraction device last year. Quoting: "'The technical challenge of selectively removing carbon dioxide has been overcome,' said UCLA chemistry professor Omar Yaghi in a statement. The porous structures can be heated to high temperatures without decomposing and can be boiled in water or solvents for a week and remain stable, making them suitable for use in hot, energy-producing environments like power plants. The highly porous crystals also had what the researchers called 'extraordinary capacity for storing CO2': one litre of the crystals could store about 83 litres of CO2."

Comments

Like corn cobs?

[F34nor]

I wonder if this is similar to the charcoal briquetting technique shown about a year ago with corn cobs and natural gas. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108390/

I already have a CO2 storage device

[bhodikhan]

I use another CO2 storage technology in my house already. It's called WOOD. Doesn't have any patents tied to it and the more we plant, cut up and build with, the more CO2 we will remove from the atmosphere. Sure there might be a more high tech solution with a higher yield but planting trees and using them also produces oxygen as well. Nice idea but it's been done before. Way before.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[antifoidulus]

Didn't you listen to Reagan, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"

Not listening to Reagan? Friggin' pinkos....

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[itsdapead]

I use another CO2 storage technology in my house already. It's called WOOD.

Hopefully sourced from any trees which were cut down to make space for your house...?

But seriously, the other neat trick is that even if you cut down the wood and burn it for power, you're only putting back the CO2 which the tree took out - not releasing carbon that has been safely out of the equation for millions of years.

Sadly, though, it looks like the idea of biofuels is going to get discredited by the lamebrained alcohol-from-corn debacle.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. From a human perspective, the biggest problem with wood was that it was very labor intensive to use as a building material in the past. As mechanization spreads and expands in the industry, it will become trivial. This sort of repetitive process is exactly what robots are good at. And the state of AI is good enough that a robot can intelligently figure out which trees are ready to cut, whether it is authorized to, etc.

From an ecological perspective, use of wood is a bit more difficult to characterize. It is fair to say that a lot of damage has been done to relatively fragile ecosystems in the pursuit of wood. It is also fair to say that a reforestation effort would not hurt these lands any more than they currently are.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[ShieldW0lf]

It's all about preserving scarcity and thus control. There's no reason we couldn't have transportation systems that run off local ocean driven power generation for all our costal cities, and make local personal transportation free of charge and free of pollution. We could build such systems right now, and make them durable enough to last hundreds of years. But then we wouldn't need this fascist control, where companies and governments are in bed together keeping the power strucuture alive and the resources always in short supply. If we didn't have that, the ruling classes wouldn't have a structure that allows them to continue to rule.

Whatever we do, if we arrive there through the current leadership, it will be inefficient and require us all to work hard and follow orders to keep things running. That's the way they like it.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[UbuntuDupe]

But seriously, the other neat trick is that even if you cut down the wood and burn it for power, you're only putting back the CO2 which the tree took out - not releasing carbon that has been safely out of the equation for millions of years.

But IMHO a better way to accomplish the same thing is to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as octane, like I suggest here (in a post that was modded down for no reason by the people that are stalking me), and get the energy to do that from nuclear power, like this guy has already worked out the details for. That way, the gasoline you would burn, would only return to the atmosphere, what was taken from it.

Of course, the purpose of the global warming alarmism is NOT, and never has been, to find ways to reduce net carbon emissions and prevent catastrophe. The purpose, for most such alarmists, is to shut down activity they don't like. "Global warming" is a pretense. Anything that stops global warming, but doesn't shut down those activities, will be vehemently opposed.

And btw, whenever someone tells me that woodburning is good for the environment, I always have to ask, *whose* environment? Not the environment of the people who have to breathe the surrounding air!

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong - plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen as part of their metabolic cycle (otherwise known as photosynthesis).

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Firethorn]

There's no reason we couldn't have transportation systems that run off local ocean driven power generation for all our costal cities

Quite a few reasons actually, for one tidal power generation systems haven't been perfected yet.

and make local personal transportation free of charge and free of pollution.

Free of pollution? Maybe so, but certainly NOT free of charge - you'd end up paying for it somehow, whether it's a per ride charge or a subscription service or out of your taxes depends, but just like 'free' healthcare in nations with nationalized healthcare services, you still end up paying for it.

Resources have pretty much always been in 'short supply', it's just that as we gain methods to extract more resources, so doesn't our desires to do stuff to exploit them.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[maxume]

Plants photosynthesize to store energy, taking in CO2 and releasing oxygen during the process.

Occasionally(not really, actually all the time), they use some of that stored energy, taking in oxygen and releasing CO2 during the process. The carbon dioxide that is involved in photosynthesis doesn't get directly added to the structure of the tree, it is stored and then later used to service the metabolic needs of the plant. The part where it is used releases CO2.

For something like a tree, the CO2 that ends up as actual wood is going to be fixed for quite a while, a couple of hundreds years of the tree's life, and then a while after that, until the tree has rotted. Even then, some fraction would probably remain in the soil.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[abigor]

And btw, whenever someone tells me that woodburning is good for the environment, I always have to ask, *whose* environment? Not the environment of the people who have to breathe the surrounding air! Yeah, good point actually. People are really focused on the greenhouse gas thing and ignore the effects of particulates. If you've ever been to a place that has a lot of wood stoves and not much wind, then you'll know all about bad air quality thanks to wood burning.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[dubl-u]

But then we wouldn't need this fascist control, where companies and governments are in bed together keeping the power strucuture alive and the resources always in short supply.

Totally. Why, I hear that those bastards have suppressed some sort of globe-spanning communication network that would have allowed the populace access to vast amounts of information about every subject under the sun. Billions of pages, all at your fingertips, from a simple device in your home. Obviously, it would have made it much harder for them to control us. So those fascist parasites killed it.

Oh, wait. No, actually, the government funded the initial development of the Internet, and corporations funded a lot of the subsequent development and most of the rollout. Hmmm. I wonder if your world-view could do with a little expansion.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[reboot246]

the more we plant, cut up and build with, the more CO2 we will remove from the atmosphere

Indeed. And using very old trees which don't fix carbon as fast as they did when they were younger & growing is even better. As long as new trees are planted to replace the old ones the plan is a winner.

I've planted tens of thousands of trees in my life. Where do I go to get my carbon credit? :)

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[MightyYar]

I once worked at a materials lab that studied how things hold up in a marine environment, and I grew up on the ocean. Nothing lasts very long. Not stainless steel, not titanium, and certainly not any kind of mechanism. Constant maintenance and replacement is required in a marine environment, and this is one of the reasons that tidal power has been so slow in coming.

And this is without getting into big storms, which can wipe out a whole island - let alone some man-made fixture.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[wytcld]

bad air quality thanks to wood burning

Not all smoke is bad. Wood smoke is high in antioxidants. Also, in the US in recent years, the only woodstoves legal for sale are EPA certified, with much lower particulate output than older stoves and fireplaces.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[thrillseeker]

So, you think the Smoky and Blue Ridge Mountains have all that haze from the massive car pollution there, vice the ozone-producing isoprene that plants, trees in particular, emit, with plant hydrocarbon emission being at a rate ten times that of all the world's cars?

I suppose listening only to that great bastion of unbiased scientific study, the 4:1 liberal:conservative press, is one option...

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[budgenator]

Yeah. Just like all those Egyptians who are STILL paying taxes on that pyramid to this day

Considering the amount of foreign aid we send to Israel, yup we're still paying taxes on'em

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[wumingzi]

Dude, you really need to cut back on the hydro, in more ways than one.

A pyramid is a static structure. All it has to do is sit year after year.

A power-generating station is full of moving parts. Things with moving parts break down over time. You may want to look at this handy informational link which shows maintenance over time on our local power plant. (since it's run by falling water, it provides some of the world's cheapest power, regardless)

When you start talking about tidal power, you are talking about putting devices which sit in salt water day after day. Go find someone who owns a boat. ANY boat, large, small, freighter or dinghy and talk about this idea of "set it and forget it". Watch as peals of laughter come rolling from their mouth. Boat owners in this part of the world (US Pacific Northwest) will pay a substantial rental premium to moor their boats in fresh water because it saves so much money on maintenance.

Finally, remember that electricity is like no other commodity on earth. You can not store it for a rainy day. You use it when it's generated, or not at all. Even fish (our other highly perishable commodity) can be canned or packed in salt. Good luck doing that with electricity.

Yes, oil gets some subsidies. Yes, euphemistically named "energy companies" almost certainly throw their weight around to discourage development of alternative energy sources. These are fairly small market-distorting effects which reinforce (but do not change) an underlying fact: historically, petroleum has been the cheapest and most flexible means of generating energy. While we get spoiled in this part of the world by abundant hydropower, there are some fairly serious environmental consequences (check out our vanishing salmon runs!) and hydro is a one-off. Once you've dammed the river, you're done. You can't scale this solution forever.

While more needs to be done with alternative energy sources, there seems to be this meme running around that there is cheap power floating around which is being withheld from the people by "The Man". Standing in the way of that cheap power in reality is not some gigantic conspiracy, but some really tough unsolved engineering problems (i.e. how do you store enough energy to power a city for when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow? A big pile of batteries doesn't really work).

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Reality Master 201]

the 4:1 liberal:conservative press

Hah. Oh, that's funny. Or sad, depending on whether or not you actually believe it.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[abigor]

Fair enough. I grew up in a rather windless valley where everyone in town had a fireplace and/or wood stove, and the air got pretty thick sometimes ;) But I can certainly believe that things have improved.

I had no idea about the antioxidants thing, thanks for that. But isn't any sort of smoke particle going to cause lung problems in the end?

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[mikael]

There was the idea of selectively breeding cytoplankton that could absorb larger amounts of CO2 than at present. When it died, it would just sink to the bottom of the oceans.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[budgenator]

No your correct, plants do metabolize polysaccharides and Oxygen which gives off CO2 just like animal cells do; during the day the photosynthesis also does the opposite to create the polysaccharides used for the plant's structure and food storage. Typically the CO2 consumption and Oxygen released are greater than the amounts of CO2 given off. One thing I have to watch out for during the spring algae bloom is that all the algae will consume enough O2 from the water at night that it can actually suffocate my fish, this is more likely to happen when the water has gotten very warm which boosts the metabolism and therefore the Oxygen demand of everything living in the water, while reducing the ability of the water to dissolve oxygen.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Lord Ender]

I'm right with you, man! Those fascist corporations are just like our fascist parents who won't let us watch MTV, and the fascist schools who require us to take math even though its really hard!!!

If it weren't for the fascist economists, we could just get rid of money, and thus all scarcity, and everything would be free!!

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Black-Man]

You'd be shocked on how little smoke is emitted w/ the new wood stoves. I have a Quadra Fire - and when you dampen it down (which is basically how one uses it the majority of the time) there is literally no smoke coming out the chimney. Versus a neighbor w/ a normal fireplace where the smoke plumes can be smelled a mile away. Technology is a good thing.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Zumbs]

Uhmmm, *producing* and *transporting* biofuel emits CO2, so it's not really viable as a non-CO2 emitting technology.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[khallow]

For your edification, canned electricity. ;-)

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if your world-view could do with a little expansion.

So now that everyone's realized their mistake and ISPs are trying to crack down on the users and the government is calling it a terrorist tool, where's your worldview now?

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[dubbreak]

A pyramid is a static structure.
Except for the boobie traps of course..

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[smaddox]

Israel has pyramids?

(Yes I got the joke, but Israelites didn't build the pyramids. They were built by paid Egyptian laborers.)

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

The chemicals that the blue mountains emit may be "hydrocarbons", but that does not mean they are greenhouse gases. In fact, environmental scientists are studying these regions to protect and try to REPRODUCE the effect they have.

Forgive me for being light on details about WHY these chemicals are good for the environment, but this is not my area. I simply recall this from a talk by Jose Fuentes at the University of Virginia, who is studying Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains, which are similar to Sydney's Blue Mountains.

More details can probably be found here:
http://people.virginia.edu/~jf6s/

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of salmon, do these crystals trap mercury? Just for once, I'd like to have a bite of tuna or salmon without worrying that the mercury will cause more harm than the good provided by the omega-3.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that plants are carbon neutral. They can emit however much they want because a relatively stable ecosystem evolved over time such that there's another plant there to soak it up, whereas jolting the system by simultaneously releasing ancient hydrocarbons and removing carbon sinks in our forests and oceans has a legitimate potential to destabilize the system to the point it goes to a new different attracting point - one that involves a bunch of shit in our air and not many plants or animals around.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[itsdapead]

Uhmmm, *producing* and *transporting* biofuel emits CO2, so it's not really viable as a non-CO2 emitting technology.

Only if you use coal and oil as the power source for producing and transporting it!

Honestly, this one gets trotted out so often that you'd think there was some sort of thermodynamic paradox behind using a biofuel-powered tractor (or solar-powered or hydrogen-powered - or even a fricking horse provided it was fitted with a fart afterburner to kill the methane) to harvest your biofuel.

The problem is the half-baked rush to promote a uniquely expensive and inefficent biofuel (corn alcohol) without first building the infrastructure or ensuring sustainable supplies.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[JavaRob]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't plants inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 at night? I'm pretty sure their 'carbon footprint' isn't as small as the sandalistas would have you believe. "Sandalistas", huh? Nice.

Mature forests (where the mass of wood stays about constant) are about neutral -- the CO2 absorbed and fixed during photosythesis is about equal to the CO2 released from rotting branches, nighttime consumption, etc.. That forest, however, is a huge, stable carbon sink, since it absorbed a lot of CO2 while growing initially.

To expand: if you take a mature forest, it's "carbon footprint" day to day is neutral, but if you clear it, that carbon footprint is huge (and if you grow a new forest, the carbon footprint is a huge negative).

That's the carbon side. From the oxygen-cycle side, plants "exhale" about 10x the oxygen during the day that they absorb during the night.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

The chemicals that the blue mountains emit may be "hydrocarbons", but that does not mean they are greenhouse gases.

Huh? I thought we were talking about pollution, not just greenhouse gases.

But hey, if you want to take a quote out of context, then apply new rules to it to make somebody sound stupid, feel free. On a related note:

The chemicals that the blue mountains emit may be "hydrocarbons"

The mountains aren't emitting anything, stupid, it's the trees living on them!

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[ColdWetDog]

A pyramid is a static structure. All it has to do is sit year after year.
A power-generating station is full of moving parts. Things with moving parts break down over time.

Maybe we can try for the best of both worlds.

When you start talking about tidal power, you are talking about putting devices which sit in salt water day after day. Go find someone who owns a boat. ANY boat, large, small, freighter or dinghy and talk about this idea of "set it and forget it". Watch as peals of laughter come rolling from their mouth.

Exactly, of course most boat owners are aware that this name for various floating contraptions really means Bring On Another Thousand.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

So in your universe resources are the same as information? I don't think you're responding to the OP nearly as well as you think you are. As a matter of fact, I think your response is entirely value-free.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[sumdumass]

You bring up a fact that just struck me as odd. Why aren't we doing something to store electricity?

Ok, don't discount me as a wacko just yet but, if Solar can melt sodium to retain heat efficiently to product power at night and during cloudy or stormy days, why couldn't this principle be applied to traditional electrical generation. Now think about this, it isn't actually storing the electricity, but the capacity to make more without burning more fuels and so on.

Most power plants use heat to generate steam that powers the generators. Now, if we heated something that could efficiently store the heat and transfer it to it's useful mechanical operation ala steam, could we trap more heat for use and negate some disadvantages of keeping steam pressure built up to supply demand when requirement's increases and to avoid loss from burning more fuel the optimal amounts to generate steam in order to increase capacity in a hurry. I'm not sure if it would be a huge increase but I think we could heat and store sodium more efficiently then say water as energy and in the process create the steam on demand in mush the same way a tankless water heater in the house saves energy. But because of thermal transfer properties, you could possibly get more heat into the sodium over a longer time with less fuel then with conventional heating water to product steam. Then when demand increases, it would be a matter of keeping the sodium or whatever material was selected hot enough to supply the increased demand as needed and then you could use the less demanding times to reheat the soduim in a more efficient manner.

You could do it with hydro power too. Take the excess electricity capacity from the spill over of watter and heat something that could efficiently store the stuff during non-peak times and then supply peak electricity as needed though a steam tubine in addition to all the regular turbines running full force.

