Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's First "Porous Liquid" Could Be Used For CO2 Sequestration (gizmag.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the cooling-things-down dept.

Zothecula sends word that scientists have developed the world's first "porous" liquid that can potentially be used to capture carbon emissions. Gizmag reports: "The Italians have a colorful expression – to make a hole in water – to describe an effort with no hope of succeeding. Researchers at Queen's University Belfast (QUB), however, have seemingly managed the impossible, creating a class of liquids that feature permanent holes at the molecular level. The properties of the new materials are still largely unknown, but what has been gleaned so far suggests they could be used for more convenient carbon capturing or as a molecular sieve to quickly separate different gases."

91 comments

  1. Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a wonderful step towards engineering The Blob!

    1. Re:Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let them fool you, it's really improved bong water.

  2. Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So they've invented soda?

    1. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they've invented soda?

      That's "Pop" up north and "Soda Pop" in between.

    2. Re:Soda by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      So they've invented soda?

      That's "Pop" up north and "Soda Pop" in between.

      It's "coke" down south. Regardless of whether or not it's actually pepsi or RC.

    3. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "coke" down south. Regardless of whether or not it's actually pepsi or RC.

      Not in SC. You must be from GA or somewhere else.

    4. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all poison to the educated.

    5. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me never to get an education wherever YOU went to school.

    6. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "coke" down south.

      Americans. You call a liquid "gas" and now you call another liquid "coke". Coke is degassed coal and is what's left from the coal when producing first generation city gas. Since smell, smoke and soot vanished with the gas, coke is an exelent fuel for livingroom fireplaces. First generation city gas is not used anymore because the chemical name is carbonmonooxide. Too many accidents with leaking pipes and people not waking up. Concentrated cyanide waste was also an issue with first generation gas plants.

      I have heard that Americans should be big carbon sinners, but I didn't actually think they would eat coal itself. At least it's the degassed version. Imagine if it started degassing on the inside.

    7. Re:Soda by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The porosity in question is different, more like zeolite than a liquid with bubbles in it. Plus, the liquid in question has permanent porosity, unlike soda (or any liquid with bubbles in it) which has only temporary porosity.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    8. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right. Sugar isn't good for us.

    9. Re:Soda by zieroh · · Score: 2

      Americans. You call a liquid "gas" and now you call another liquid "coke".

      Can't be any worse than referring to a flashlight as a torch.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    10. Re:Soda by Xenx · · Score: 2

      He's far from right, as are you. As a whole, sugar is rather necessary. Consuming processed sugar at the levels many of us do isn't good for us, but it is not poison. Like most anything else in life, moderation is the key.

    11. Re:Soda by graphius · · Score: 2

      or underwear as pants...

    12. Re:Soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some parts of inner city St. Louis, MO they pronounce soda as "so-dee".

    13. Re:Soda by GNious · · Score: 1

      Americans. You call a liquid "gas" and now you call another liquid "coke".

      Can't be any worse than referring to a flashlight as a torch.

      One word: "Chips"

  3. What could possibly go wrong? by halivar · · Score: 0

    95% of Australian rabbits think this is a fantastic idea. Let's YOLO this shit.

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by halivar · · Score: 0

      No. I don't post AC.

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I don't post AC.

      Neither do I.

  4. Total Waste of Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    First of all, CO2 is a trace gas, second it is the weakest of all GHGs, third it is absolutely essential to all plant life which means if should ever drop below 150 ppm, all life will die.

    I'm all for reducing emissions in certain areas of industry for the sake of air quality - but sequestering it ourselves is fucking stupid.

    1. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, CO2 is a trace gas, second it is the weakest of all GHGs, third it is absolutely essential to all plant life which means if should ever drop below 150 ppm, all life will die.

      I'm all for reducing emissions in certain areas of industry for the sake of air quality - but sequestering it ourselves is fucking stupid.

      Of course you can say the same about sequestering the gas that is the largest contributor GHG, but we already have a large bodies of liquid to sequester that stuff called oceans...

      Methane on the other hand is the really worrisome one... Between the methane caltthrates and the farting cows, how you stop that shit, who knows? ;^)

      We are doomed...

