Removing CO2 from the Air? (aside from Calcium Hydroxide)

[kwhilborn]

I am wondering if it is possible to Engineer a device that could remove Carbon from the air. I only know of the bubbling CO2 through Calcium Hydroxide.

I know plants do it, and the above experiment. I would like to know how else this might be done. Any takers?

I am adding my last post from page 3 here, because I really would like some input...

O.K. Debating whether science is required is off topic.

What if we confined the air into threads, and used plates (positive/negative) to deflect and divert the problematic diatomic atoms.

We would still have to sequester the carbon from the target area, but we might be able to separate the problem air first. Yadda yadda. saving the treatment of 99.99% of the air

Is this a possibility? I have not seen anyone with this type of pre-sorting ideas (patent pending).

Would exciting the atoms help or hinder?

I am kind of thinking to align the atoms poles first with magnets, and then have ..... anyways. There is a decent proposal.

Or is there another way to use the atomic differences. i.e. mass, lower energy, etc. to otherwise filter out the diatomic particles?

Please tell me I'm off my rocker before I start renting equipment.lol

[draqon]

lithium cells in ISS

Lithium hydroxide canisters

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/station/2002/iss02-50.html

http://www.space1.com/Artifacts/Apollo_Artifacts/LiOH_Canister/apollo_13_photo2_600.jpg

[one_raven]

Looking to win Branson's challenge?

[draqon]

Looking to win Branson's challenge?

no.

[one_raven]

no.

I was asking the person who started this thread.

[Read-Only]

I am wondering if it is possible to Engineer a device that could remove Carbon from the air. I only know of the bubbling CO2 through Calcium Hydroxide.

I know plants do it, and the above experiment. I would like to know how else this might be done. Any takers?

Unfortunately, there aren't any methods that are both cheap enough AND effective. They all require a large amount of energy. And since most energy is generated through burning fossil fuels, the entire process produces a negative gain.

You could grow trees, cut them and store them deep in oxygen-deprived water but I'm still not sure that even that would produce an overall positive gain in CO2 reduction.

[BenTheMan]

They all require a large amount of energy.

The double bond in CO2 make it incredible stable, but I have heard people talking about this idea. One way that I recall had to do with building fake trees. Basically, one would make a surace which catalyzed the process CO2--> C(s) + O2. Basically, one would grow solid carbon on the leaves of these trees, which would have to be cleaned/replaced periodically. I don't know the technical details, but I seem to remember that the inventor thought the technology wasn't too far off.

I could be wrong on this, so correct me please!

[Read-Only]

The double bond in CO2 make it incredible stable, but I have heard people talking about this idea. One way that I recall had to do with building fake trees. Basically, one would make a surace which catalyzed the process CO2--> C(s) + O2. Basically, one would grow solid carbon on the leaves of these trees, which would have to be cleaned/replaced periodically. I don't know the technical details, but I seem to remember that the inventor thought the technology wasn't too far off.

I could be wrong on this, so correct me please!

Hello, Ben,

That's interesting but I've have to see some solid info on it. If it actually works, all you'd need do is coat a slow, continously running belt - possibly driven by solar cells - and have it pass over a knife edge or some other method of removal. Just allow the carbon to fall into a deep pit and forget it.

[kwhilborn]

Whats Bransons challenge?

P.S. Thanks for the information.

I was just reading this. I am guessing this Branson Challenge is based on it, if it is a "save the world" type challenge.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf

It was from an online library, however I just found the above link to the same thing. Just curious. Thanks for the info. I have a bunch of children, so I thought I'd take a look at what's chemically wrong (allegedly).

I also like to invest in growing technologies, and this field looks kind of ripe for some incredible government spending. If I can get some good dividends and save the world at the same time, I'm all for it.

Thanks for more search term criteria Dragon and a unique idea BenTheMan.

I kind of like the solution in the above link the best so far, but who knows.

[BenTheMan]

That's interesting but I've have to see some solid info on it. If it actually works, all you'd need do is coat a slow, continously running belt - possibly driven by solar cells - and have it pass over a knife edge or some other method of removal. Just allow the carbon to fall into a deep pit and forget it.