Anyways, I might be cracked up in this thinking. You seem to have a grasp on it and I was wondering what your thought might be about attempting to store electricity in a way that more or less stored that ability to produce it on demand more accurately and efficiently then currently being used.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[wall0159]

Interestingly, I recently listened to a podcast where an (I think) civil engineer advocated the installation of such generators for (among other things) extra protection from storms! Essentially, his point was that putting up concrete barriers didn't work, because they didn't 'give' whereas turbines, etc, allowed the energy to pass, but dissipated it somewhat.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[AJWM]

tidal power generation systems haven't been perfected yet.

No power generation system has been "perfected". It doesn't have to be perfect to generate useful power -- and there are quite a few tidal power generations systems that are producing commercial power. Not that the GP post mentioned "tidal" power per se, just "ocean driven", which could also include things like wave driven, OTEC, deep currents, etc.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[rohan972]

lamebrained alcohol ....... Aaaaahhhh!

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[misleb]

So, you think the Smoky and Blue Ridge Mountains have all that haze from the massive car pollution there, vice the ozone-producing isoprene that plants, trees in particular, emit, with plant hydrocarbon emission being at a rate ten times that of all the world's cars?

Ooo "hydrocarbons." Way to word in a way that sounds bad without actually qualifying it such that it has any relevance. Bravo.

I'll tell you what, I'll take the haze of the Smoky Mountains over the smog of a city any day.

I suppose listening only to that great bastion of unbiased scientific study, the 4:1 liberal:conservative press, is one option...

Can I ask you something? When you ignorant hicks go on about the librul media, what exactly are you referring to? Do you really mean just the press? If so, I just can't see it. Or do you include entertainment, music, games, advertising, etc? Is CNN liberal? I want to know exactly what we're talking about.

And what do you consider liberal, anyway? It is "liberal" to have nudity on TV? Do you blame all the violence in entertainment on liberals? I've never been clear on this. I want to know just how deep your paranoia and fear goes.

-matthew

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

This point has already been satisfactorily rebutted by others. I just want to ridicule the implication that scientific studies with "conservative" results are being suppressed and censored by the media. The standard conservative retort to overwhelming evidence against them is to say "well, there are lots of studies you've never heard of that agree with me." Needless to say, the conservative never actually cites any of these supposed studies. Actual surveys of science literature versus media reports generally show the opposite, that the media are overly sympathetic with the conservative position in spite of the science. See global warming, evolution, stem cell research, the Iraq war, etc.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Firethorn]

You bring up a fact that just struck me as odd. Why aren't we doing something to store electricity?

Actually, we're doing quite a bit, and behind the scenes, have been for years.

Look at lithium ion batteries. Those are relatively new, but still too expensive. There's been work on higher density high efficiency flywheels. There's ideas with compressed air and underground caverns. Heck, hydroelectric dams were a traditional source of power moderation. Sure, a dam can only produce so many kwh depending on the level of rainfall and collection behind the dam, but it can release water to power turbines as necessary. Though that's been limited far more today by the requirements to keep level rivers downstream, water for fish to spawn and such.

By at least some measures, hydroelectric dams are one of the MOST environmentally damaging methods to generate power - maybe not in air quality, but in generating artificial lakes and changing rivers.

And it all comes down to cost - tidal power hasn't become common because, like many others have stated, the sea presents some rather severe maintenance and sealing issues. Ships regularly have to be hauled in to be refurbished, repainted, sacrificial anodes replaced, etc... So it costs more. Same with solar power, even wind power is only going in in most areas due to relatively massive subsidies.

Even storage methods aren't perfect - you put power in, but only get out 90% of what went in, if you're lucky. So a 10 cent kwh becomes a 11 cent kwh, before you consider the costs of building the power storage system. Which generally isn't cheap.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Firethorn]

As others have noted - the pyramids are a static structure, and in a more or less dry climate to boot. Expecting mechanical devices to operate in the sea over a similar time period is crazy.

Power generation through water has been working for ages, and it's not a difficult concept to get right.

Sure, in the form of dams and such. I mentioned TIDAL power though, and while the concept is easy, as others have noted, dumping any mechanical objects into the sea poses huge obstacles in the form of corrosion from salt water and spray.

But if you built it right, it could last for generations without need for fuel, and drive light rail systems day and night without significant investment of human effort.

Generations without need for fuel, maybe. Maintenance? No way. It's like the current generation of home-brew electric cars. The depreciation and aging of the batteries actually exceed the cost of electricity to power the vehicle over the life of the batteries. Matter of fact, it's often HIGHER than the raw cost of gasoline for a relatively fuel efficient vehicle.

Computing power has proven to be really easy. Battery cost and capabilities not so much. Material science, not so much. Matter of fact, most things have proven to be more difficult than was anticipated in the past EXCEPT for computing and farming.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Firethorn]

By 'perfected' I was talking about 'ready for widespread commercial use'. In the context of my reply, this would be the ability to put in enough oceanic power stations to power both coastlines, including some rather large cities, at a realistic cost and without disrupting currents, shipping, fish*, causing pollution, etc...

I'll admit that you're right about the possibilities of using various other sources of energy in the ocean, I used 'tidal power' as the most commonly proposed and relatively speaking, the most developed.

Yes, there are a _few_ tidal power stations - but at this point they all utilize rather rare geographical features like a bay to reduce costs. The problem with those systems is that it can't be an active bay, or at least a very active bay - the techniques for the systems I've seen end up being a sort of dam across the mouth of the bay - not conductive if it's a shipping port.

Conspiracy theories aside - remember, if solar/wind/tidal was REALLY more economical than the 'dirty' alternatives, the greedy energy barons would be moving to it left and right. Instead, it consistently needs massive subsidies for construction to proceed.

*Going by oil rigs(fish LOVE them), shouldn't be a problem, but still needs to be considered.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[dbIII]

Quite a few reasons actually, for one tidal power generation systems haven't been perfected yet.

The French have been running one for about fifty years. With a large enough tidal range it is just hydro. With a large tidal range you don't have ports and usually don't have many people around to use electricity so that is why there are not many installations like this.

Other solutions have to go out in the water, be very large and survive wild weather.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Firethorn]

As you note, there are some tidal stations already - but the current technology in use for them requires some very specific conditions that are incompatible with good ports - which is the core of most large cities on the coast. So there is a lack of good installation sites - the correct tidal range, a place close enough with demand for the power, no overriding environmental concerns, etc...

Other solutions have to go out in the water, be very large and survive wild weather.

Thus the 'not perfected yet'. Given the GP's talking about powering entire coastlines with oceanic power, I was picturing essentially open-field tidal power - the ability to economically emplace systems pretty much anywhere along the coastlines.

Now, I don't see 1 system being universal by any means, so various systems would have to be considered, depending upon actual conditions like weather, average tidal heights, water depth, etc...

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[budgenator]

Actually I though it wasn't the Israelis that owned the pyramids, but the Egyptians that owned the Isrealis, history is a bit fuzzy from back then, but somehow they managed to change from Honored guests to slaves so I assumed they push a bit of stone too.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

i.e. how do you store enough energy to power a city for when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow? A big pile of batteries doesn't really work.

Flywheels? Pumped hydro? (Doesn't even have to be water - the denser the substance pumped up/down, the more energy it can store for a given volume of material, although there are safety issues with using, say, mercury.) Large thermal masses? Or even just using the electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then re-burning the hydrogen to generate more electricity during peak times.

Flywheels are probably the best short-term bet. It'd be a massive engineering project to have enough flywheel storage to cover a given city's energy needs, and I don't know how much it would cost - but it would remove this whole "generating electricity as it's needed" business (and its flipside of baseload - soaking up excess energy in off-peak periods) once and for all.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[civilizedINTENSITY]

What one critter excretes, another consumes. This isn't pollution its a cycle. But hey, calling "leaves" a form of "pollution" got him a laugh, and won points with everyone who has had to rake their yard. Laugh at the funny man, just don't believe it.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Finally, remember that electricity is like no other commodity on earth. You can not store it for a rainy day. You use it when it's generated, or not at all. Even fish (our other highly perishable commodity) can be canned or packed in salt. Good luck doing that with electricity.

Actually energy can be transformed. Pumping water uphill during non-peak hours, for instance, is a method to convert electricity to gravitational potential energy. When you need it, you convert it back to electricity.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Exactly. One could refer to the miracle of birth as hydrocarbon production.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, damn those liBAHrals at Fox News, CNN, Wall St Journal, MSNBC, every single talk radio station, etc, etc, etc

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[das_magpie]

These scientists can't make much money off trees.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[TapeCutter]

"Sadly, though, it looks like the idea of biofuels is going to get discredited by the lamebrained alcohol-from-corn debacle."

Biofuels are also rapidly changing Borneo's rainforests into palm oil plantations, so much so that it has caused the EU to rethink their policy. With current technology, there simply isn't enough room left on the planet to produce food AND fuel in the quantities required.

The alcohol from corn thing is just plain old corporate welfare, it has nothing to do with sustainability.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[frogzilla]

It's interesting to think about the fact that trees might be darker than the plants/crops/terrain that they are replacing. In this case they might contribute more to warming through albedo effects than they contribute to cooling through CO2 sequestration.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[rising_hope]

Free of pollution? Maybe so, but certainly NOT free of charge - you'd end up paying for it somehow, whether it's a per ride charge or a subscription service or out of your taxes depends, but just like 'free' healthcare in nations with nationalized healthcare services, you still end up paying for it.

Perhaps. But, when a government is working efficiently, it employs sanctions to encourage people to do things that are in the public's best interest and discourage things that are not. For instance, whether or not you utilize the system, you pay for it in taxes. Yet, you pay a lot more taxes and fees if you're not using it to use you own personal transportation that pollutes our airs (is bad for society at large.) Not to get too much into the national health care debate, but since you brought it up, if you believe it's in the interest of a society to have a healthy working class, with all members having access to some level of adequate health care, it would seem that the advisable course of action for any government to take would be to impose it upon the people. Those who do not want to utilize the public system could still have private sector alternatives, but they'd end up paying twice -- once for the public system they don't use, and once for the private system they prefer. Seems perfectly logical to me.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[daeg]

I bet you could get some great thrust out of such an afterburner. I wonder if it would be Amish-compatible?

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but...

Yeah, but...

Yeah, but...

Ok, maybe, but...

Ok, yeah, but...

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[wumingzi]

Pumped hydro is insane. I can't imagine what your power loss is on taking water that you've run downhill and running it uphill again. Almost certainly in excess of 100%. If not, you have a perpetual motion machine on your hands. Go forth!

Folks have been thinking about storing energy for a long time, and there are some promising avenues. But nothing is ready for prime-time or even very close. You're losing too much in storage/transfer to bother.

I think a problem techies have is to think that the whole world runs on Moore's law. Today's $50,000 wet dream machine will be down at Fry's for $3,000 within 4 years, and will be on the junk pile as obsolete tech in 7 while we come up with new gizmos, and overly bloated Microsoft operating systems which will require all this new CPU power, new memory, and more. You expect it as surely as sunrises and disappointing politicians.

The energy world doesn't run on Moore's law. If battery storage engineers get a 1% improvement on current technologies per year, they think they've done pretty good.

A lot of the problems with energy storage are not Moore's law sort of problems. They are in need of fundamental technology shifts, like when we went from vacuum tubes to transistors.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[gyrogeerloose]

Nothing lasts very long. Not stainless steel, not titanium, and certainly not any kind of mechanism. Constant maintenance and replacement is required in a marine environment

As a maintenance guy working for a company that extracts salt from sea water via solar evaporation, I can confirm this one hundred per cent. We have a saying: "at the salt works, everything rusts." As a result, we frequently resort to low-tech solutions straight out of the 19th century, such as wooden bearings, and yet can still barely keep up with the disintegration of the plant.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

Pumped hydro is insane. I can't imagine what your power loss is on taking water that you've run downhill and running it uphill again. Almost certainly in excess of 100%. If not, you have a perpetual motion machine on your hands. Go forth!

To pull out one cite from a quick Google search, pumped hydro is around 75-85% efficient. In other words, you get back about 75-85% of the energy you used to pump the water uphill when you let it run back down again. That's pretty decent when you realise that the wear and tear is significantly less than chemical-based storage methods (like batteries). Flywheels can get up to around 90% according to Pikiwedia.

So that takes care of the "lose too much in storage" argument. As for the loss in transfer, you build the storage close to where the energy will eventually be used. Losses in transmission will occur regardless, so it's not a major concern comparatively. It comes down, in other words, to the cost of building these things in an environment where we already have large scale coal and fission plants to provide "baseload" power - in other words, the incentive to build energy storage just isn't there at the moment. Which is a damn shame, IMO.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[dryeo]

Pumped hydro is insane. I can't imagine what your power loss is on taking water that you've run downhill and running it uphill again. Almost certainly in excess of 100%. If not, you have a perpetual motion machine on your hands. Go forth! You don't use hydro to pump the water. In this thread the talk is about tidal power. Tidal power runs all night so you store the power for peak times by pumping water uphill. Wind is sorta the same, doesn't happen when you want it always so when it does get windy you store the power behind a dam for peak need.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[bluefoxlucid]

(i.e. how do you store enough energy to power a city for when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow? A big pile of batteries doesn't really work).

It would require one megajoule of energy to raise one meter cubed of water one kilometer. One kWh equals 3.6MJ. A 15 foot, 36 inch deep swimming pool makes up roughly 15 cubic meters of volume; raise this 67 meters into the air for a kWh of power, or roughly one hour of running one typical household. Rooftop water towers hold 200-400 cubic meters of water, while stand-alones can hold 1000 cubic meters or more; one particular water tower holds 12000 cubic meters. These each supply an hour of power for 2.5 meter, 1 meter, or 83mm elevations, respectively. To power 100 houses for 12 hours, you would need to raise 12000 cubic meters of water 100 meters.

You can neither charge nor extract the energy from this system perfectly. It also has relatively low energy density. Not a great solution huh?

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[background image]

You bring up a fact that just struck me as odd. Why aren't we doing something to store electricity?

Energy storage is one of the keys to a modern energy infrastructure. Currently, we (typically) use fossil fuels for this purpose--it just sits there until it's needed. According to David Sanborn Scott's book, hydrogen is the only viable large-scale energy storage medium (or, in his words, "energy currency"). This is because, in a general way, it can be used more or less as we now use fossil fuels.

I don't know if he thinks of hydrogen as a means of storing energy generated off-peak for use during peak hours (I do know he sees a larger role for nuclear power--something I'm a little ambivalent about), but his ideas are very interesting in that he insists that this problem be approached as a problem with the energy system. In other words, it's necessary to understand the role fossil fuels play in the production, distribution and use of energy in order to decide how best to replace them.

He's appeared on two episodes of the CBC program Ideas--look for the podcast titled "The Hydrogen Solution."

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Ferrocement (not for joints of moving parts, obviously, but those need maintenance anyway)?

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[background image]

Your Ubuntu-related paranoia ('"My own actions" are not the cause of this problem'), and your Slashdot-related paranoia ('the people that are stalking me') don't exactly inspire me to take seriously your global warming paranoia ('The purpose, for most such alarmists, is to shut down activity they don't like')...

When you're persecuted, when people are out to get you, and when you're the only one who can see what's really going on, it's time to start taking your meds again...

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Firethorn]

when a government is working efficiently

Ah, when hell freezes over and pigs fly, right? ;)

Seriously, at least in the USA 'efficient' and 'government' doesn't go together. Perhaps unfortunately.

On the point of public transport powered by right now theoretical/prototype stage tidal/oceanic power, the only thing I can think of would be that it'd be electric, thus electric rail, leading me to think that a PRT system would be your best bet, at least for near universal coverage. You'd still have vehicles and roads for special purposes. Though heck, I can picture ATV type ambulances and firetrucks, as if you get it universal enough, you might stop maintaining PAVED roads. Removing much of the pavement in cities would help mitigate much of the heat zone effect today's cities currently have.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see PRT go into a city, starting with the 'downtown' and spreading to common areas - like fringe malls. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be FREE. Somebody, most likely a LOT of somebodies, would end up paying for it. It might be a better solution than cars, but I'm not going to pretend that anything is without cost.