    2. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Methane on the other hand is the really worrisome one... Between the methane caltthrates and the farting cows, how you stop that shit, who knows? ;^)

      Just burn it. Make it into CO2, and water and get useful energy out of it in the process.... Oh wait, that's what Natural Gas is....

    3. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Bengie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bad idea. When CO2 levels get too high, water becomes more acidic. This reacts with minerals, causing CO2 to get sequestered faster than we could hope to do ourselves. Even worse is it would be very difficult to get the CO2 back out.

    4. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that in order to manufacture and/or re-use the material you probably need an energy source which will require - tadaaa - the production of as much CO2 as you sequestered, if not more (because no process is 100% efficient).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      When methane reaches sufficient concentration in our O2-rich atmosphere the problem will literally take care of itself. I don't want to be around when that happens though.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Let's say a business's activity is to shovel shit out of an area so that it can get somewhat clean and safe, without using motorized vehicles and tools.
      Because you can't be 100% efficient, the people collecting shit and carrying it in carts or bags will produce as much shit if not more, by say shitting themselves while shoveling shit.
      Riiiiight.

      (Disclaimer : there was a hyperbole in that post. Workers can at least put aside their shovel, drop their pants and shit on the ground near them. But there is a minimum quantity of human shit produced per megajoule of effective mechanical human labor)

    7. Re:Total Waste of Funding by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Let's say that the humans involved, and their shits, are of a regular size. What you have described is a macroscopic process. Some things work differently at different scales. If you scale your humans down to the size of CO2 molecules then you are describing a microscopic process. It is known more commonly as Maxwell's demon, and it does not work. What you are describing is an attempt to fight entropy directly. The shit would not only win, it would probably hit the fan in the process.

      On the macroscopic scale the loss would not be visible in terms of the placement of the shit, but a careful observer would notice changes in the temperature of this shit, and the humans tasked with its shovelling. The heat displaced due to the recognition and rearrangement of the shits would be insignificant. The number of shits given by the shovellers at any point in time would be large. But scale is a fickle mistress and the ratio of useful work (shits given) to heat displaced would drop to zero as we approach the state described before you used your analogy: the net result of your attempt to blow this off as simple is a large amount of hot (carbon-rich) air, but no shits-given at all.

      It is not every analogy that works: sometimes the detail removed are critical.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    8. Re:Total Waste of Funding by dbIII · · Score: 1

      My favourite thing along those lines is the CO2 is not a problem if we use it to make limestone - but all the precursors release a lot of CO2 while being produced. So the answer is cheap energy, which we actually have, but unfortunately it's oil and coal!

    9. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atmosphere doesn't care **at all** where the CO2 came from. Too much CO2 in rocks? Burn some tar sands.

      But this isn't a real risk. CO2 doesn't penetrate quickly or deeply into solid minerals. Most of the exposed surfaces have been exposed for millions of years, and are effectively CO2-saturated. Only new-formed surfaces absorb significant amounts of CO2. In practice, that means areas like the mid-Atlantic ridge at the edge of the continental plates. That's essentially a 1D crack in the 2D seabed.

    10. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Maritz · · Score: 0

      Hm. Try reading a source that disagrees with your cherished belief. Be brave. Have the emotional maturity to challenge your biases. Do it. (you won't)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how did life survive for 250 million years with CO2 over 1000 PPM? Our current 20 million year stretch of low CO2 is only beaten by the 30 million year stretch in the Permian. In between there was 250 million years with CO2 over 1000 PPM and life thrived. Quantity, diversity, were all much higher than our current stretch (barring a few asteroid strikes which thinned the herds out a lot).

      A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

      Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.

      Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
      First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.

      Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).

      Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.

    12. Re:Total Waste of Funding by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      >Hm. Try reading a source that disagrees with your cherished belief. Be brave.
      I have next to me a publication, "Galveston Bay Geology" published by Houston Geological Society, 1969. I am looking at it now. There is a chart that shows that 22,000 years ago sea level was almost 450 feet below what it is today, and that 70,000 years ago sea level was 100 feet higher than it is now. When I hear winy sniveling out of snot-nosed south pacific islanders like, "What will the butterflies do?" I can only respond, "They will do what the fuck they did the last time this happened." By the way, I measure hydrate stability for a living. That extra 450 feet of seawater is stabilizing way more hydrate than a few degrees of temperature will destabilize. Actually, it is both chilling and pressurizing, both of which stabilize hydrates.
      Take a dose of your own medicine.