Yeah I looked for a few minutes online but couldn't find any info. I seem to remember a segment on BBC. If anyone knows of any info, or if I am terribly mistaken, then let me know:)

What about this----put this coating on a windmill, and let the windmill generate the power. I was thinking of this when I was writing the prevous post.

[kwhilborn]

Thanks for the search terms. I was able to come up with this.

If droplets of chemicals known as amines are sprayed through the flue gas in a chamber known as an absorption tower, the CO2 will stick to the amines, he said.

Then, under heat, the amine-CO2 combination breaks apart, freeing the amine chemical to be routed back into the absorption tower to collect more CO2.

from
http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/content/shared/news/nation/stories/08/21COAL_SEQUESTER.html

then this. searching "Amines co2" got 177000 hits.

http://uregina.ca/ghgt7/PDF/papers/nonpeer/379.pdf

could not find research on what you were talking about, but I will try further.
Thanks.

[Absane]

http://www.space1.com/Artifacts/Apollo_Artifacts/LiOH_Canister/apollo_13_photo2_600.jpg

Isn't that the filter they put together on Apollo 13 when the CO2 levels were way above normal?

[draqon]

Isn't that the filter they put together on Apollo 13 when the CO2 levels were way above normal?

yuP. :cool:

[Pete]

Condense it by cooling the air? Disposing of the dry ice could be interesting. Maybe bury it it polar ice?
If dry ice were sent to the bottom of the ocean, would the CO2 dissolve before bubbling to the surface?

[Pete]

Carbon capture and storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage)

[Nasor]

The double bond in CO2 make it incredible stable, but I have heard people talking about this idea. One way that I recall had to do with building fake trees. Basically, one would make a surace which catalyzed the process CO2--> C(s) + O2. Basically, one would grow solid carbon on the leaves of these trees, which would have to be cleaned/replaced periodically. I don't know the technical details, but I seem to remember that the inventor thought the technology wasn't too far off.


The problem here is that you would still have to add energy to get from CO2 to C(s) and O2, since there is more energy in solid carbon and oxygen gas than in the equivalent amount of CO2. So you would need some sort of energy source, to the tune of 390 kJ per mole of CO2 eliminated.

[Read-Only]

The problem here is that you would still have to add energy to get from CO2 to C(s) and O2, since there is more energy in solid carbon and oxygen gas than in the equivalent amount of CO2. So you would need some sort of energy source, to the tune of 390 kJ per mole of CO2 eliminated.

Precisely, and well said. Oxidizing carbon is an exothermic reaction and the ONLY way to get back to the original elements is to resupply the energy that was 'lost' in the process. And that's why I said that trying to break that bond would result in a net loss of sequestering carbon (in that fashion) since the energy you have to supply would almost certainly come from burning fossil fuels.

In other words, it's backing up instead of moving forward.

[one_raven]

This may sound silly, but what about somethign as simple as living moss for roofing material?

[Read-Only]

This may sound silly, but what about somethign as simple as living moss for roofing material?

Yes, that would be fine - as long as it's growing faster than it dies. But you will soon reach a point where the growth rate / death rate equalize and then there's no gain. Sort of like a pound in and a pound out.

[Absane]

yuP. :cool:

Heh... I looked at it and thought it looked like the interior of a Saturn V rocket... then I saw the duct tape around a box near some canisters.

[Roman]

Grow more green things.

[one_raven]

Grow more green things.

Exactly!
It seems to me there does not need to be any "device" to do such a thing.
All we need to do is cut back pollution, re-establish lost jungle acreage, live more sensibly and let the plants do the rest.

Am I missing something here?

[Nasor]

I googled around for numbers and did a quick calculation. There is about 3*10^18 g of CO2 in the air. So if it takes 390 kJ/mole to turn the CO2 into C and O2, and we wanted to reduce the amount of CO2 by 1%, that would take around 2.7*10^20 joules. If we reduced it by 1% over the course of a year, that would require 8.4 terrawatts of power, which would be about half of the total electricity consumption of the world.