As for healthcare, I think that a better solution to many of our current problems would be an ending of the subsidies that encourage corn syrup as the near-universal sweetener, combined with a return to healthcare insurance purchased by individuals where the individual, on average, pays* for his or her own healthcare until it reaches the critical level of their deductible. That would actually simplify billing, reducing many costs.

Of course, the way I picture it, I'd have it be something like this: Individual pays for the first thousand or so of their healthcare. Then the insurance company picks it up, until the cost of the healthcare exceeds certain caps - something like $100k in five years or so, at which point the person would be considered disabled** and the government would pick up the tab.

For the 'universal' system, IE those that fail to qualify for more coverage under government plans due to poverty or disability or whatever, I'd deliberately keep it cheap and sucky, with the idea that people get the idea that they SHOULD have coverage. With a large deductible the insurance shouldn't cost much anyways.

Compared to Canada, healthcare is not hard to obtain in the USA, it's just too expensive because of red tape.

*price preferably negotiated beforehand for any services
**Yes, even if they can work, I'm sure a different term could be used, like 'critical healthcare requirements'.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should also worry about the stress of worrying about everything you eat.

Besides, if you live in the US you probably have more reason to worry about the unproven long-term effects of almost entirely replacing cane sugar with high-fructose corn-syrup in your diet, and unless you live in a very remote place, you should probably be more worried about the vehicle exhaust gases you're almost constantly inhaling a lot more than mercury in the little fishies. At least your body can deal with some amount of mercury, some of the substances emitted from vehicle exhausts are considered to have NO safe level in the environment by the WHO.

But as I was saying, I believe if you spend all your time worrying, you'll end up with something to worry about.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[steeviant]

"I've planted tens of thousands of trees in my life. Where do I go to get my carbon credit? :)"

Dope plants don't count.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[russotto]

But IMHO a better way to accomplish the same thing is to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as octane, like I suggest here (in a post that was modded down for no reason by the people that are stalking me), and get the energy to do that from nuclear power, like this guy has already worked out the details for. That way, the gasoline you would burn, would only return to the atmosphere, what was taken from it.

If you've solved the energy problem and the CO2 capture problem, there's plenty of things you can do. Produce syngas from CO2 + H20, create methanol and diesel from the syngas, convert the methanol to gasoline, etc. I don't think there's a method for directly synthesizing pure iso-octane, but that doesn't matter much.

But first you have to solve the energy problem. And if you've come up with a way to generate nearly all the energy the world needs (aside from mobile uses) without CO2, you probably don't need to worry about the rest for a long while. Nuclear ain't going to do it, for political reasons if no other.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Anonymous Coward]

I have discovered a horrible truth about the plant kingdom.

Environmentalists want you to think that photosynthesis, the process through which plants take in CO2 and water and produce oxygen and energy (in the form of simple sugars), is a good thing. I'm here to tell you that it's not, and I can tell you why using simple analysis.

First off, high oxygen environments result in faster combustion reactions. That is, the higher the oxygen concentration, the faster things burn. So, the more trees we have, the higher the oxygen concentration, and the faster things will burn. Second, these trees take in water and CO2. Water puts out fires, and CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. Think about that - these trees create a high-oxygen, fire-friendly environment, and then remove our defenses against fire? That seems a bit suspicious to me.

Now, the final piece of the puzzle. What is it that we typically burn to produce fire? WOOD. Where does it come from? TREES. So, trees create ideal conditions for runaway, out-of-control, dangeous fires, and then use themselves as fuel to make these fires burn even longer! In essence, these so-called "trees" are more like suicide bombers, sacrificing themselves in order to destroy the human race. The only logical solution is to declare war on the plant kingdom, in order to ensure the survival of the current animal empire. Long live humanity!

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[Zumbs]

From an environmental point of view, using corn to produce alcohol has the same basic problem that other biofuels have, ie. that production and transportation emits CO2. The reason the corn alcohol is promoted (if I'm not very much mistaken) is that a group of large American farming corporations smell large profits! As you said, for biofuels to be interesting, we would have to set up a sustainable infrastructure. This infrastructure, however, isn't there, so for biofuels to become interesting this would have to be set up. This requires sizable investments (as well as technological development), which cut into profits - at least on the short term. And this is (in my humble opinion) the main reason that development of alternative energy sources is so slow.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[dubl-u]

So now that everyone's realized their mistake and ISPs are trying to crack down on the users and the government is calling it a terrorist tool, where's your worldview now?

I'm not saying that people with money don't act in ways that get them more money. Many rich people are indeed greedy.

What I'm saying is that there is no vast conspiracy to keep our noble citizenry down. And that's precisely because rich people are greedy. They aren't very good at cooperating at the best of times, because that would mean sharing rather than being greedy. Occasionally they do try to collude, which is why we have anti-trust laws.

Of course, a lot of you people aren't helping. The reason the telecom and cable companies have a lot of power over the internet is that people keep giving them money. Anybody who frets about corporate control of the Internet while subscribing to AT&T or Comcast needs to sack up and get an independent ISP. While there are still some left.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[MightyYar]

I'm sure that there are many acceptable materials for the fixed portions of an installation. But to generate power you are going to need bolts, hoses, bushings, bearings, wiring, hydraulics, etc.

Titanium and stainless are subject to hydrogen embrittlement in a marine environment, and steel or aluminum will corrode. Anything rubber hardens and splits.

It's feasible technically, but not economically since you have to constantly replace parts. Maintenance in a marine environment will cost substantially more than in a less severe environment. If you have ever spent any amount of time boating on both a lake and the ocean, you will understand :) People tool around in boats from the 70s and 80s on lakes, often with their original engines! On salt water, a 10-year-old motor is considered "ancient" and is fairly rare.

I grew up at the seashore and thought it was completely normal to replace the exhaust system on my car every 3 years :)

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[retupmoca]

or even a fricking horse provided it was fitted with a fart afterburner to kill the methane

An afterburning horse...how much extra thrust do you get with that?

Also, new sig.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[LeadSongDog]

Sadly, though, it looks like the idea of biofuels is going to get discredited by the lamebrained alcohol-from-corn debacle. Why can't they see: making alcohol from rice is much better. They can subsidize^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgrow it in Texas AND Louisiana.

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[reboot246]

Loblolly pines. By the thousands. So, where do I go to get that check?

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[UbuntuDupe]

Wow, finally someone with the balls to put a name on a criticism -- but not a wise move, since it attaches stupidity to *your* name.

Your Ubuntu-related paranoia ('"My own actions" are not the cause of this problem'),

I think what you means there is failure to take responsibility, but whatever. That's a pretty stupid example to pick, since in that case, it's proven that my actions were not the cause of the problem, and that statement was 100% accurate. The error I had when trying to install is well-known and well-defined, and something that I couldn't cause. Go ahead -- ask anyone about Error 25 at State 1.5 in GRUB.

Of course, if you sloppily equivocate "this problem" to mean the problem of being unable to get AROUND Ubuntu's locking me out of my computer, you're still clearly wrong, because the install instructions at no point tell me to take the measures that would have allowed me to fix the problem with what I had available, and so no one would have been able to help me, even if I had been polite about their beloved OS's poor design. What does it do instead? It tells me to *disable* measures I had taken (confining Ubuntu to a non-primary hard drive)!

You're damn right that "my own actions" were not the cause of this problem. Just go ahead and do what the rest of them do -- tell me I was stupid to trust a Linux distro's install instructions, but in a way that obscures the asininity of that criticism. Or listen to this guy.

and your Slashdot-related paranoia ('the people that are stalking me')

First, I didn't characterize it as stalking until this guy called it that (before that I just called it an internet hate machine like in that clueless fox story).

Second, there most certainly ARE people modding me down out of hate for me personally instead of because the posts really deserve being modded down. You be the judge. I went ahead and resubscribed just so I could access a few pages back. (And of course the first time I documented this would have been easily accessible except that my karma was terrible at the time and I had to make the summary post as AC! Nope, no inferences to draw from that ...)

Tell me why this chain of downmods, within a short span of time, is fully justified and/or coincidental:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=430222&cid=22182538
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=430222&cid=22185098
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=430222&cid=22185130
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=430222&cid=22189424 (those four all on thread where I criticize anti-IP arguments)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=435108&cid=22242924 (detailed post where I grudgingly reveal medical history to make a point)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=435108&cid=22249146 (criticism of poor anti-IP argument)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=430026&cid=22181566
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=434764&cid=22227472

I could do a lot more -- that's just a sampling.

global warming paranoia ('The purpose, for most such alarmists, is to shut down activity they don't like')...

Unfortunately for you, my theory fits the data. ANY plan that would significantly reduce net carbon emissions while not confining business and while permitting conspicuous consumption is ig

Re:I already have a CO2 storage device

[teresabunny]

At the national, let alone global scale, trees alone do not provide the carbon sink we need to offset our woefully unbalanced power consumption. They are vital, yes, and planting them is still good, but trees will not offset our coal power plant use, let alone petroleum use. From: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007286.html "Home Depot is funding the planting of 300,000 trees in cities across the US to help absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions... The CO2 emissions from only one medium-sized (500 MW) coal-fired power plant, in just 10 days of operation, will negate this entire effort." [for the entire life of the tree].

Powerplant Modernization

[esconsult1]

So I can tell you that these guys with powerplants will take forever to modernize to use this technology. If you have a steady stream of income, and a reason to not go down, then you're gonna hate to do anything to cut into your profits and to also interrupt that stream of income for even a second. Inertia and income are the drivers for these plants to never, ever make any changes to benefit the environment.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[Gyga]

The heads of companies will do anything to get eviromentalist off their backs.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[Anonymous Coward]

worth pointing out that a carbon tax would fix that problem.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[cunamara]

That and needing hundreds of liters of these crystals per hour to absorb the CO2 produced by a coal- or natural gas- fired powerplant. USG (United States Gypsum) was working on stuff like this to absorb acids out of smokestack emissions 20+ years ago and determined that, while it could be done, it just wasn't cost-reasonable.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[TheSkyIsPurple]

This is a good example for the "Electric cars are bad" people...

With a relatively few power plants to fix up, we can actually focus on how to do it, and we can pass taxes and legislation that aren't directly targeted at individual people... so fixing up power plants becomes a hell of a lot easier than trying to fix up all the cars on the road.

Practical or easy right now? no
But it's at least a tractable problem.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[Orne]

Yeah, a carbon tax would do a good job of stopping power companies from ever building more power plants, limiting supply, thus since our demand is not increasing, the rates are going to go up, making all of our electricity more expensive.

Good job

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[budgenator]

Here's where your wrong, the vast majority of power stations are State regulated monopolies, and the state's Public Utilities Commissions typically allow rates to be set which limit the profit ratio, for example if the Utility is limited to 10% profit, the only way to increase their Gross Profits is to increase their expenses, for every dollars in extra expenses, they get an extra 10 cents in profits! This is just the opposite of most businesses, in fact power companies are the only industry where its a Generally Accepted Practice to list labor expenses as a fixed expense rather than a variable expense.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[Anonymous Coward]

Generation plants need to go down for periodic maintenance. These devices can be added on when the plants are idle and the company can get a bit of a PR boost about being "cleaner for the environment". If they are in an area that has a carbon trading scheme, they can sell their credits to others.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[bheading]

Yeah, a carbon tax would do a good job of stopping power companies from ever building more power plants, limiting supply, thus since our demand is not increasing, the rates are going to go up, making all of our electricity more expensive.

That's right. The cost is being held artificially low because the price of keeping the air clean isn't being factored in.

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Or maybe they would build nuclear plants instead of coal plants?

Re:Powerplant Modernization

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why you can't rely on the free market for important things like this, they have to be forced to implement pollution-reducing measures.

Gasp!

[NetNinja]

Another use for dilithium crystals!

Great Scott!

Coming Soon...

[fictionpuss]

Slurm Extreme.. now with 83 times as much fizz!

Re:Coming Soon...

[F34nor]

"It's like there' a party in my mouth, and everybody's throwing up!"

Increasing Oxygen content in the atmo!

[Bartab]

Some ecoterrorist will get ahold of these and soak up all the CO2 in the atmosphere killing us all!

(Probably through a personal and major misunderstanding of biology, not through any actual malicious intent)

Re:Increasing Oxygen content in the atmo!

[misleb]

If there is no malicious intent, how can you call the person an ecoterrorist?

other uses

[Exile1]

wonder how this will advanced re-breathers, as you need to remove co2 from them.

Re:other uses

[sumdumass]

Or commercial space and even air travel.

It sounds interesting because there is a range of things that already depend on the removal of Co2. If this stuff is more effective in both costs and performance, it might have a significant impact in ways the normal person wouldn't think of.

My SCUBA instructor was certified to use re-breathers and did so on numerous occasions. He claimed that besides looking cool, the lack of exhaust help him monitor his students better and he could react sooner if something went wrong. But it didn't seem to have the same time span as regular tanks which limited our initial dives in time and depth. I think it was pretty expensive to operate too.

And how does it affect the environment?

[bigattichouse]

So, you spill a few liters of the stuff - what does it do when it gets in contact with living creatures (like algae? birds? small children?) And how long does it take to break down and release all those gases? (That would be useful - like a CO2 tank for plants for long space voyages)... I think there are a lot of questions.

Re:And how does it affect the environment?

[slashdotrobman]

There seems to be a much simpler way to do all this.

The fly/bottom ash that is left over after burning the coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power#Diagram) can contain up to 30% or 40% Calcium Oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash). This can be turned into Calcium Hydroxide (slaked lime) by mixing it with water.

If you then bubble the CO2 laden flue gases through this slaked lime solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_hydroxide) then to quote "It turns milky if carbon dioxide is passed through, due to precipitation of calcium carbonate."

Calcium Carbonate is the white substance that makes up the bulk of sea shells, snail shells and egg shells. It can easily be disposed of by being buried without risk...instead of the silly idea of burying CO2 gas. And in fact it is quite useful in many industrial applications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate#Uses).

This means the waste ash from the burning of the coal can then be re-used to extract the CO2 gas in order to make a commercially useful product.

This is similar to the solution that was created to remove the Sulphur from the coal plant output that was creating acid rain. This is now used to create gypsum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization).

full?

[theheadlessrabbit]

and what happens when these crystals are full?

Re:full?

[timeOday]

You put them where all the oil and coal came from.

Re:full?

[Tranzistors]

...thus solving the problem once and for all.

Re:full?

[iminplaya]

Well, "like a sponge", you squeeze it and use it again.

Re:full?

[MightyYar]

That's the beauty of it - you burn them! :)

Re:full?

[kubrick]

Finally, peace in the Middle East.

Re:full?

[crispin_bollocks]

Easy - use the full crystals as aggregate in concrete to build lots of hydro dams and nuclear waste storage facilities. Or sell them in New Age shops?

Re:full?

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

Re:full?

[sumdumass]

oil has very little to do with peace in the middle east.

Re:full?

[jagdish]

ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Re:full?

[misleb]

Wow. It is amazing how many FRPM (Futurama References Per Minute) you get when an environmental article is posted.

Re:full?

[budgenator]

Then you empty them, and capture the concentrated CO2 and do something with that like dump in the deep Ocean, or pump into the ground or use it to make your soda pop fizzy or fill your fire extinguishers.

Re:full?

[Headw1nd]

But it has a great deal to do with whether or not the western world cares.

Re:full?

[sumdumass]

Well, historically, pre oil and all, it was Asian trade routes, Israel, slaves, spices, and a number of other things not in any particular order. OF course a side effect of the European Christian crusades was was the formation of the ottoman empire which helped keep "peace" in the areas for centuries. Until the US invaded tripoli in the 1800's pretty much all the instability you needed to worry about was muslum government backed thieves or pirates and bandits along the trade routs.

Then again, WW1 sort of made us care all over again. Unfortunately, we (as in the rest of the WW1 winners) allowed the French to colonize parts of it and England wasn't successful in repatriating all the territories they were responsible for so we have the Palestinian conflict and Israel to worry about.

I would say our involvement in the area has had a lot more to do with anything but oil in the last century then it has. To boil our (the western worlds) involvement in the middle east down to oil is missing out on a great part of history. Of course the US seems to have taken a more violent approach from the very beginnings of the country which makes it more interesting to me. But for anyone who thinks it is and always was about oil, I suggest they spend some time looking at the historical involvements of western nations in the area. The majority of what has happened to bring the ties we have today have little to do with oil although oil isn't completely out of the picture.