  5. Everyone's down on CO2 by blogagog · · Score: 2

    I'm beginning to think carbon dioxide is the new 'black'. Everyone is so negative about the wonderful molecule.

    1. Re:Everyone's down on CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dose makes the poison... and right now there's a whole lot of poison around.

    2. Re:Everyone's down on CO2 by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      No there is not.

      Go back to school and get an education. You need to relearn the definition of poison and the benefits of CO2.

  6. I don't see it. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, we're going to synthesize even more products from oil (at who knows what contribution to the CO2 problem) to temporarily sequester the CO2 ... temporary because any molecule that is a better "fit" for the molecular cage will displace the CO2. Plus all the energy implementing the sequestration process by injecting it into the ground... Sort of like fracking ...

    Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:I don't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... is oil really made from fossils? Why do we still refer to them as "fossil fuels"? Are they literally made from dinosaurs? Or are they made from the bones of dinosaurs (which would technically be "fossils")?

      I hate to ask such a dumb question, but why do we refer to them as "fossil fuels"?

    2. Re:I don't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

      Actually, no we cannot cut back all that much. Unless you are figuring on systematically reducing the world's population, or hell, just starving them to death. You see, petro-chemicals are used extensively to create fertilizer, and if you stop doing that with oil people are going to starve. Of course we can all just go back to horse and buggy, whale oil lamps and the supportable population of the world we can support with that technology, but somehow I don't figure that the third world is going to accept going backwards further....

      Best we can hope for is to cut down *some* on fossil fuel use by developing other energy sources. Fusion comes to mind as a promising solution..... But that's decades out....Just figure that CO2 emissions are here to stay for your lifetime, because even if you are a baby, they are....

    3. Re:I don't see it. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

      You first. Start by recycling that power burning collection of polymers and rare earths you use to post things. Takes a lot of Chinese coal to make those.

      Didn't think so.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:I don't see it. by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hate to ask such a dumb question, but why do we refer to them as "fossil fuels"?

      Actually, that's quite a reasonable question to ask and as your post appears genuine enough here you are...

      Oil (petroleum) and coal are both the result of geological processes (heat/pressure) acting on the fossilized remains of ancient organic (carbon based) life. Plankton and algae in oil's case and trees for coal. Natural gas is usually found with or near the other two and formed with similar processes. A fossil is basically any trace of life preserved in rock which does include dinosaur bones...but also anything else that used to live on this planet. And alliteration is always catchy.

    5. Re:I don't see it. by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Your tone indicates any debate with you is a lost cause but to anyone else, environmental friendliness and modern lifestyles don't have to be mutually exclusive. OP's computer is already built but going forward its easy enough to start being smarter about the environment. In many places its already cheaper to use solar than coal. And batteries are almost cheap and big enough to alleviate all the "but what if it's cloudy" fears for most places outside the Arctic circle.

      As for me first... I have a 7.8kW solar array, chose the car that gets 30% better mpg and I'm about to start buying carbon offsets which at a national level would cost FAR less than another war in the middle east. Not perfect but it is indeed a start.

      And with that, I'll leave you to your pessimistic whining.

    6. Re:I don't see it. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

      Actually, no we cannot cut back all that much. Unless you are figuring on systematically reducing the world's population, or hell, just starving them to death. You see, petro-chemicals are used extensively to create fertilizer, and if you stop doing that with oil people are going to starve. Of course we can all just go back to horse and buggy, whale oil lamps and the supportable population of the world we can support with that technology, but somehow I don't figure that the third world is going to accept going backwards further....

      Best we can hope for is to cut down *some* on fossil fuel use by developing other energy sources. Fusion comes to mind as a promising solution..... But that's decades out....Just figure that CO2 emissions are here to stay for your lifetime, because even if you are a baby, they are....

      If we don't cut back population over the long term. we'll all starve to death. And let's be honest, oil is not an infinite resource. Even ignoring global warming, there comes a time when the well goes dry.