Remember, the fact that CO2 has so much less energy than solid carbon and oxygen is the very reason that we use it for fuel in the first place!

[one_raven]

Remember, the fact that CO2 has so much less energy than solid carbon and oxygen is the very reason that we use it for fuel in the first place!

We use CO2 for fuel because it has little energy?
I don't get it.

[orcot]

fact that CO2 has so much less energy than solid carbon
It's a strong bond if it was a weak bond then it would fall apart out of itself.

[Nasor]

We use CO2 for fuel because it has little energy?

Solid carbon (or liquid, if you prefer to burn oil) and oxygen gas have a lot of energy stored in their bonds. CO2 has relatively little energy stored in its bonds. The energy released when you burn carbon in the presence of oxygen is the difference between the energy of your starting materials (carbon and oxygen gas) and your products (CO2 gas). Since there is little energy in CO2, most of the energy stored in the carbon and oxygen gets released. If there was a lot of energy in CO2, burning carbon for energy wouldn't work as well because not as much energy would be released (since more of it would be stuck in the CO2 product).

But if you want to go back the other way and turn the CO2 back into solid carbon and oxygen, you have to put the energy back in.

Roman

Grow more green things.

But where are you going to put them? Remember, we're talking about 24 billion tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere every year. You would have to plant a lot of trees.

[kwhilborn]

The Moss idea, though inspirational would only touch the problem. The paper I read and posted a link to in #9 calculates that 3/4 of the worlds oceans would need to be covered in seaweed to touch natural co2 sequestration.

In line with READONLY's idea. Perhaps it is possible to BREED a new form of plant that loves photosynthesis. Choosing a plant that already is high performance and raising them in high carbon environments, etc. Help out evolution a bit.

The idea of requiring energy to sequester co2 could be solved in several ways. Giant Towers (twice the size of the cn tower); also mentioned in the above link, would create high speed wind tunnels in the centre. I believe this idea was proposed for and could double as an energy source.

They are already experimenting with co2 dumping in the oceans, with co2 removed from natural gas.

[Nasor]

The idea of requiring energy to sequester co2 could be solved in several ways.
Yeah, but the point is that the amount of energy needed to sequester a meaningful amount of CO2 is on the same order as the energy that the world is getting from the CO2-producing processes in the first place. If we had a way to generate that much energy cleanly, we could just use the energy directly and stop putting carbon into the atmosphere.

[Read-Only]

Exactly!
It seems to me there does not need to be any "device" to do such a thing.
All we need to do is cut back pollution, re-establish lost jungle acreage, live more sensibly and let the plants do the rest.

Am I missing something here?

Yep, you're missing something.;) It's no different than your idea about the moss on the roof. Once all the jungle, etc. reaches maturity, it dies and the CO2 it extracted from the air goes right back in again as the plants die.

Granted, it would initally store more than it returns but that's only for a limited number of years - then you're right back where you started. Gained only a very, very little and not enough to make any difference at all.

[one_raven]

Yep, you're missing something.;) It's no different than your idea about the moss on the roof. Once all the jungle, etc. reaches maturity, it dies and the CO2 it extracted from the air goes right back in again as the plants die.

But the jungle is not somethign that grows to maturity and dies like a single tree.
Properly taken care of, the jungle will last for many milennia.
And if we are putting less CO2 in the air, and less pollutants in general, and growing more plants (such as on roofs of buildings, where there is currently asphalt and other manufactured materials) will teh balance not turn?

[Read-Only]

But the jungle is not somethign that grows to maturity and dies like a single tree.
Properly taken care of, the jungle will last for many milennia.
And if we are putting less CO2 in the air, and less pollutants in general, and growing more plants (such as on roofs of buildings, where there is currently asphalt and other manufactured materials) will teh balance not turn?

The jungle is like a million trees (and ferns, vines, etc.) that grow to maturity and die to be replaced by an equal number of the same. You can't possibly get it to hold more carbon unless the jungle grows in area - and that's not about to happen.