A real interesting thing about the more recent violent, Kuwait, which has been a safe harbor and a prime trade spot for American vessels for over a century after the US became a country, use this relationship with the US to get us to fund Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war in which we sent ammo and trucks (publicly) And then again when Iraq invaded them, in which we responded with the first gulf war. And to note, Kuwait had been a safe harbor and an ally for quite a few other countries which probably is a reason for some of the strong support coming to their aid alongside the US. It is simply fascinating to know about these things which distracts from the Root of ALL EVIL pictures incorrectly painted by so many people.

Re:full?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but a fair amount to do with the fights.

So when's the IPO?

[tjstork]

Question is, when's the IPO for a company mass producing this stuff?

Solution without a Problem

[MSTCrow5429]

CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming, not a catalyst for it. It takes 300 - 1,200 years for CO2 concentrations to rise after an increase in global temperature. This is a scientifically intriguing discovery, but it's more likely of interest to human spaceflight, not saving the world.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Waffle Iron]

CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming, not a catalyst for it.

* [Citation Needed]

Re:Solution without a Problem

[ksalter]

Can you give a reference for this please, especially the 300 - 1200 years number?

Re:Solution without a Problem

[ductonius]

Spaceflight and oceanographic research. With cheaper rebreathers underwater research will become more affordable. It seems this chemical will absorb more CO2 than regular CO2 scubbers too, and having a scrubber media that isn't reactive to water would be a huge safety factor.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[A beautiful mind]

No, actually CO2 and global temperature are like a couple making love. When one of them makes the first gentle push, the other reacts, which in turn causes a bigger push.

And let me tell you something: you absolutely do not want to get caught between these two deadly lovers, because their love is destructive from our point of view. (And I guess I'm totally missing the target audience here on slashdot with a sex analogy.)

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Waffle Iron]

Well, the first article is actually a myth busting entry debunking the theory that the lag associated with the past couple of ice ages somehow proves that CO2 does not cause warming.

The second website looks to me like a highly biased collection of cargo cult science put together by people who specialize in fields like economics, not climatology.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Echoes64]

Here's your citition...

"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" By Siegfried Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery, pg. 36

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that first article can be summed up as: "Since 'climate scientists' don't think so it must not be so. Ignore the man/data behind the curtain." It does the proverbial hand wave, says "these aren't the graphs you're looking for" and then blathers on about *other* factors that affect earth's climate. It never actually gets around to explaining why these scientists don't think the ice core data throws the link into question. It's nothing but appeal to authority.

The fact of the matter is a graph that shows CO2 lagging temperature *does* throw the relationship of the two into question. New Scientists here claims to answer that question but woefully fails to deliver.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The logic is impeccable. Cf. Water in the lungs is a lagging indicator of drowning, not a catalyst.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Waffle Iron]

It never actually gets around to explaining why these scientists don't think the ice core data throws the link into question.

If you understood the article, it should be pretty obvious that CO2 likely didn't trigger the end of the last few ice ages given that there probably weren't any large releases of CO2 like we're making now. (And before anybody gets any big ideas: Volcanoes aren't the culprit. They release a tiny fraction as much CO2 as humans.) As the article points out, the changes likely were triggered by other factors like changes in the earth's orbit.

If the CO2 didn't trigger the changes, but does participate in a positive feedback loop, then of course it would lag the temperature. But that has nothing to do at all with the question of whether an increase in CO2 levels could also trigger a warming cycle.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you understood the article, it should be pretty obvious that CO2 likely didn't trigger the end of the last few ice ages

If you understood my post, you'd know that I never mentioned ice ages. I said the article hand-waves the question of "Why don't scientists think the 800 year lag in ice core data matters?" The article goes on about causes of temperature and CO2 concentration changes. It makes a very good reply, but never actually answers the question.

Because it never answers the question it's just a fancy appeal to authority.

As the article points out, the changes likely were triggered by other factors like changes in the earth's orbit.

And the question it should be answering is: Why aren't these the cause of global warming/CO2 rise today?

The answer "because humans are emitting lots of CO2" doesn't cut it. Why aren't the natural causes of the past the causes today?

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Waffle Iron]

The answer "because humans are emitting lots of CO2" doesn't cut it. Why aren't the natural causes of the past the causes today?

They still are. But you, like so many others, seem to be completely ignorant of the concept of rate of change. Humans are changing the CO2 levels orders of magnitude faster than natural factors have in the past, so those effects get lost in the noise.

So "humans are emitting lots of CO2" does cut it.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[smaddox]

mod parent +5 Informative!

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The rate of temperature change today is not unprecedented in history. Oh, wait, it is, if you magic away the medieval warm period and other such events. What was that about ignorance?

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you believe the, ahem, "skeptical" reconstructions of the Medieval Warm Period, the MWP is still a slower change than today. Look at, say, Loehle's reconstruction. It has a roughly 0.5 degree warming over a period of nearly 500 years, or somewhat over 0.1/century, compared to the 20th century rate of around 0.6 degrees/century.

There is one known example of very fast warming which can be found in the paleoclimate record, and those are the Dansgaard-Oescher events. They are associated with the collapse and restart of the thermohaline circulation. However, the thermohaline circulation is not restarting now; it has been circulating for quite some time (which is why the north Atlantic isn't colder than it is). Also, it cannot be responsible for much global warming; it just moves heat from one location to another, so if the north Atlantic warms the south Atlantic cools or vice versa (the bipolar seesaw mechanism).

As far as global warming is concerned, the current rate is indeed greater than anything we see in the paleoclimate record. (There are examples of fast cooling events due to volcanoes.)

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I said the article hand-waves the question of "Why don't scientists think the 800 year lag in ice core data matters?" They do think it matters, in the sense of being an interesting facet of the climate system. But your real question is, "Why don't scientists think the 800 year lag in ice core data casts doubt on the idea that CO2 causes warming?"

The answer to that is:

1. There is ample and direct theoretical and experimental evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming, independent of the ice core record.

2. Regardless of which came first, the magnitude of the temperature rise in the ice core record cannot be explained without invoking the greenhouse effect of CO2. That is, even if you think that temperature rises caused CO2 rises, there is nothing which can explain the amount of warming without making use of the original warming due to the CO2 liberated by the initial warming. (Some of the warming is explainable by solar irradiance and Earth's surface albedo, but that's still not enough.)

3. Time lags are a lousy way to diagnose causality when feedbacks are present. That's why a CO2-temperature correlation graph by itself doesn't prove much (either for or against CO2-induced warming). You need to understand more about the mechanistic link between the two to infer causes. (Such as the nature of other sources of climate change, the physics processes by which temperature can alter CO2 and CO2 in turn can alter temperature, etc.)

Re:Solution without a Problem

[sumdumass]

And yes the amount of Co2 being emitted unnaturally by humans is less then .0001% of the total green house gases. And yes, you heard that correctly, less then 1/1000 or 1 percent of the total greenhouse gases in our atmosphere at any given time. We are measuring it in hundreds of parts per million when looking at it on a whole.

The rate of change in one isolated particulate might be astounding but it doesn't automagically mean any significant relation to other events. Some of which people are speculating have more of an impacts then Co2's changes could possibly have.

I speculate that this could have been discovered and more understood by now if global warming hadn't been hijacked for political gain on a global scale and prevented honest study in areas that don't jive with the geopolitical agendas. And yes, I am talking about Kyoto, the IPCC, and so on.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Waffle Iron]

And yes the amount of Co2 being emitted unnaturally by humans is less then .0001% of the total green house gases. And yes, you heard that correctly, less then 1/1000 or 1 percent of the total greenhouse gases in our atmosphere at any given time.

* [Citation Seriously Needed]

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

And yes the amount of Co2 being emitted unnaturally by humans is less then .0001% of the total green house gases. And yes, you heard that correctly, less then 1/1000 or 1 percent of the total greenhouse gases in our atmosphere at any given time. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor, with an average concentration of about 0.25% by volume, or 2500 ppmv. The amount of CO2 emitted by humans over the last 150 years is about 100 ppmv (280 to 380 ppmv, a ~35% increase). So the ratio is only a factor or 25. (It would be more accurate to compare greenhouse potentials and not straight concentrations.)

However, as I've explained to you in the past, the relative concentration of greenhouse gases is not really the important issue. What matters is the change in greenhouse effect above the natural baseline. The natural greenhouse effect is something like 30 degrees C. Anthropogenic CO2 has, so far, added less than 1 C to that. The natural baseline is much larger than the anthropogenic contribution, because there are more natural greenhouse gases than anthropogenic. But the anthropogenic GHGs are still important: 1 C matters, climatically speaking. And projected CO2 emissions are likely to add several more degrees on top of that, which is the point.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[MSTCrow5429]

If you seriously wanted citations, you wouldn't be a Wikidick about it. It's like running into a room with a dead goat under your arm and asking for directions. This isn't Wikipedia, and Wikipedian asshattery isn't going to get you into the Cabal, because there isn't one on /..

Re:Solution without a Problem

[budgenator]

Irregardless of AGW, sooner or later the air is going to get too thick to breath, so we have to do something about increasing CO2 levels or we'll all die. It's nonsensical to argue over whether we'll die of heat-stoke or die of suffocation.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[An Onerous Coward]

Talented scientist you cite there. Given that he can't see the link between smoking and cancer either, I have to choose between two competing hypotheses.

1) Fred Singer's scientific opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.

2) Fred Singer is a really sucky scientist.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Waffle Iron]

Look, the guy is off by more than 4 orders of magnitude. It would be really interesting to find out where he got this absurd misinformation.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[MSTCrow5429]

I guess, but bringing Wikipedia into it is the equivalent of a fiscal conservative showing up at a city Democrat meeting, or a guy in full drag showing up at the monthly GOP meeting. However, doing both at once, showing up at the Libertarian meeting would result in no problems.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Monsuco]

Look at the graphs used by the inventor of global warming and the internet, then zoom in and set the base at 1935, wow, cooling trend instead of warming. Just something I noticed.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[timpaton]

CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming, not a catalyst for it. It takes 300 - 1,200 years for CO2 concentrations to rise after an increase in global temperature. This is a scientifically intriguing discovery, but it's more likely of interest to human spaceflight, not saving the world.

You're right - the records indicate that an increase in temperature is likely to be followed by an increase in CO2 concentration. That's what's happened every climate change cycle in measurable history.

But for every cycle in measurable history, the increase in temperature has happened first.

But what happens if the CO2 concentration rises first?

Stay tuned, because we're going to find out. It's never happened before, but it's happened now. There's been a step change (on a geological time scale) in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Climate modellers have a pretty good idea what's likely to happen, but as always, those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous are masking that signal with a whole bunch of "CO2 lags temperature" noise.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[sumdumass]

However, as I've explained to you in the past, the relative concentration of greenhouse gases is not really the important issue. What matters is the change in greenhouse effect above the natural baseline. The natural greenhouse effect is something like 30 degrees C. Anthropogenic CO2 has, so far, added less than 1 C to that. The natural baseline is much larger than the anthropogenic contribution, because there are more natural greenhouse gases than anthropogenic. But the anthropogenic GHGs are still important: 1 C matters, climatically speaking. And projected CO2 emissions are likely to add several more degrees on top of that, which is the point.

Ans as I have explained in the past, there are other people who have other ideas about Co2 and it's importance in the manufactured crisis of global warming. As you have noticed, I haven't made any judgment on their correctness or incorrectness or the ability or inability of Co2 to have that great of an effect or impact.

I have made the judgment that the process has been overrun by politics and if you can't understand that your insistence of their being one true way with all other research needing to stop now is little more then politics, then I'm not sure how we can discuss this. But we are at a point where hiding in the sand and going my way wins or is better somehow -look at all these studies used to political justifications, and the mountain of evidence against Co2 global warming is piling up which means that more and more people are going to dispute it. Personally, I think it is productive to dispute it if not only because the entire process has been hijacked for political gain.

Now the question remains, is a the increase in something that is less then .0001% of the atmosphere's makeup? And is this true considering that about 70% of th warming experienced in Europe is already being attributed to water vapor. And I don't think the Co2 global warming, the world is going to end to adhere to this political agenda crowd has adequately addressed it. You can rant and push your ideals all you want but until this is addressed completely and competently, there is doubt. Others are working on the problem and they seem to have found other answers that don't fit the Co2 models being pushed forward. It is really that simple.

Re: Solution without a Problem

[Echoes64]

Get your facts straight, please. Singer wrote a report that attacked the US Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking . He didn't agree that there was a risk. He never ever said active smokers weren't at risk. Ten years later, in 2004, the CDC and American Cancer Society say there are about 170,000 lung cancer deaths each year. Of those 170,000 lung cancer victims 3,000 aren't active smokers at all but are only "secondhand smokers". So there must be a link!!! Yep, there definitely looks like there is a link between secondhand smoke and cancer. I agree! Now, lets see here... 3,000 is 1.7% of 170,000. Wow, that link doesn't seem very strong anymore, does it? Again, there is a link... but it is a very poor link.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[MSTCrow5429]

But for every cycle in measurable history, the increase in temperature has happened first.

But what happens if the CO2 concentration rises first?

Stay tuned, because we're going to find out. It's never happened before, but it's happened now. There's been a step change (on a geological time scale) in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The majority of the global warming that occurred in the 20th century was pre-1950, before widespread global industrialization. Then the last quarter of the 20th century experienced mild global warming, which ceased in 1998. Now we are seeing predictions of global cooling, due to solar variability. Your conclusion is not one that can be applied to the current scenario.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

Ans as I have explained in the past, there are other people who have other ideas about Co2 and it's importance in the manufactured crisis of global warming. Your paranoid conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the science.

I have made the judgment that the process has been overrun by politics and if you can't understand that your insistence of their being one true way with all other research needing to stop now Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that the evidence strongly supports CO2 as a dominant source of warming since the late 20th century. Nonsense about "one true way" and censoring research is your paranoid fantasy, not anything I said. It's clear that you've allowed your political prejudices to blind you to the point that you cannot honestly evaluate any science which supports AGW.

Now the question remains, is a the increase in something that is less then .0001% of the atmosphere's makeup? You seem fixated on small numbers; as I just explained to you (again), raw numerical size is not the relevant physical quantity here. (Not to mention the fact that anthropogenic CO2 is 0.01% of the atmosphere, not 0.0001%.)

And is this true considering that about 70% of th warming experienced in Europe is already being attributed to water vapor. The water vapor increase is a FEEDBACK produced by the anthropogenic greenhouse forcing; without warming induced by CO2 (or some other forcing), the water vapor wouldn't increase. Read the paper; it does not support the conclusion you're trying to draw (namely, that CO2 is of minor importance to the observed warming).

Others are working on the problem and they seem to have found other answers that don't fit the Co2 models being pushed forward. Yeah, right. Funny how every time you're pushed on the science, the "other answers" you provide come up lacking.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

The majority of the global warming that occurred in the 20th century was pre-1950, before widespread global industrialization. No, the 1900-1950 warming is about equal to the 1950-2000 warming (about 0.4 C each). (The latter would have been larger if not for the increased industrial aerosol emissions.)

Then the last quarter of the 20th century experienced mild global warming, which ceased in 1998. The warming did not cease in 1998, and the last quarter of the 20th century exhibited faster warming than any of the three previous quarters.

Now we are seeing predictions of global cooling, due to solar variability. No, on decadal time scales, CO2 forcing is likely to still outweigh solar effects; we might see slower warming, but not cooling. I don't know who you think is predicting global cooling due to the Sun, on anything longer than a few year timescale.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Echoes64]

Don't be stupid.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[MSTCrow5429]

Google "global warming ceased in 1998." You'll find yourself proven mistaken. A quick Google search on "global cooling" will also display predictions of global cooling from both former anthropogenic global warming scientists, and their opponents, and for a few decades at the least, not a few years.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[sumdumass]

Your paranoid conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the science.

And your insistence that only the science done in the way you approve and on the topics you approve of doesn't either. The bottom line is that people are attempting to move science along the path of discovery and when you insist that everyone who doesn't believe as you do, you know, in the idea that has been hijacked for political and economic gain (see Al Gore, IPCC and so on), you aren't doing it any favors. I think it is just as likely that someone would find another cause and solution to the problem or that the problems aren't really problems. I am reinforced in this belief by the insistence of people involved with it wanting to change the name from global warming to climate change. They have now attempted to call it something that has been happening since the beginning of Earth's time but now they can point and so I told you so. You might be fooled by their superstition and smoke and mirrors, but nothing in this world says that I or anyone else has to buy into it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that the evidence strongly supports CO2 as a dominant source of warming since the late 20th century. Nonsense about "one true way" and censoring research is your paranoid fantasy, not anything I said. It's clear that you've allowed your political prejudices to blind you to the point that you cannot honestly evaluate any science which supports AGW.