      And the problem is not that far away 2050 projections:

      NEW population forecasts from the United Nations point to a new world order in 2050. The number of people will grow from 7.3 billion to 9.7 billion in 2050, 100m more than was estimated in the UN's last report two years ago. More than half of this growth comes from Africa, where the population is set to double to 2.5 billion. Nigeria's population will reach 413m, overtaking America as the world's third most-populous country. Congo and Ethiopia will swell to more than 195m and 188m repectively, more than twice their current numbers. India will surpass China as the world's most populous country in 2022, six years earlier than was previously forecast. China's population will peak at 1.4 billion in 2028; India's four decades later at 1.75 billion. Changes in fertility make long-term projections hard, but by 2100 the planet’s population will be rising past 11.2 billion. It will also be much older. The median age of 30 will rise to 36 in 2050 and 42 in 2100—the median age of Europeans today. A quarter of Europe's people are already aged 60 or more; by 2050 deaths will outnumber births by 32m. The UN warns that only migration will prevent the region's population from shrinking further.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:I don't see it. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

      You first. Start by recycling that power burning collection of polymers and rare earths you use to post things. Takes a lot of Chinese coal to make those.

      Didn't think so.

      The rare earths will be recycled (we already do this because we are not producing enough to meet demand). Recycling of all electronics is mandatory, and we pay an environment tax to subsidize it, same as we do with tires.

      My modes of transport are, in preference, walk, bicycle, bus. We're planning to switch over to electric buses (powered by hydro) in the next decade (we've been testing them since 2008). The goal is an all-electric fleet.

      Everyone has a recycling box (no sorting needed, so as to encourage use), that is picked up weekly and brought to sorting centers. If it can be recycled, I recycle it. We already do cap and trade (the goal being that as technology reduces pollution people will implement the technology instead of trading carbon credits). We even have municipal leaf pickup in the fall for composting, giving away the results the next spring.

      We have several gas recovery fields that collect the methane from trash dumps for sale to natural gas companies. They run at a profit.

      I think that, to the extent currently possible, I'm doing better than average.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:I don't see it. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well the correct term is petroleum... petr from petra which means rock, and oleum means oil, so "rock oil". Quite appropriately named. Perhaps the supergroup which includes gaseous deposits should be called "organic fuel", since carbon chemistry is organic chemistry.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:I don't see it. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And let's be honest, oil is not an infinite resource.

      Well then there's the adibiatic theory (which has not been proven and in fact there is evidence against it) which would point to unlimited oil. But we had better hope that oil is limited, otherwise we really will end up poisoning ourselves. As it is the worst we can possibly do is put back all the CO2 that was originally in the atmosphere to begin with. What remains to be seen is if this is compatible with life.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:I don't see it. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I live in the third world - studies have shown that I consume far less and produce much less waste than you first worlders. So no, it's your turn :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:I don't see it. by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      I corrected your statement to this "What remains to be seen is if this is compatible with [human] life."
      Because high CO2 is definitely compatible with life; the land plants and some animals will likely do very well with a CO2 level that kills off the human race.

      Tim S.

      And let's be honest, oil is not an infinite resource.

      Well then there's the adibiatic theory (which has not been proven and in fact there is evidence against it) which would point to unlimited oil. But we had better hope that oil is limited, otherwise we really will end up poisoning ourselves. As it is the worst we can possibly do is put back all the CO2 that was originally in the atmosphere to begin with. What remains to be seen is if this is compatible with life.

    12. Re:I don't see it. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Actually widespread horse transportation may be unsubstainable. I guess the solution was that most people didn't and never traveled at all in their whole lives ; horse riding tended to be associated with nobility and knighthood.
      On the other hand, with the second industrial revolution we developed a vehicle that's much cheaper and less energy intensive, that's the bicycle (less energy intensive during use than walking)
      Likewise, perhaps LED lighting is a better idea than whale oil lamps, although I hope something will replace LEDs that has better spectrum.

      Like century old furniture, what if we could inherit a post-LED light bulb, or a battery or supercapacitor bank from our great-grandparents? Eat eggs and tend to your garden (if applicable) rather than eat beef. Keep your 5-watt computer for 30 years then hand it to some kids. Don't heat your home in the winter except in one room at certain times, wear a nightcap instead. Demolish that swimming pool and fill it with dirt.
      Basically go forward in technology, but go backward in income level and consumerism.