Why do you suppose all the jungles and rain forests were cut/burned in the first place? For the timber, yes, but mostly for the cleared land that people wanted. It's not about to turn around the other way except in very small, isolated protected areas.

It's a very simple thing, Raven. An acre of land will only support so much vegetation before growth and death reach an equlibrium. And when that point is reached (fairly quickly, too), there's just as much CO2 leaving that acre as is being absorbed by it. Therefore, we've gained nothing.

[kwhilborn]

The wind tunnel creates wind through natural processes when the structure is in place. The removal could be by bubbling this wind through Calcium Hydroxide. There is NO energy used. In fact these wind towers could produce "clean energy". (link to website earlier)

Even if energy was used to power wind through heated or cooled parts, a machine built specifically for removing large amounts of carbon would produce the tiniest fraction of what it is removing.

"trees are not enough" (all rights reserved for use of this slogan).lol

[Read-Only]

The wind tunnel creates wind through natural processes when the structure is in place. The removal could be by bubbling this wind through Calcium Hydroxide. There is NO energy used. In fact these wind towers could produce "clean energy". (link to website earlier)


Major, major flaw there, Kwhiborn - it would take a TON of energy to produce all that calcium hydroxide. The stuff simply isn't found in nature. And there's a lot of logistics involved that you haven't even begun to consider that also require energy, besides the production of the calcuim hydroxide - like mining, milling, transporting, etc.

[kwhilborn]

I see your point. So the smart money would have to go where the the most efficiently produced co2 sequestration chemicals could be produced.

Transportation/mining/production. Good factors. Another flaw in the wind tunnel theory would be that the liquid end would cork it up.

Assuming there is a co2 crisis (conflicting theories and all), what would your solution be? Or should I start burying bottled water in my fields.

[Read-Only]

I see your point. So the smart money would have to go where the the most efficiently produced co2 sequestration chemicals could be produced.

Transportation/mining/production. Good factors. Another flaw in the wind tunnel theory would be that the liquid end would cork it up.

Assuming there is a co2 crisis (conflicting theories and all), what would your solution be? Or should I start burying bottled water in my fields.

It can be solved. The first and foremost thing is to begin at the beginning, so to speak - where most of the CO2 is originally produced. In the majority of the world (including the US, China and other industrial nations) is our power generating stations. The vast majority of them burn coal, to a lesser degree natrual gas, and even lesser, oil. It would require expensive equipment but a great deal of it could be caught right there.

As for the rest of it in the air (from cars, etc.), some very fast growing vegetation, like algae, could catch it directly from the air. It would then be separated from the water and then stored in deep, abandoned mines (old salt mines are ideal) before it begins to decay. It would remain there forever and would never get back into the carbon cycle.

The absolute final - and lasting - approach is to convert energry production to nuclear. First, it would put an end to the current greatest sources of CO2. Secondly, it could be used to make electrical vehicles a true reality and end a very large part of the dependence on oil.

I do realize that there's still the matter of disposing of the nuclear waste but that could be solved with a concerted effort that wouldn't require as much funding as is currently being pumped into the system in the form of subsidies for the production of ethanol from corn.

[kwhilborn]

Algae. Hmmm. Nuclear energy scares the hell out of me when I think of it in dictatorship countries, I think we'd need to clean all of the air in civilized countries. Would not Algae need still unchlorinated water. Sounds a little unsanitary. mosquitos, etc. Interesting ideas.

[one_raven]

You can't possibly get it to hold more carbon unless the jungle grows in area - and that's not about to happen.

That's exactly what I am talking about.
I think it is preferable to all the other suggestions I am seeing here.
I also think it is possible to have a great deal more greenery growing in populated areas than there is now.
There is also the possibility of reforesting many, many smaller deforested areas.

We already know what works, it works well, it is clean, it has no toxic chemicals to have to dispose of, it doesn't require nuclear power, it doesn't require huge construction projects...
Rather than trying to "fix" our mistakes and make invent a machine to make reparations, we should learn from our mistakes create less polution, and treat nature with greater respect.