First, this has nothing to do with my political prejudices. It has everything to do with my scam detector going off. It is the same detector that rings bells and whistles when someone says trust me, have I got a deal for you, and trust the government. Global warming has become a scam no matter how true it may be or how accurate the science might be. The great fix, the Kyoyo accords, had no provision for ensuring a reduction in emissions, it was only meant to either curb population or redistribute the wealth to third world countries. You have Al Gore fronting a movie that was factually incorrect in many places and exaggerated the effects of it with images and claiming untrue facts about them, then to emerge with a carbon credit program where you can pay him, or a company he is part owner of, to live guilt free while his mansion in TN is undergoing expansion and uses as much energy as the nearest small town. And yes, I exaggerated the energy usage by a small amount but I figure I can take the same line as NASA's Hansen has done when he stated that it was ok to exaggerate facts about global warming to increase it's uptake. And in case you haven't heard of this, he was quoted as saying this when answering questions about the now debunked Mann hockey stick graph and the irregularities or math errors that produced the 90's as the hottest decade on record. Seriously, even if global warming is happening, and it is happening from increased Co2 emissions, the cause has simple been hijacked and you can't trust what is being said at face value.

You seem fixated on small numbers; as I just explained to you (again), raw numerical size is not the relevant physical quantity here. (Not to mention the fact that anthropogenic CO2 is 0.01% of the atmosphere, not 0.0001%.)

SO I forgot to drop the 00 when making it a percentage. It is still an outrageous claim. And no, anthropogenic CO2 is not .01% of the atmosphere. While it is true that the increase is around 100 ppm (parts per million for those not in with the lingo) which seems to fluctuate 5 to 10 ppm depending on the source, not all of that is anthropogenic CO2, a good portion is released from natural syncs like the ocean and thawed permafrost lands that is attributed to the so called warming. An interesting fact here is that water vapor increases have already been attributed to 70% of the warming in Europe and you want ot ignore that along with everyone else drinking the Kool-aid who seems to think the increas

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

Google "global warming ceased in 1998." You'll find yourself proven mistaken. Hardly. I'm well familiar with the GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 datasets. They indicate no such thing. Hell, just look at the data. For a detailed statistical discussion, try here.

A quick Google search on "global cooling" will also display predictions of global cooling from both former anthropogenic global warming scientists, and their opponents, and for a few decades at the least, not a few years. We were talking about predictions of future cooling due to solar trends, not past predictions of cooling based on industrial aerosol emissions. Perhaps you should get your climate science from something meatier than a "quick Google search". You might give the impression that you know what you're talking about then.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[MSTCrow5429]

I'm not getting my data from a quick Google search, but as you are unfamiliar with large sections of the topic at hand, I thought it might benefit your currently existing knowledge base. Your image isn't detailed enough to discern a two year climate decrease, and ignores a decade of available data since 1998. Sources indicating that global warming ceased in 1998 are, in part, http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf, http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38 and http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/global-warming-movement-falling-apart/. You guys can't even keep your story straight anymore.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

And your insistence that only the science done in the way you approve and on the topics you approve of doesn't either. Once again, you're blatantly lying about what I've said. You have an enormous investment in portraying anyone you disagree with as biased, when you're the one who is severely prejudiced.

Please, quote me where I've insisted that "only science be done in the way I approve, on the topics I approve".

First, this has nothing to do with my political prejudices. Of course it does. You don't like the political implications, and therefore you refuse to understand the science.

SO I forgot to drop the 00 when making it a percentage. That's not the only number you've gotten wrong by orders of magnitude; you did the same thing in the post to which I originally implied. Not surprising coming from someone who is uninterested in and ignorant of the actual science.

It is still an outrageous claim. And there you go repeating the same error a THIRD time. You're truly ineducable.

Once again: the fact that CO2 is a small amount of the atmosphere does not imply that it has negligible effect on the climate.

And no, anthropogenic CO2 is not .01% of the atmosphere. Yes, it is.

While it is true that the increase is around 100 ppm (parts per million for those not in with the lingo) which seems to fluctuate 5 to 10 ppm depending on the source, not all of that is anthropogenic CO2, a good portion is released from natural syncs like the ocean and thawed permafrost lands that is attributed to the so called warming. No, the 100 ppm accumulation from pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic sources. Natural variability is much smaller than that, on the order of a few ppm.

Or rather, more precisely: natural sources of CO2 are larger than anthropogenic sources, but until recently they were closely balanced by natural sinks of nearly equal magnitude. It's only in industrial times that additional anthropogenic sources have overweighed the natural sinks, leading to a 100 ppm accumulation of CO2 (from natural and anthropogenic sources) that would not have accumulated in the absence of anthropogenic activity.

The ocean is a net sink for CO2, not a source, by the way. And thawing permafrost has not yet become a major source of CO2, although it could become one (as well as, perhaps more importantly, a methane source) in the future when more of it thaws.

An interesting fact here is that water vapor increases have already been attributed to 70% of the warming in Europe I already pointed out in my last response that you're confused about the study, and I even linked to the study in question! It does not attribute 70% of the European warming to natural sources! It links it to increased water vapor content WHICH IS DUE TO INCREASED CO2: it is a feedback of the CO2 greenhouse effect. This is a PREDICTION of the greenhouse effect, not a refutation of it!

Why do you keep citing a study whose conclusions refute the point you're trying to make? Have you even read the abstract?

So tell me, how is 30% more warming supposed to increase water vapor enugh for it to increase warming another 70% It would appear that you would have a runaway process that wouldn't stop if that was possible. The system equilibrates at a new humidity and temperature; it doesn't produce a runaway greenhouse effect unless you're on the wrong side of the saturation curve, like Venus is. You can see nice phase diagrams of this situation in David Archer's lay book on climate.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

Yeah, don't try playing the condescension card. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Your image isn't detailed enough to discern a two year climate decrease, and ignores a decade of available data since 1998. Uh, no.

1. The GISTEMP record contains detailed monthly data. If you want to see a statistical analysis of it, see this companion article to the other one I linked.
2. There's not really any such thing as a "two year climate decrease" (or increase); given the observed interannual variability, it is statistically impossible to define climate trends over a period that short. (And why would a 2-year decrease matter anyway? Global warming doesn't predict that every year is monotonically warmer than the last.)
3. The GISTEMP record I linked clearly includes data up to 2007.

Sources indicating that global warming ceased in 1998 are, in part, The first link includes no data, figures, or statistical analysis.

Ditto, the second link.

Ditto the third link. It doesn't give any evidence at all that global warming ceased in 1998, it just makes an uncited reference to "a study" in the first sentence, and the rest of the article does not analyze the post-1998 warming trend.

Keep up the Googling, man. You might learn something someday.

Re:Solution without a Problem

[sumdumass]

Once again, you're blatantly lying about what I've said. You have an enormous investment in portraying anyone you disagree with as biased, when you're the one who is severely prejudiced.

So far I have said anything about "what you have said" that wasn't true. I have expressed opinion but I haven't lied about anything. Show me where I have.

You have an enormous investment in portraying anyone you disagree with as biased, when you're the one who is severely prejudiced.

Your right that I am biased. I consider it a side effect of paying attention and troll like you walking the forums to snidely correct anyone who isn't stepping in tow with your favorite position. The fact of the matter is that there are people out there making claims about global warming and "it doesn't agree with this model" doesn't cut it. And instead of taking the problem up with them, you seem content attempting to attack anyone repeating it. If you combine that with the less then honest Co2 is killing us all approach, it read scam and cover up really strong. I don't think I can make one comment about the subject without you popping in to make sure everyone believe the way you do and that everyone know your way is the one true way. And judging from your comments on your user page, I wouldn't be the only one who can make that claim.

Of course it does. You don't like the political implications, and therefore you refuse to understand the science.

lol.. that's rich, I don't like the political implications so I don't drink the Kool-aid and believe everything they say. IT is that simple. MAyeb you should be a little more sceptic too. I mean it isn't like the stuff that supposedly proves it hasn't been found wrong or infested with biases and problematic errors is it? It isn't like half the dooms day scenarios presented so far have proven to be bunk is it?

Once again: the fact that CO2 is a small amount of the atmosphere does not imply that it has negligible effect on the climate.

I didn't say it didn't have a negligable effect. I didn't even say it couldn't have a profound effect. I said it doesn't have the effect being claimed and people are showing the problem is elsewhere. IE, people are showing that Co2 isn't the problem. I think the global warming crowd fears this and it is one of the reasons they are push the name change to climate change instead of global warming.

No, the 100 ppm accumulation from pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic sources. Natural variability is much smaller than that, on the order of a few ppm.

Well, let me inform the people at NASA, the IPCC, wikipedia, and all the other information sources we have telling us this stuff. You see, the rest of the world is reporting a 100 ppm increase since the industrial age. At the same time, the are accounting for anthropogenic sources, volcanic, Co2 emitted from marshes and other lands trapped by the permafrost that is now open and a few other places like the oceans solubility pump and effects of elmino or whatever the popular name for the southern pacific decadal oscillations. This means by default that the 100ppm isn't all from anthropogenic sources. This isn't anything new or anything that should rock your world view, it is simple 2+2.

Or rather, more precisely: natural sources of CO2 are larger than anthropogenic sources, but until recently they were closely balanced by natural sinks of nearly equal magnitude. It's only in industrial times that additional anthropogenic sources have overweighed the natural sinks, leading to a 100 ppm accumulation of CO2 (from natural and anthropogenic sources) that would not have accumulated in the absence of anthropogenic activity.

This simply isn't true. But more importantly, the permmafrost melting is a source of more natural Co2 which is why previous records indicates that w

Re:Solution without a Problem

[Ambitwistor]

So far I have said anything about "what you have said" that wasn't true.

Wrong.

As I requested in the last post, please, quote me where I've insisted that "only science be done in the way I approve, on the topics I approve".

Otherwise, admit you're lying about what I have or have not "insisted".

Note: pointing out that claim X is wrong is not "insisting that science can only be done in way Y on topic Z".

Your right that I am biased. I consider it a side effect of paying attention and troll like you walking the forums to snidely correct anyone who isn't stepping in tow with your favorite position.

There you go with your prejudices again. I'm correcting people who are WRONG, on a topic I happen to know something about. Which you are. Repeatedly. Despite careful correction. If you want to present a CORRECT scientific argument in favor of your position, feel free.

And instead of taking the problem up with them, you seem content attempting to attack anyone repeating it.

Who said I'm not taking it up with them? If someone posts an argument here, I'll address it. You seem content with merely repeating other people's conclusions without even giving their arguments, and then whining about agendas when you're called on it.

How many times have you insisted in this thread that "other people" have found "alternate solutions" to the "CO2 problem", without citing any names, arguments, logic, or data? And you have the gall to accuse me of being a troll?

How about this: you drop all your paranoid bullshit about scams and political agendas and censoring the heretics, I'll stop calling you politically prejudiced, and we can talk science?

I don't think I can make one comment about the subject without you popping in to make sure everyone believe the way you do and that everyone know your way is the one true way.

Stop making false claims and people will stop correcting you. Why do you think you can post things which are wrong and expect not to be criticized for it? This is a discussion forum, not a "post whatever unfounded opinion I feel like and be immune from facts or logic" forum.

I said it doesn't have the effect being claimed and people are showing the problem is elsewhere.

And here you've given not a single argument supporting such an assertion. Curious, how devoid of science your posts on scientific topics actually are.

That's what I am saying, in order for 30% of a temperature increase to cause 70%, we would be on the other side of the curve.

No, you totally missed the point.

You are attempting to argue that ANY positive feedback from water vapor will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect: your argument IGNORES the location of the Earth's atmosphere with respect to the saturation curve. But in reality, it depends on where you are with respect to it: on one side, feedback is self-limiting, and on the other it's runaway. Thermodynamically, the ocean will generally re-equilibrate at a new, higher temperature, with the difference proportional to the water vapor feedback factor.

It's possible with very large amounts of warming for the Earth to cross the curve and inevitably run away, as the ocean becomes permanently out of equilibrium and evaporates away. But this has not happened at any time in the Earth's history, even when the Earth was warmer than it is today: you need a much larger warming than that. (I'd have to consult the curve to work out how much warming it does take, but I'm away at a workshop for several weeks and don't have any of my textbooks with me. In the meantime, you could try a Google Scholar search on "earth runaway greenhouse" and see if that turns up the calculation.)

Obviously that didn't happen so it isn't likely that Co2 was the cause of the increase.

This conclusion doesn't even follow from your own mistaken argument, let alone from a

Re:Solution without a Problem

[sumdumass]

As I requested in the last post, please, quote me where I've insisted that "only science be done in the way I approve, on the topics I approve".

Otherwise, admit you're lying about what I have or have not "insisted".

I already told you in the last post that it was opinion, not fact. You do understand what opinion is don't you? You display and tendency and I can form an opinion, and my opinion is that you only accept science that you approve of. I don't think that is anything a sane person couldn't come up with if they have read our comment history.

There you go with your prejudices again. I'm correcting people who are WRONG, on a topic I happen to know something about. Which you are. Repeatedly. Despite careful correction. If you want to present a CORRECT scientific argument in favor of your position, feel free.

Yes, you are CORRECTING people who have a different opinion then you. They are WRONG because it isn't in agreement with your understanding. Even though people have made the claim that your understanding is wrong. And you wonder how we get the opinion that everything has to be how you approve. Simply amazing. But more to the point, you started off insisting that water vapor levels are constant and they don't change, were forced to admit they do change, and your still attempting to spin it as a deficiency on my part because the implications aren't what you want them to be.

Who said I'm not taking it up with them? If someone posts an argument here, I'll address it. You seem content with merely repeating other people's conclusions without even giving their arguments, and then whining about agendas when you're called on it.

IT seems obvious that your not taking it up with them, you claim something is wrong, then point to some error riddled paper article at a biased site that is older then the research making the claims. And you are even pointing to it to refute claims being made on "your side".

How many times have you insisted in this thread that "other people" have found "alternate solutions" to the "CO2 problem", without citing any names, arguments, logic, or data? And you have the gall to accuse me of being a troll?

How many time have I said people have found alternated explainations or are looking and finding alternative to Co2 as the problem. You are the one insisting it is "the Co2 problem". And that is why I called you a troll. Obviously, it wouldn't be a Co2 problem if they have found something else is more likely the cause. But you come along and claim it is impossible, Co2 is the culprit and then attempt to twist everything into the seemingly incorrect Co2 model and in doing so, make the claim that everything else is bunk. Tell me that isn't a troll.

Stop making false claims and people will stop correcting you. Why do you think you can post things which are wrong and expect not to be criticized for it? This is a discussion forum, not a "post whatever unfounded opinion I feel like and be immune from facts or logic" forum.

but you see, it isn't people always correcting me, it is you attempting to. This brings into question whether these claims are false or not outside of your head only. I already showed you that my claims where correct and you had to admit that water vapor isn't a static number. And I used research from your own side to do so. Some false claim there. And BTW, this was the same topic that you decided to "CORRECT" me on the last time you trolled me.

This conclusion doesn't even follow from your own mistaken argument, let alone from actual physics. Your argument has nothing to do with CO2. Your argument is really saying that it's impossible for water vapor feedbacks to exist, regardless of what causes temperature increases. You could equally well apply it to conclude that increases in solar irradiance would cause a runaway greenhouse ef

Re: Solution without a Problem

[An Onerous Coward]

Wow. You've completely convinced me that his tobacco-funded, tobacco-supporting research is actually rigorously reasoned science. Knowing this, I can now trust that this octogenarian physicist should be believed when he makes pronouncements on climate change that fly in the face of established science.

Thanks to you, I have seen the light.