    13. Re:I don't see it. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Always a rational why you aren't supposed to be on the list for "using less." Two others just like you; "I already use less, so I'm exempt. Make someone else use less." Always the same self-serving story.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    14. Re:I don't see it. by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      And alliteration is always awesome.

      FTFY

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    15. Re:I don't see it. by smallfries · · Score: 1

      That is pretty cool.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    16. Re:I don't see it. by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      You are going to buy carbon offsets and you want to be taken seriously?

      You have bought in to the religion... I feel sorry for you.

    17. Re:I don't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't focus on the carbon atoms. The net effect is that we extract hydrogen and replace it with (much larger and heavier) oxygen atoms. The carbon atoms only serve as the transport for hydrogen and oxygen.

      And since methane is trapped in the underground even on geological timescales, it's reasonable to expect somewhat similar timescales for sequestered CO2. And that's ignoring the semi-stable bond between water and CO2 (forms H2CO3, which is weakly ioninzed)

    18. Re:I don't see it. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      (I'm not trying to be racist, but has anyone else noticed that non-black people have significantly more evolved cultures?

      Clearly you don't have to try, well done you.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:I don't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also used to make clear the distinction between say burning wood with is C02 that is already a part of the surface carbon, and "fossil fuels" which have been buried for a long time and we are bringing to the surface very quickly.

    20. Re:I don't see it. by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      FTFY

      FFFF

    21. Re: I don't see it. by phocion · · Score: 1

      People have always been predicting doom and gloom due to population growth, but the world has yet to collapse into the expected dystopia. In my lifetime the world population has almost doubled, but the absolute number of people in extreme poverty has dropped. Significantly. Serious famines made the news regularly when I was a kid. Nowadays you hardly ever hear of any that aren't caused by regional conflict. I'm not saying the world is without problems; just look at the number of severely malnourished kids in Haiti for example. But the problems there and elsewhere aren't due to global overpopulation or global food shortages. There is probably an upper limit to the world population, but we're not going to get there anytime soon (if ever).

      --
      Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
    22. Re:I don't see it. by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      FTFY

      FFFF

      Fun For Four Fixes!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    23. Re: I don't see it. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      but the absolute number of people in extreme poverty has dropped.

      As many as 1 billion people are homeless, squatters, or living in a refugee shelter - all lacking proper housing. Just search for world homeless population.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re: I don't see it. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Those billions may have (or be able to get) food.
      What about clean water? What about all the pollution they create?

      We have already far exceeded the number of people that the earth can sustain without great suffering for the poorest third of the earth.

  7. Yeah, well, naturally. by JMZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, this is like the core principle of homeopathy. You make permanent holes in the water, and the holes are just the right size for the class of toxins you're dealing with. Then if you want more holes, you dilute the water to make the holes split (obviously you want to be careful with this in practice).

    I thought everyone knew this? How did you guys all think homeopathy worked? Magic?

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:Yeah, well, naturally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought homeopathy involved using snake oil to cure your illnesses.

    2. Re:Yeah, well, naturally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe snake oil can cure that whoooshing noise you hear.

  8. "Sequeseter" and just pass it on by no-body · · Score: 1

    to whosoever comes later.

    First off, this seems far away from applicable but already the sequester CO2 hope arises.
    Do those holey liquids exist in nature or is it another hydrogenated fat flop?

    Now about sequestration, why is it hyped?
    Probably less offensive methods, looking at planting more carbon dumps or grooming or reviving recently destroyed one's are less hip in those rogue capital/profit short time-driven systems?

    Is the radiation loaded nuclear waste with half-times into the multiple millenia solved? Not even that and saving future inhabitants living a couple of millenia from preventing to dig into that crap once a permanent home is found - duh!

    And the underlying reason for all of this is - ?

    1. Re:"Sequeseter" and just pass it on by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Molten salt reactors are said to have, in theory, fuel remnants with storage needs of a few centuries rather than tens of millennia.

    2. Re:"Sequeseter" and just pass it on by no-body · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Molten salt reactors are said to have, in theory, fuel remnants with storage needs of a few centuries rather than tens of millennia.