Re: Solution without a Problem

[Echoes64]

So in 1473 you probably would have also just gone along with "established science" and believed the earth was the center of the universe? Nobody believed Copernicus' theories... it was against "science". Maybe once it became more accepted 150 years later you wouldn't have believed Kepler's theories of elliptical orbit or that the moon caused tides even though "science" and some of the greatest minds of the time thought it was foolish(e.g. Galileo). What about almost a hundred years after that... many STILL didn't believe in a heliocentric world. Newton finally added what was needed to prove the missing pieces of planetary motion(which can still be improved). My point is that "established science" isn't always correct and is often proven wrong in time. No person is always right, and you can't just say that "established science" must be right. I'm also not saying global warming is even established science either because it's far far from it. I hope your beliefs are not based on Al Gores funny little inconvenient cartoon. Do you even know WHY you believe in global warming?

Re: Solution without a Problem

[An Onerous Coward]

Fred Singer is Gallileo. Got it. Unfortunately for your hoped-for radical overthrow of scientific consensus, not everyone who gets scoffed at by the scientific establishment turns out to be right.

As for why I believe in global warming: I believe anything I hear three times on CNN. Don't you?

Honestly, if you're going to deny global warming based on the scientific ignorance of a few of its adherents (which seems to be the intent of your final question), then I'd like to point out that I've heard some incredibly ignorant, "heard it on FOX News" regurgitated talking points from the deniers.

So I don't want to hear it. If you think you can make a compelling case against AGW, make it. But don't just stand there mouthing platitudes about the nature of scientific revolutions. You're coming dangerously close to losing my interest altogether.

Re: Solution without a Problem

[Echoes64]

The easiest thing for me to do is just check back with you in 30 years after this whole global warming paranoia blows over and evironmentalists find something else to be afraid of. Maybe it will be global cooling again like the 70's?

Re: Solution without a Problem

[An Onerous Coward]

Apparently, you don't know why you're skeptical of global warming, so your warnings seem a touch hypocritical.

Re: Solution without a Problem

[Echoes64]

I'm skeptical of a lot of things. Just because I don't blindly and passionately believe with all my bias that something is true doesn't mean I'm hypocritical. I just want the truth and I really can see both sides of the global warming argument. What causes it, how much damage have humans caused, what are possible outcomes of it, is it realistically able to be fixed or reduced. I think those are the questions that everyone who really cares about the future wants to know. I just want answers like everyone else but I think the global warming alarmists do just as much damage as the deniers in accomplishing that. The focus on answering those questions is lost on who is right or wrong and who is on what side of the fence.

Re: Solution without a Problem

[An Onerous Coward]

Sure, you've shown plenty of skepticism. What you haven't shown is a level of scientific understanding that would give weight to that skepticism. Therefore, when you ask me, "Do you even know why you believe in global warming?" and implicitly question my understanding, you're holding your opponents' beliefs to a higher standard than your own.

I don't understand your claim that "global warming alarmists" are doing just as much damage as deniers. Damage to what? If the worst predictions of the deniers hold true, acting to curb global warming causes mild economic slowdown. More likely, since a lot of the reductions we could make would be "cheaper than free", we'd see economic gains. But if the "alarmists" are right, we're irreparably damaging the systems that make life on earth possible. When the consequences of inaction are so vast, sulking about how "we haven't done enough science" is absurd.

I've noticed that most skeptics of global warming divide into two camps. The first are right-wingers who don't like the idea that government action might be able to solve a problem that the workings of the free market cannot. To them, government should be cut to the bone, drowned in a bathtub, or focused entirely on its "proper role" of bombing brown people on the other side of the planet.

The latter, whom I have more respect for, are in it due to an understandable dislike of "groupthink". I don't think that's what's actually happening within the scientific community, but some people clearly do. I would say to them that Anyhow, the public debate is far less scientifically grounded. Personally, I'm enough of a science fanboy to believe that quality research that undercut global warming would be taken seriously among climate scientists. They really are a smart and skeptical crowd. To me, any emerging consensus is due to the fact that people are looking at the same data, and getting scared as hell.

ahref=http://gristmill.grist.org/skepticsrel=url2html-5397http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/> -- why a "consensus" is emerging

Raises two questions

[Opportunist]

First, how much CO2 is produced in making those crystals and second, what shall we do with them once they're full? Dump them in some old salt min... no, wait, there's already that radioactive waste.

Re:Raises two questions

[Anonymous Coward]

second, what shall we do with them once they're full? I hear RJ Reynolds is working around the clock to figure out how to get them into cigarettes

Re:Raises two questions

[hakey]

RTFM.

A subheading of the article "Little energy needed to create crystals"

[Yaghi] said the crystals are non-toxic and would require little extra energy from a power plant, making them an ideal alternative to current methods of CO2 filtering.

Re:Raises two questions

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could put it back where it came from? Oh, wait....

Re:Raises two questions

[sumdumass]

Yes, and the American dairy associational is attempting to create cow diapers. Of course the Omniversal Political Reform Association who seems to be backing Obama is working on making wallpaper out of the stuff to line the halls of congress with too.

I guess they are finally going to do something about that dairy air after all these years..

Re:Raises two questions

[radl33t]

Thank you for giving the only interesting comment in the thread. Producing zeolites takes energy. Then doping them with Zinc and Cobalt? Two elements that we process from ore? Mining and processing? /me begins excessive sarcasm, Yeah those industries are known for their utilization of small amounts of green energy. /me concludes excessive sarcasm. This is the craziest sequestration idea I've heard to date. In fact it's pure fantasy. Just chemists who need some buzztalk for their adsorption proposals.

Measuring a gas in litres?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I'm the first to admit I haven't RTFA, but does it strike anyone else as pointless to talk about "83 litres" of CO2? It depends how much you compress it, and if it's absorbed in a 1l crystal, it clearly is no more than 1l. It would be a lot more meaningful to talk about the MASS ratio.

Re:Measuring a gas in litres?

[Anakron]

That's 83 liters at STP.
Carbon dioxide weighs in at 1.98 grams/L at STP.
1.98*83 = 164.34 grams

They're absorbing 164.34 grams in 1 liter of the crystals. Definitely underwhelming.

Re:Measuring a gas in litres?

[Sinbios]

Well given that 1 mol of gas in STP is 22.4L, 83L of CO2 comes to about 3.7 mol. The molar mass of CO2 is about 44 g/mol (12 + 16 + 16), so 83L comes to about 162.8g. Now I don't know what the density of this crystal is, but it's hard to believe that it's less than 0.1628g/cm^3, at which point the absorption mass ratio is 1:1. So I think it's safe to say that the absorption ratio will be more than 1:1 (that is, more crystal mass is required to capture a significantly smaller mass of gas).

I'm guessing they decided to go by the volume ratio of 1:83 to hype it up a bit (Wow! That must be a lot!), but anyone who's had basic chemistry education would know that gas densities are so low that a high volume compared to a solid means nothing.

Re:Measuring a gas in litres?

[Darfeld]

When someone talk about 1l, without mention of temperature or pressure, I think you can safely assume that they are about 300 K and 1000 hP... For some reason, the 1l make more sens for people when you speak about gazes, and they would understand kelvin or pascal, or why it is important.

Re:Measuring a gas in litres?

[budgenator]

yes but they're able to absorb in parts per million and desorb at nearly 100%, do that over and over again. That's really the exciting part, the expensive part has always been getting your concentration up to 50%, after that it's easy and inexpensive to handle CO2.

Very Good...

[Shuntros]

So then what are they going to do with it?

Re:Very Good...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, you get up to 21 pounds of CO2 from a pound of crude oil - a 21:1 increase in "stuff". This sponge apparently can do a 1:83 reverse, so the whole system appears to be a 21:83 savings in space underground. Why not pump it right back into the ground?

Re:Very Good...

[exploder]

That's per gallon of crude, not per pound. Crude weighs about 6.6 pounds per gallon, so we're really talking about a 3.2:1 increase in "stuff". I'm not a chemist, but since the oxygen is coming from the air, and not the oil, that might be reasonable.

But aside from that, your first ratio is dealing in mass, and your second is volume, so you can't really compare them that way.

Re:Very Good...

[dubl-u]

Well, you get up to 21 pounds of CO2 from a pound of crude oil - a 21:1 increase in "stuff". This sponge apparently can do a 1:83 reverse, so the whole system appears to be a 21:83 savings in space underground. Why not pump it right back into the ground?

That is so wrong that I am forced to suspend your Slashdot license.

First, that page page doesn't say "pound of crude oil"; it says "gallon". That's like 7.5 pounds of oil. So that's a 3x increase in stuff. (Which some would call "mass".) Then these crystals do 1:83 in volume, but more like 10:11 in mass. So to get rid of your pound of crude oil, you'd need about 30 pounds of these crystals.

Please go study Dimensional Analysis (aka the unit-factor method or the factor-label method). Once you have mastered that, you will be permitted to post on science-y topics again.

Re:Very Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no.

The piece of information that's missing from the article is the density of this thing.

Absorbing 83 times its volume in CO2 is all well and good until you realize they're talking about a *gas*. With a density of about 1.8 kg/m3. So 83 litres is about 150 grams. If those crystals weight more than 1kg/l (and I assume they don't float), they absorb less than 15% of CO2 in mass. Which is rather less impressive.

I'm sure they'll find applications in space flight, submarines and what not, but, well this 420MW plant produces 1.2MT of CO2 a year (and seems fairly clean and efficient). Thinking about carrying 5.6 MT of those crystal there and back is just plain stupid.

How Much CO2...

[wsteger]

...is set free (directly or indirectly) during production of these crystals?

Re:How Much CO2...

[jobsagoodun]

84 Litres

(I made that up btw).

only 1 thing

[overcaffein8d]

the only thing i foresee is that if the crystals (which, admittedly, i know little about) are harmful to the world (like plastic), we're still screwed.

Re:only 1 thing

[ScrewMaster]

Not really. They could be as chemically poisonous as plutonium, but still be useful. I mean, we're not talking about sequestering carbon dioxide with this stuff and then making Coke bottles out of it. It'll have to be put somewhere, of course, and that will pose problems. So which is worse? Global warming, or providing long-term storage of chemical residue?

One's opinion on that depends upon where one sits on the issue of global warming, I suppose.

Re:only 1 thing

[overcaffein8d]

very understandable, but my point is that solutions should be final (wow, that kind of sounded bad); they shouldn't lead to more problems. if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Or, if you're part of the solution, you may still be part of the problem, if your solution sucks. again, i don't really know enough about it to be a critic; just a skeptic. that was just one thing that immediately hit me.

Re:only 1 thing

[ScrewMaster]

but my point is that solutions should be final (wow, that kind of sounded bad)

Good thing you qualified that, or it would have cued up a whole slew of Hitler jokes (one has to wonder what the typical Slashdot Grammar Nazi's "final solution" would look like.)

Anyway, sometimes we have to settle for "good enough" or "it'll do until something better comes along." When you get right down to it, our entire energy infrastructure is exactly that. We're still waiting for that something better: none of the major power production technologies really qualifies as a long term solution, although some are longer term than others.

Still, even incremental improvements are better than none at all. You're right about one thing: if the solution creates more problems than it solves it's not a solution. I don't know enough about this crystal-CO2-sequestering to understand the ramifications either ... it sounds darned interesting, but that's about it at this point.

Then what? Can the crystals be used for anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if they had a use for all the solid "waste" this is going to produce. Can it be used as fill dirt, for example?

Like Zeolite

[StCredZero]

They are like Zeolites. For mobile applications, they're going to need a lot better than 83X. More like 1000X. This might be useful for stationary applications, however.

Re:Like Zeolite

[F34nor]

Sounds like a poor man's Aerogel! Not that many rich people are rich enough to buy this stuff. Unless they want scraps from United Nuclear. If you want green Aerogel and not stuff that is decribed as being more dangerous to make than TNT to make you can create some SEAgel buy freeze drying agar.

Re:Like Zeolite

[F34nor]

Can someone explain to me why this was moderated offtopic? Aerogel is used to trap gases all the time.

You just have to complain!

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear, some crazy folks won't be happy until we live in caves, but then you'll complain about using fire! We need cheap power and lots of it. We'd already have it if people would stop complaining about everything. Ugh.

Re:You just have to complain!

[Opportunist]

Well, not trying to "complain" pointlessly, but easy solutions to complex problems usually are none. CO2 won't simply vanish into thin air (pardon the pun).

We're used to having landfills for solid and liquid rubbish. But we're used to blowing our gaseous rubbish simply back into the air, so we don't really "feel" that yes, that's quite a bit of waste. Those crystals can soak up impressive amounts of the gas, but what then? Unless that crystal can somehow magically create carbon and oxygen out of it (and bluntly, I do insist in the observation of the laws of thermodynamics, or, in other words, without pumping energy into that, we won't see this happen), the CO2 will just sit there and look pretty (or not so pretty, depends on the crystal).

Since the crystals quite obviously cannot soak up infinite amounts of CO2 (and even if they could...), they will sooner or later be just as much waste as the CO2 itself was (and a bit on top, for the crystal). The only difference is that this waste will be solid now, so we can more easily handle it, but it's waste nontheless.

Yes, we need cheap energy. But we have to accept that we will have to deal with the waste produced when using fossil fuels. Burning stuff produces heat and the waste from burning, both of which are problems we have to deal with. Believe me, I'd be very happy with a simple solution, but I would like a "complete" solution. Not just shifting the problem elsewhere.

Of course, this could well "solve" our problem, by simply taking the CO2 in the crystals and dump them somewhere, just like we do with our nuclear waste. It's certainly a lot prettier than the smog dome we find today over many cities. After all, a problem we don't see doesn't exist anymore.

how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[victorvodka]

I hate to be the grumpy old man throwing the wet blanket of thermodynamic skepticism on this fancy new idea, but since these are new crystals, I have to imagine they are not present in nature, and thus take lots of energy to make. Thus, to soak up a lot of CO2 takes a lot of energy - but using lots of energy is why we have CO2 to begin with. All the CO2 sequestration ideas I've read about so far don't make any sense from a macro-ecological perspective, since their use actually drives up energy usage, precisely the opposite of the response we should be making to the problem. "Oh, but we can make the crystals with clean nuclear power!" Really? If that's case, you can just not make the crystals and use that clean power instead! It doesn't take much of a puzzle for even smart people to fall for plans which, at their root, are just perpetual motion machines.

Re:how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[triskaidekaphile]

Unless those crystals are going at light speed or they are made from antimatter, we should not be confusing the energy creation cost with the crystals' chemical absorption ability. (It doesn't cost much water to make my sponge, but it sure as heck absorbs a lot of H2O!) Now if someone claims the full crystal could later be taken and converted into fuel that somehow released more energy than the cost of creating the crystal and the CO2 in the first place, then we would indeed be violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Re:how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[Darfeld]

Just because you use nuclear power to make crystals doesn't mean you cannot use nuclear power for anything else. That's really doesn't seems like a closed circle to me.

Re:how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[angel'o'sphere]

Now if someone claims the full crystal could later be taken and converted into fuel that somehow released more energy than the cost of creating the crystal and the CO2 in the first place, then we would indeed be violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

No it won't, as the issue you mention here has absolutely nothing to do with the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" but with the "the law of conservation of energy", which is a difference

angel'o'sphere

Re:how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[cgraves]

I have to imagine they are not present in nature, and thus take lots of energy to make. Thus, to soak up a lot of CO2 takes a lot of energy - but using lots of energy is why we have CO2 to begin with. From the article: "He said the crystals are non-toxic and would require little extra energy from a power plant, making them an ideal alternative to current methods of CO2 filtering."

The Science article that is being discussed is here: High-Throughput Synthesis of Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks and Application to CO2 Capture.

To those who are asking "what do we do with the crystal once it is full, bury it", no - this is a potential method for selectively capturing CO2 (most likely from the flue gas of power plants, aluminum smelters, etc), not storing it. The CO2 would be released from the material as a concentrated gas and stored by one of the many proposed sequestration methods (geologic injection, mineral carbonation, etc), or recycled into a fuel. Read the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage if you want to know more about this.

Re:how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[Grail]

I think the post you're responding to was trying to point out something about the carbon footprint of manufacturing the crystals.

That is, if the energy required to produce crystals produces X volume of carbon dioxide gas, the crystals would have to absorb X volume of carbon dioxide gas in order to simply break even on the carbon dioxide portion of the "environment in equilibrium" equation. Then you have to consider the by-products of that power generation (ash, thorium, uranium, other heavy metals that came from the coal/oil/etc).

The basic laws of thermodynamics are that you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't leave the game. So what's the story with these magical crystals? Even if they magically transported themselves from place of manufacture to a magical chimney that didn't reduce the efficiency of the power plant while still allowing the crystals 100% contact with the exhaust gasses from the power plant, would we break even with the cost of manufacture?

What are the by-products of manufacturing the crystals? How will we go about burying this stuff? Sequester it away in abandoned coal mines? What are the breakdown products? Will background radiation deteriorate the crystal into highly toxic compounds, while simultaneously releasing all the stored carbon dioxide?

The ultimate solution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions is to stop using so much electricity, and drive more efficient vehicles. The technology is there, but apparently it's too expensive for the USA to do the same thing that the rest of the world has been doing for years.

Re:how much ENERGY does it take to make a crystal?

[slaingod]

One factor when dealing with these things is whether it is a point source or not. So for instance, nuclear energy is produced in one place and the waste (hopefully) is contained there, instead of being spread out amongst all consumers. If the plant that makes these uses clean energy and can contain any of their own wastes(CO2 sequestration, etc), then even if these are net losers CO2-wise they can be a useful tool since their own wastes might be more easily containable. Not saying they are here, just that they could be.

use as a fertilizer?

[Myrcutio]

i do have to wonder if you could use the crystals (after they are full) as fertilizer, then these things would actually have some market value.

They would fill one room of your house every year

[giafly]

• The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.
• The density of C02 is 1.799 kg/m3
• So the average US household produces about 7.5*1000/1.799 m3 of CO2 = 4,169 m3 = 4,169,000 litres
• One litre of the crystals could store about 83 litres of CO2.
• So per family requires 4,169,000/83 = 50,228 litres of crystals per year
• I guestimate the average house (of say 10 rooms) has a floorspace of about 1500 ft2 = 150 m2, with each room being 10 ft or 3 m high,
• So the average house is 450 m3 = 450,000 litres, split between 10 rooms.

These crystals would about fill one room of every house every year, floor-to-ceiling.

As about half the other commentators have already said, this does not allow for the financial and environmental costs of producing these crystals.
They might even cost more CO2 to produce than they store.

What to do with all those saturated crystals?

[SilentBob0727]

"Increasing global warming requires a bigger and bigger piece of ice each time. Thus solving the problem once and for all."
"But..."
"ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!"

If we take it out of the air...

[Sinbios]

What impact is this going to have on the carbon cycle? There is a set amount of carbon and oxygen on the earth, if we take a bunch and store them in crystals, it would cause a deficit in our supply. While this solves a short term problem, the long term effects are going to come back and bite us in the ass a few generations down.

Re:If we take it out of the air...

[Eternauta3k]

No. God no. Look up how many tons of carbon there are in the atmosphere, we're not gonna spend a fortune pointlessly and capture CO2 beyond what's necessary.

Re:If we take it out of the air...

[Ambitwistor]

Well, the idea is presumably to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere back down to pre-industrial levels, not to suck all of it out of the air.

Re:If we take it out of the air...

[JshWright]

Don't worry, there was just this new discovery I heard about called "fossil fuels." Apparently (and I don't have a citation for this, so you'll just have to take my word for it), when you burn it, it releases large amounts of CO2. So, when we screw up the ecological balance of the earth by removing too much CO2 from the air, we can just burn these "fossil fuels" to add lots more CO2 to the air. Who knows, by then we might even come up with some other use for these "fossil fuels", like powering our cars, or generating electricity... ~JW

Please explain the math

[GaryOlson]

From the original article at UCLA "synthesized 25 ZIF crystal structures and demonstrated that three of them have high selectivity for capturing carbon dioxide (ZIF-68, ZIF-69, ZIF-70)."

Would someone please tell me how we extrapolate the CO2 capture from 3 crystal structures to an entire liter of crystals and can accurately predict an 83-to-1 capture ratio? The math is never that simple in real applications.

Re:Please explain the math

[the eric conspiracy]

Sweeeeet. ZIFs are normally synthesized using 2-methyl imidazole, a known animal carcinogen. The solvent used is generally DMF, a known teratogen. So we are going to make tons and tons of this stuff to capture CO2, and then all die of cancer, and our babies are all going to have birth defects.

This plan suxors.

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[Fusen]

10 rooms in the average house? 10ft high ceilings is average? what sort of rich neighbourhood do you live in...

Trees?

[smithju]

Dont trees already do this, lol?

Re:Trees?

[OakDragon]

Dont[sic] trees already do this, lol?

Yes!

Uhmm... you don't happen to have some, do you?

betties just aren't attracted

[victorvodka]

I agree with you, but usually people stop adding up the energy costs of some new technology at some arbitrarily-premature place in the process. For example, once these crystals are soaked with CO2, where do you put them? How toxic are they? (CO2 is acidic and can be toxic when concentrated). How bulky are they? If I was Dictator, I would want to see the complete ledger of energy costs for this before I signed off on it. My guess is that conservation is cheaper, but conservation is always just TOO HARD because the betties just aren't attracted to guys driving cars with small engines.

Re:betties just aren't attracted

[Protonk]

Yeah, I mean the pragmatism is appreciated, but let's be fair. CO2 absorption is going to be a big business. Within the next 4 years you will either see a comprehensive greenhouse gas tax accessed on businesses based on tons of carbon equivalent emmitted or a means for businesses to trade permits to release tons of carbon equivalent. That means that corporations will NEED to abate and they will figure out the best way how. Turns out industry is really, really good at figuring out if something is efficient. In this case, if it takes more work (in terms of CO2 equivalent) to produce this stuff than what it removes, industry own't use it. You can look at the chemical refining industry for an example of some processes that would consume more of their desired output than they produce unless they were very carefully tweaked. The chemical engineering business spends a LOT of money and invests a LOT of time in tweaking those processes to make sure they aren't a waste.

The trick is that the companies need to be accessed for the costs they are imposing on the rest of us through the release of CO2, until then, they will make products without regard to the cleanliness of the output/input. But this fact doesn't mean that this prodcut is likely to see service without a cost-benefit analysis.

Re:betties just aren't attracted

[smaddox]

The great thing about a free market approach to energy is that you don't have to analyze energy use. All you have to do is look at the price. It will take into account energy used.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily account for environmental contaminants, which is basicaly how we got into this mess in the first place.

Re:betties just aren't attracted

[JesseMcDonald]

Of course, it doesn't necessarily account for environmental contaminants, which is basicaly how we got into this mess in the first place.

It would account for environmental contaminants, but a while back the courts decided to abdicate their responsibilities in the interest of merchantilism, siding with the polluters against the affected property owners on "utilitarian" grounds. If they'd done their jobs and held people liable when their pollutants end up in other people's property this mess wouldn't exist.

Economics will take care of that.

[pavon]

If these crystals take a lot of energy to produce then they will take a lot of money to produce. Suppose a coal plant spends M dollars to produce E amounts of energy and C amounts of carbon dioxide. If this crystal uses more than E energy to soak up C amount of carbon dioxide, then installing it in their coal plant will give them a net negative income (for the portion of carbon that is being soaked up). While you can play games with producing the crystals when/where energy is cheap, and then using them when it is expensive, it would take a tremendously large carbon tax before even that became economically sensible.

Same with biofuels - as long as the government doesn't get too carried away with politically-motivated subsidies (*cough* corn ethanol *cough*), then you don't have to worry about any biofuel being net energy negative, because it would then also be net revenue negative. Heck, even corn ethanol isn't energy negative, just not nearly as energy positive as other fuels.

In the article the researchers expressed hope that this would be an inexpensive process which equates to low energy. We all know how often that claim doesn't pan out, but if it does then this could be a good thing. I'm more interested in how it compares to algae.

it's all about subsidies

[victorvodka]

"as long as the government doesn't get too carried away with politically-motivated subsidies" Sure, if all costs (including those to future generations) were taken into account, pure economics could rule the day. But there are all sorts of distortions to this system, including subsidies, variable transmission costs, and the perpetual desire of a utility to grow into a monopoly or join a cartel. In this case, a regulation that required such crystals would throw a monkey wrench into the economics of the system.

More detailed link Re: . affect ... environment?

[Precipitous]

I doubt that long term studies have been completed. It doesn't seem like ZIFs are extremely new, this process for creating them and this particular variation are new. That said, several other sources provide better information than the CBC link and speak directly to your question. The CBC article states in first paragraph: "the crystals are non-toxic and would require little extra energy from a power plant."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144344.htm/ Suggests that this looks much cleaner than existing state of the art:

Currently, the process of capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants involves the use of toxic materials and requires 20 to 30 percent of the plant's energy output, Yaghi said. By contrast, ZIFs can pluck carbon dioxide from other gases that are emitted and can store five times more carbon dioxide than the porous carbon materials that represent the current state-of-art.

Yaghi's initial idea of what to do with the material afterwards appears to involve geologic storage.

It's also always useful to hunt down the primary source. I think this PDF is it (I only skimmed).

Selection

[HandsOnFire]

New Material Can Selectively Capture CO2

What if it goes on strike and chooses not to capture CO2?

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[RembrandtX]

One where the lumber yards obviously think its easier to work with 'metric' wood .. because its easier to multiply with :P

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, anyone have a citation for the article? I assume there is a peer reviewed article (they credited the photo from science), I've just been too lazy to go out and find it. I'm familiar with Yaghi's work, so I'm inclined to take him at his word that it works, but it still would be nice to read an actual scientific paper on the result.

Second off, CO2 selective storage has been a huge goal for many years. Not even for permanent storage, as the article seems to be talking, but gas seperation and filtration in industrial applications . . . there's a lot of call for CO2 selective separation. Lots of people working at it. Seems like these guys might have something.

I would say there there's lots of use for it from a climate perspective, but there are other ways it will be very useful.

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[RealGrouchy]

These crystals would about fill one room of every house every year, floor-to-ceiling. Finally, a market for all the houses foreclosed in the sub-prime mortgage disaster!

- RG>

Send it to outer space or turn it into oil

[backslashdot]

Use clean energy (such as nuclear, or hopefully in under 20 years, fusion) to turn it back into oil, or send it to space. Or dump it in middle of the deserts until we have the clean energy sources to turn it into plastic or something.

Re:Send it to outer space or turn it into oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Arg!!! OK.
Sending stuff into space = STUPID

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[Anonymous Coward]

These crystals would about fill one room of every house every year, floor-to-ceiling.

That, plus producing the crystals generates 84 liters of CO2.

What about the place the crystals came from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there is a hole in the ground where the "stuff" of the crystals (whatever it's made of .. not the CO2), that too can be filled. So the actual extra volume needed is not that bad. Furthermore whats wrong with a few extra mounds in the middle of the desert? We arent increasing the overall mass of the earth.

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea is *reversible* capture. So you wouldn't have to replace the crystal, just have a process that removes the CO2 from it.

The big problem with carbon capture and storage is capture. You can't just store all the air out of a power plant, that's still like 99% other gases, making storage 100 times as expensive. But filtering 1% CO2 out of other gases is very difficult. It seems this crystal might solve that, as it only takes up CO2. Then *if* they have a way to remove it, you would have a reusable crystal as well as ready-to-store, pure CO2. Drastically improves efficiency. And using your calculations, a cube of cubic meter would last about a week, so that's still reasonable.

good old brute force science

[Gearoid_Murphy]

according to the article, they discovered these crystals after processing thousands of compounds, somewhat like the way Edison figured out a stable element for light bulbs, pretty cool stuff, would be even cooler if they could process the captured co2 and seperate it into o2 and carbon.

Re:good old brute force science

[lee1026]

Breaking it up cost more energy then we get from burning the coal/oil in the first place. Counter productive to say the least.

Re:good old brute force science

[budgenator]

Actually we could just feed the CO2 to algae and use the algae for fuel or food and it would give off O2 as a waste product.

The next nuclear waste

[eagl]

Does anyone see the possibility that the used crystals could become the next NIMBY rallying cry? Nobody wants nuclear waste in their state, and nobody is going to want to have CO2 waste storage nearby either. What do they plan on doing with these crystals when they're saturated? Can the CO2 be extracted and put somewhere permanently, and the crystals reused? Do the crystals hold CO2 permanently? If so, what to do with it?

The usual common-sense solutions like dropping it into a deep ocean subduction zone where they'll be folded into the earth's core will make a whole lot of sense, but the same irrational arguments against dropping nuke waste in there will still apply.

It's better than you think

[nukeade]

You don't actually need a liter of these crystals per 83 liters of CO2 you want to capture.

The point is that you can capture the CO2 and then perform some treatment on the crystals (perhaps heating or reducing the surrounding air pressure) to re-extract the CO2--much like soaking up water in a sponge then squeezing it to get the water back out. In that light, it becomes a bit more interesting since now you have the possibility of extracting carbon dioxide selectively and putting it somewhere else with a relatively small quantity of the crystals. This brings a new issue: what, exactly, do you do with this huge volume of stored CO2?

They say they can tailor this to specific molecules. Right now, some of the worst pollutants coming out of coal and oil burning devices are your sulfur and nitrogen oxides. By modifying the crystals to selectively extract these you could cost-effectively reduce these serious but trace pollutants from your exhaust, or even selectively filter them from air entering buildings through intakes and reasonably. All you'd have to do is periodically cycle your crystals into a regeneration system as described above and run the extracted gas through a catalyst.

~Ben

Who would benifit from this?

[pavon]

The creation of the ethanol subsidies are understandable because they benefit the strong corn lobby, and offer no real threat to the established oil companies. But who is going to be lobbying to make these crystals mandatory? And how on earth are they going to convince a congress that is far more likely to listen to the energy companies, especially when the energy companies are right? The environmentalists don't have anywhere near that power, even with Democrats.

Your own example is a counter-example

[Kupfernigk]

To "make your sponge", someone had to kill the sponge animal and remove all the water from it. The water it absorbs is less than there was in the animal in life. In the same way, if the manufacture of these crystals takes more than the equivalent of 84l of CO2 emissions, they are a total waste of time.

The NiMH conspiracy

[bussdriver]

NiMH could be used in many applications TODAY including cars because of their high price to power density ratio. They are popular for digital cameras for the same reason.

Chevron (an oil company) and before that GM (famous for repressing good things) bought patents related to large NiMH batteries which is why we are stuck with just NiMH camera batteries. That patent should die in 2015 hopefully; although, perhaps something else will reach get to that low cost by that time.

By definition, a conspiracy involving two gigantic corporations. Sure engineering problems exist but its not black and white, there are powerful forces conspiring as well as individuals working to prohibit new technology and research. In fact, a good PR campaign can get them a small army of individuals acting on their behalf from multiple angles (for example, a campaign against patent reforms, or promoting their candidate.)

NiMH low cost to power ratio

[bussdriver]

I meant: low price for the power density.

hmmm; what about the O2?

[WindBourne]

We are now trading CxH2x+2 + x/2O2 for x/2H2O + yCOm. IOW, we are slowly tying up the O2. I wonder what the long terms consequence of that is? Well, the good news is within another 10 years, I am guessing that we will be using about same amount of coal and oil power that we have today, or maybe even less. Of course, EU and America will be substantially less, but China and India will be a great deal more.

Re:hmmm; what about the O2?

[Quelain]

One of the ways ways by which we know that increased levels of CO2 are due to fossil fuel burning is that O2 levels have been measured to be dropping at the opposite rate of the CO2 increase. But ~20% of the atmosphere minus a couple hundred ppm is still ~20%, so not worth worrying about

http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/research_o2n2.html

Re:hmmm; what about the O2?

[budgenator]

Theoretically some water vapor in the air will be cracked by ultraviolet radiation, the hydrogen should rise and escape into space and the Oxygen would fall to the surface. What I don't know is how much this occurs on the Earth, I know it is thought to be a major factor in Mars losing most of it's water; but Mars is a lot less massive than the Earth so it's water probably reached higher altitudes than on Earth.

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[easyemail]

thanks for the measurements. Its a stupid idea to create crystals to adsorb co2. Trees are infinitely better than these crystal. Trees store C and not CO2. Just find a cheap way to release the O2 back in the air and we are good to go rather than build new land such as those found in the superman movie where crystal are everywhere. Probably the movie was showing how advance civilizations has gone overboard with this crystal and trying to prevent something like global warming.

oxidating environment: no energy value

[victorvodka]

oh yeah, CO2 recycled as fuel. kinda like water recycled as fuel. neither has any energy value in the earth's oxidating environment, so to give it energy requires, wait for it, ENERGY!!!!