      Any MSR's producing except experimentals?
      http://www.jonathonporritt.com...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Ma - megaannums, million years

    3. Re:"Sequeseter" and just pass it on by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      The main experiments were back in the 1960s. There are some proof-of-concepts for future commercial plants from what I've heard and read. There are some being used to provide power to high-use single users like high-energy research labs I think.

      Nobody's producing power to sell just yet. It's supposed to be soon, though. A Canadian company has a design they're putting into pre-licensing review in the coming months to hopefully be online around 2020. The US DoE which first developed MSRs (a program which Nixon axed) is helping China build a full-scaled 100 MW preview unit to be operational by 2024.

      These things are safer (thorium vs. uranium for the bulk of the fuel, lower pressure inside the reactor), more efficient (higher temperatures transferred to the water/steam so more work gets to the generators), have easier spent fuel requirements (the half-lives are much shorter and it's much easier to keep them from breeding bomb-grade elements). They'll be cheaper to operate and produce cheaper, safer electricity. China's into the hundreds of millions researching building these things. It should happen.

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
      http://fukushimaupdate.com/tho...
      http://www.technologyreview.co...
      http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/...
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...

  9. The Italians ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    The Italians have a colorful expression – to make a hole in water – to describe an effort with no hope of succeeding

    Clearly no Italian has ever owned a boat.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  10. Re:Global Warming Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People believe you're mentally ill, because you post like someone who became mentally ill by internalizing evil right-wing propaganda.

  11. Hydrogen Storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they have the perfect Hydrogen storage medium and these idiots are talking about carbon sequestration?

    1. Re: Hydrogen Storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sequestred Co2 could be combined with hidrogen to make fuel. Idiot

    2. Re:Hydrogen Storage? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      The energy density of compressed hydrogen is bad enough as it is without making it even less dense by putting lots of liquid molecules in between. Remember the breakthrough isn't that this liquid can increase the density of stored carbon, it's that it can selectively capture CO2 from the air.

      Of course there is already another way to store hydrogen very densely in liquid form at room temperature, but separating it from the oxygen is the tricky part :)

  12. 2030: Human Extinction b/c of Methane in Arctic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Certainly this is an interesting step but it's really too late already. The gap between the introduction of CO2 and the full effects already put us well beyond the point of no return, the point when human life on earth is no longer possible. That's 15 years from now. I wish it were wrong but it's not. No matter what we do, we have 15 years or so left.

    1. Re:2030: Human Extinction b/c of Methane in Arctic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then kill yourself now and do the planet a favor.

    2. Re:2030: Human Extinction b/c of Methane in Arctic by Maritz · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  13. C'mon - we're not even TRYING! by avocanite · · Score: 2

    Two words: Holey Water :-)

  14. Hydrogen Storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about rather than sequestering CO2 designing it to store hydrogen? Hasn't the greatest challenge to hydrogen power been storage of the hydrogen gas?

  15. Yo, Dawg, I hear you like liquids by billstewart · · Score: 1

    So I'm putting some liquid in your liquid.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  16. More 'climate change' alarmism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why they renamed it 'climate change', which doesn't mean anything of the like, but is supposed to always be taken to mean 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.

    www.climatedepot.com
    www.wattsupwiththat.com

  17. Holey Water? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Well, what else can you call water with holes in?

  18. Re:Global Warming Myth by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Well, you convinced me. Well done. I too shall now only believe things that are emotionally comforting.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  19. Re:Global Warming Myth by Maritz · · Score: 0

    I am a proud white man, who supports the New Black Panthers, and their drive to eradicate the white race. I hate myself so much, because even though I wasn't directly involved, us white people have brought SO MUCH pain and misery to non-whites, that we should voluntarily commit mass suicide. If you don't support gay rights, you are probably a fucking breeder, and you deserve to die.

    I bet you think you're making some kind of amazing wry, insightful point with that big pile of bollocks.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  20. More effective method by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    If you want to help sequester carbon, buy two Christmas trees. 100% of the carbon in the trees comes from the air (is it actually 100%? well, close to 100% anyway) and when the tree goes into the landfill, you have successfully sequestered the carbon. Make sure not to burn your Christmas tree.