Re:oxidating environment: no energy value

[cgraves]

That is very obvious. What you are saying is "to store energy (by reducing an oxide) requires energy". Yes... it requires the energy that you are storing plus additional. No one said it would *not* cost energy to recycle CO2, nor that one can split water for free. So what brilliant point of your's are we to "wait for"?

If you would like to think more about the concept, see the other slashdot article I linked to or my comment in that article.

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[Anonymous Coward]

These crystals would about fill one room of every house every year, floor-to-ceiling. In other news, local man dies when trapped in his house, which was filled with a years worth of garbage.

someone please mod parent down

[victorvodka]

parent is a proposal for a perpetual motion machine. Why would it be weird if they could use the crystal to separate CO2 into carbon and oxygen? because that requires HUGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY! The reason CO2 is the result of combustion is because it is a very low energy state - carbon just LOVE oxygen. So no crystal is going to separate the two - not without lots of energy. Anyone expecting a crystal to solve our energy problems failed Chemistry 101.

Or just liquify it.

[AJWM]

Yes, wood's a good way to store CO2. I store mine as paper, in books. ;-)

Alternatively, just liquifying CO2 (not hard, the triple point is at about 75psi) will reduce the volume by about 600 times. I.e. a one-litre tank of liquid CO2 (about 1.18 kg CO2) holds about 600 l of gaseous CO2 at STP. That's more than 7 times better than the magic crystals.

Re:Or just liquify it.

[budgenator]

Where the new zeolite will come in handy is getting the CO2 concentrated enough for the compressors; the real use of zeolites is to first absorb, then later release. The 64 thousand dollars question isn't how easy it is to get the CO2 into the zeolite, but how easy is it to get the CO2 back out of the zeolite to recharge it for reuse.

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how are they structurally? Does this mean I can build another room on my house every year, using the bricks? .... Gonna build me a tower up to the sky ....

Carbon Sequestering

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliminate the excess Carbon Dioxide by transforming it into Carbonic Acid, and flushing it down the toilet.

Re:Carbon Sequestering

[__aajfby9338]

Eliminate the excess Carbon Dioxide by transforming it into Carbonic Acid, and flushing it down the toilet.

You're obviously a shill for the toilet companies, with plans to sell a 100 meter tall super-toilet to each and every power plant...

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[jklappenbach]

The density of C02 is 1.799 kg/m3

I think you may be making a critical error in the assumption that the density of C02 is going to be the same in the atmosphere (as a gas) as it will be when sequestered (as part of a crystalline matrix).

Re:They would fill one room of your house every ye

[Sinical]

That's CO2 as a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure. Presumably the crystals do a slightly better job of keeping the CO2 smooshed together than does, say, the freakin' open atmosphere (STP).

Think about it. To capture the output from a powerplant, you'd need a volume equivalent to the entirety of the output of the plant's CO2 emissions unless CO2 density in the crystal was higher than that. Might as well recommend a giant Ziplock bag unless this is the case.

lead acid still king of cheap

[Firethorn]

If you graph out by weight, lead acid is still far cheaper per kwh of storage than any other technology. Nickel's rise in cost doesn't help.

For a land installation, you don't care about weight as much as cost. Pounds saved can justify the extra expense in mobile applications such as electric vehicles. Then again, the even lighter weight for LiIon batteries combined with their dropping costs are putting pressure on NiMH.

Though I think that NiMH becomes superior to Lead acid at a closer price point due to improved discharge performance and longevity compared to even deep cycle lead acid.

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[F34nor]

I would love to see a link to a good graph. I was under the impression that flywheels easily take the lead on power density, reliability, and cost.

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[Firethorn]

Good point. I should have said battery tech, not energy storage.

Though current flywheel systems are only suitable for non-mobile larger applications at this time.

There are a number of energy storage systems in use on the power grid today, it's just that most of them take advantage of various geographical features to make their installation far cheaper than it would be if you were simply picking a more or less random piece of more or less flat land.

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[F34nor]

I love the grid backup idea. http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/SmartEnergyMatrix.htm
Although you could probably tow one of these behind a GE Hybrid Locomotive pretty well. In Portland they have an old tain line where an electic trian pulls a generator, why not pull a flywheel?

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[bussdriver]

Flywheels have limited applications and can not scale (time.) Flywheels involve lots of mass and by their very nature/purpose are bad in applications where you move the wheel because of the same physics that make it useful. Flywheels are like a TINY energy buffer; the longer you store power in them the more energy you lose due to friction (bearings and air friction.) The best expensive bearings in the world will wear out and will consume considerable amounts of power themselves. What I see from your link looks like they are using the flywheels to dampen really short spikes in the grid (as I said its a tiny buffer.) Locomotives have been "hybrid" for a long long time. They are electric but lack power storage so they get the power stored in gas and until somebody can come up with something with a similar power density to gas will stay that way. Which is ok because they clobber trucks which have taken over too much of the train business. Short spikes in power are probably not something that happens on trains; they tend to just run as constant as they can. Didn't somebody come out recently with a car where the regenerative brakes went into a capacitor? (which is less massive than a flywheel) Glad to see somebody looking into stuff. Germany has been working on smarter management of alternative power so while there is no wind in one part of the country there is likely sun in another part. By smart placement and smart switching they can mostly meet demand. Gaps can be filled by other methods such as storage so no nukes, coal are required. They will have switching delays where the flywheels might be useful. Capacitors would kill flywheels if the cost ever comes down. The BIG BIG problem is filling gaps in supply from alternative power sources which are longer in duration than what flywheels are good for; which would be one reason people don't pay as much attention. One obvious method that is simple and cheap and probably beats out everything else as far as power/cost is pumping water to higher ground; essentially a man made mini hydro electric dam. Flow batteries do around 80% and those are starting to get picked up by some wind farms as a method of storage; they don't lose power over time like a flywheel or the expensive hi-tech batteries.

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[F34nor]

Sorry but you seem to have confused a big metal wheel attached to a grinder or a pottery wheel and a modern flywheel battery.

1. Modern flywheels are low mass high RPM and are made of carbon fiber and other composites.
2. Flywheels are a HUGE energy buffer with the highest energy density storage levels per Kg. of any battery tech.
3. They use magnetic gimbals not bearings.
4. They operate in a vacuum not in air.
5. Locomotives are hybrid in terms of diesel-->DC-->AC but have no storage of electrical power. GE's newest tech locomotive is the first one with storage ever made.
6. The benefit of the Beacon power system is to relight grid links during an outage. If one substation can power itself for even a tiny amount of time they can reopen grid paths back to working generation sites and reroute power from working systems. They do not provide power to consumers. They are not strictly designed for off peak energy storage.
7. Modern flywheels loose power over a period of months so would in fact be fine for nightly off peak energy balancing.

Yu are right that capacitors could be better if the price comes down. You are right that flow batteries work very well. So do ice batteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[F34nor]

https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/04_96.2.pdf

Re:lead acid still king of cheap

[bussdriver]

I have a few friends who keep sending me impossible over unity machines etc. A few of them involved primitive flywheels. Initially when I saw "flywheel" I thought that was the BS you were referring to (that is, until you posted the link with support information; which I did read.)

I would expect magnetic bearings to be used; and it looked like they might pump out plenty of air pressure... (although keeping something at 0ATM is not an easy or cheap task so I wonder about their operating costs as well as the construction of their units... explains why they resemble air tanks...) I didn't notice if the magnetic bearings drew power and if so how much?

There is a cost/benefit ratio determined by the power loss of the flywheel over time (ignoring the relatively small motor/generator losses which might add up to 10-20%) I'm IMPRESSED to hear that they can effectively store power for a month! That does make them extremely useful...

Thank you for the flywheel information. Will be interesting to see if develop and compete. It seems somewhat elegant; although the low pressure thing seems troublesome.

I am Xavier. You, Magneto and his seeds conceit.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do you consider liberal, anyway?

Under the age of 25.

It is "liberal" to have nudity on TV?

Yes, it is. Whereas, it is "conservative" to restrict such nudity to late night Skinemax and HBO only, in part to protect you liberals from other such liberals, like Rosie O' Donnell, from enjoying such FTC freedom whilst oozing her fat naked rolls all over my ABC airwaves.

Do you blame all the violence in entertainment on liberals?

Why, yes. Yes, I do. By definition, all liberals are scrawny little wussies. If they were buff, studly, muscular conservatives, they would instead be partaking in high school or college campus raves, not shooting rampages.

I've never been clear on this.

That's why I'm here.

I want to know just how deep your paranoia and fear goes.

I fear nothing. Well, I am a bit paranoid when the next unwelcome and random Tampax commercial will splash across my TV while eating supper. And I do fear, quite frankly, that you will continue your vacuous posting here on /.

CO2 - C + O2 conversion?

[Pr0xY]

I've seen several articles and such about CO2 capturing techniques, and it sounds like a great idea. Anything we can do to keep it out of the air seems like a win to me. But is there any effort towards looking into an efficient O2 extraction technique? I would imagine this would have some benefits. Primarily, it would be a direct way to replace CO2 in the are with O2. Also, it could be a key player in terraforming technologies in the future.

Re:CO2 - C + O2 conversion?

[sydbarrett74]

There are exciting developments in CO2-based plastics. CO2 can be 'sequestered' into useful products rather than requiring the use of non-renewable petroleum-derived feedstocks.

Biochar works better AND fertilizes the soil

[Eclipse-now]

Biochar has been recommended by "The Weather Makers" author and Australian of the year, Tim Flannery. It's also called Agrichar.

Basically we take agricultural waste, cook it up into synfuel that can maybe run the agricultural sector (not much more... I doubt the fuel volumes will even run farming, but it's worth a try) and then use the charcoal granules to fertilize the soil. The charcoal encourages fungi to grow, and this in turn draws more Co2 out of the air than the charcoal!

It's win win win.

See the ABC's Catalyst or google Biochar for more.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm/ Rather than waste money on this crystals thing don't we need to fund our farmers with fuel and fertilizer as peak oil becomes fundamentally frantic? (Woah, need some sleep.)

Re:I am Xavier. You, Magneto and his seeds conceit

[misleb]

I fear nothing. Well, I am a bit paranoid when the next unwelcome and random Tampax commercial will splash across my TV while eating supper. And I do fear, quite frankly, that you will continue your vacuous posting here on /.

Ah, but at least *I* don't do it anonymously.

Good, No CO2

[AnyThingButWindows]

Good. Let all the plants, algae, and plants die from lack of CO2. We can all choke to death after 10 years from the lack of oxygen. There are things you should not screw with, and nature is one of em.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=US+Code+Title+50+CH+32+Section+1520a&btnG=Search

So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[Joce640k]

At 83x absorption, how many billions of tons of this will we need per year and how much CO2 will production/transport of same produce?

To me it doesn't sound like much of a solution to anything.

Nuclear power plants, OTOH, there's a technology which could help.

Same with wind power (where practical).

etc.

Re:So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[steeviant]

Nuclear power plants, OTOH, there's a technology which could help."

Yes, that's the mentally balanced answer!

After all there's nothing more benign a powerplant that outputs high-level "spent" nuclear waste that we have nowhere in the world to store, and is going to remain "hot" for at least another hundred thousand years, not to mention the radioactive contamination left behind when they finally close down, that sees their former site uninhabitable for about the same time as the aforementioned waste.

As for those trifling concerns about how such reactors safely contain and process the constant stream of radioactive steam and water created during their operation, all the aforementioned concerns rightly pale by comparison to the proven unquestionably armageddon-like catastrophic effects of carbon dioxide and smoke particles escaping into the environment.

And if there's one thing we can be unquestionably certain of, it's that absolutely no carbon whatsoever is released into the environment during the extracting, (re)processing, transporting and safe-storage of all that radioactive material. I mean, imagine the dirty bomb they could create if Al Qaeda got their hands on some coal or oil.

Oh please! Won't somebody think of the environment!

Re:So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[hesiod]

Education is your friend, not spreading falsehoods. Which is not to say everything in your post is untrue: just parts of it.

Re:So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[samkass]

After all there's nothing more benign a powerplant that outputs high-level "spent" nuclear waste that we have nowhere in the world to store, and is going to remain "hot" for at least another hundred thousand years

That's only true of current reactor designs because anti-nuclear folks dried up the research three decades ago. If the "waste" is that "hot", then we haven't extracted all that much of the energy! There are fast neutron reactor designs that are hundreds of times more efficient and produce less waste that isn't that hot and only radioactive for a century. While certainly no picnic, that stuff is probably a lot easier to deal with than what coal produces.

Re:So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, it must be difficult for you to be so naive and gullible.

I agree with you that those darn leftist nimbys must have been responsible for stopping safe nuke plants -- we all know we could just our jetpacks to take the dangerous byproducts and fly it into the sun. or something.

$$$

Re:So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[steeviant]

Education is your friend, not spreading falsehoods. Which is not to say everything in your post is untrue: just parts of it.

I feel so reassured after having read that perfectly independant document that was full of information about exactly what they do with "spent" fuel rods, which most certainly are still strong gamma emitters. With "education" like that it's no wonder most Americans are behind the push to dot the planet with permanently contaminated sites that will still be dangerous to the archaeologists digging up the remains of "western civilisation" in 1000 years from now.

Re:So how many billions of tons will we need...?

[TheLoneCabbage]

""hot" for at least another hundred thousand years"

Something may be highly radio active or long lived, not both. In "HOT" terms, that's really hot for a little while, or kinda warm for a long time.

And once reprocessed there is very little waste. The amount of waste we produce now, is because Carter made recycling waste illegal, due to treaties with the Russians.

Maybe carbon should be released?

[LinuxLuver]

Hundreds of millions of years ago, the Earth was tropical and lush virtually from pole to pole. Then the incremental effects of perpetual sequestration of greenhouse gases by eons of plant growth essentially cooled the planet and left it as it is today.

Maybe we should be freeing carbon? Maybe what we have been doing is actually turning the clock back to more lush and life-sustaining Earth? (With a reduced landmass......true...)

The porous structures can be heated to high temper

[okmijnuhb]

Whenever I hear that I wonder what the power source is for these high temperatures, and how much CO2 it produces.
Also what is this "new material", and how much energy is required to produce it?
Might it not be better/more efficient to use a process that separates carbon from oxygen?

CO2-absorbing Crystals just another Patch

[ImitationEnergy]

Plants absorb a lot of CO2, true, but an interesting phenomenon is now being seen in plants. When they get a certain amount of CO2 they begin "vomiting" CO2 back out in place of expelling oxygen. The oceans in particular, once thought to be near-limitless absorbers (and users) of CO2 are now beginning to pull that trick. The Crude Oil industry party is over soon or we are over. Using these CO2-absorbing crystals is very innovative and even worthy of applause but they should be seen for what they really are: another patch. It's a patch that allows us to keep our precious combustion engines when what we really need to do is switch completely off of crude oil products asap. We could have started doing that in 1990 with my lightning tower system that used magnetic induction off of lightning going down a pole, many such poles linked together to supply the main grid. The Department of Energy didn't want it because it wasn't their pet nuclear. I guess they wanted us to be more like France.

All kinds of clever fiddly approaches cropping up

[cmefford]

these days. As a cheap skate/often poor, older fellow. I've been known to keep obsolete, worn out, bad-idea stuff running, way past their useful life by applying all kinds of kludgy rube goldberg-esque approaches. Why do these approaches seem like they stem from the same mindset?

Why National Geographic is good for the Earth

[putaro]

Just consider how much CO2 is locked up in old National Geographics!

i had to say it

[hesaigo999ca]

We need more dilithium crystals captain, we need more power.

Is this the first step towards ST?

Re:I am Xavier. You, Magneto and his seeds conceit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah, but at least *I* don't do it anonymously."

Your full name is misleb? Are you related to Madonna? or Prince? Sting maybe?

How to dispose of this properly?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would we dispose of this properly - or is there some other beneficial use for the absorbed CO2 which could be safely extracted and used?

As I understand, trees re-release their absorbed CO2 when they're burned. It would be beneficial to prevent that with this new crystal substance.

Re:I am Xavier. You, Magneto and his seeds conceit

[misleb]

You can Google it. My full name is not hard to get from my nickname here.

But yes, I am like Sting.