[leopold99]

I am wondering if it is possible to Engineer a device that could remove Carbon from the air.
yes. with genetic engineering you can develop a process based on photosynthesis.

maybe even use the process in combination with water to produce gasoline.

[MetaKron]

Hemp seeds can be scrounged in many places. Efforts to eradicate hemp by harvesting and burning it in the fall have been especially effective at scattering the seeds and planting the next harvest, and this is a very good carbon sink, able to sequester several pounds per plant.

I don't think that it's really necessary to do it, but if it was, consider the fact that merging the plant waste with the soil keeps the carbon out of the atmosphere for many years, like in peat bogs. Converting it to plastic also works.

[Positron]

A device that could remove carbon from the air, if not already engineered, would not take long to come upo with. The problem of course lies in the fact that we put out so much CO2 it would be so difficult to counteract it. I suppose, however, that if we spent a lot of money making these machines, we would be smarter by then and not putting out as much.

[Nasor]

Let's put it this way: a fully grown redwood tree might mass around 1000 tons. Which means that you would need 24 million new fully grown redwood trees every year to simply counter the amount of carbon that we are currenty putting out, let alone actually reduce the amount in the atmosphere. The mass of ferns, shrubs, or whatever else people might be able to grow on their roof is trivial compared to the mass of carbon in the atmosphere.

[Roman]

It would be FAR cheaper to put part of the third world on welfare and turn their land back into rainforest than produce vast amounts of chemical hydroxide, then trying to figure out where to store it.

[Roman]

There is an estimated 1,800 billion tons of biomass of all terrestial ecosystems.

Increasing biomass by 1 or 2% wouldn't be that difficult.

[kwhilborn]

O.K. Debating whether science is required is off topic.

What if we confined the air into threads, and used plates (positive/negative) to deflect and divert the problematic diatomic atoms.

We would still have to sequester the carbon from the target area, but we might be able to separate the problem air first. Yadda yadda. saving the treatment of 99.99% of the air

Is this a possibility? I have not seen anyone with this type of pre-sorting ideas (patent pending).

Would exciting the atoms help or hinder?

I am kind of thinking to align the atoms poles first with magnets, and then have ..... anyways. There is a decent proposal.

Or is there another way to use the atomic differences. i.e. mass, lower energy, etc. to otherwise filter out the diatomic particles?

Please tell me I'm off my rocker before I start renting equipment.lol

[Read-Only]

O.K. Debating whether science is required is off topic.

What if we confined the air into threads, and used plates (positive/negative) to deflect and divert the problematic diatomic atoms.

We would still have to sequester the carbon from the target area, but we might be able to separate the problem air first. Yadda yadda. saving the treatment of 99.99% of the air

Is this a possibility? I have not seen anyone with this type of pre-sorting ideas (patent pending).

Would exciting the atoms help or hinder?

I am kind of thinking to align the atoms poles first with magnets, and then have ..... anyways. There is a decent proposal.

Or is there another way to use the atomic differences. i.e. mass, lower energy, etc. to otherwise filter out the diatomic particles?

Please tell me I'm off my rocker before I start renting equipment.lol

Hello again, kwhilborn,:)

First a very minor correction: You've misued the term 'diatomic atoms' - there's no such thing. You probably mean diatomic molecules but that still doesn't apply to CO2. The only elements that form diatomic molecules are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and the halogens (F, Cl, Br, and I). And yes, I have a major background in chemistry.;)

Now, back to your topic.

No, the reason it isn't being done and most probably never will is because it would be both very expensive and not efficent at all. The Co2 molecule cannot be polarized as you are thinking independently of other air molecules. Ozone is an example of one that's done easily - but we don't wish to get rid of oxygen, do we?

Perhaps you're thinking of some sort of molecular sieve, such as the membranes used to partially desalinate sea water. Or centifuges as are used in the enrichment of uraniun. But both of those are the expensive, slow things I was just talking about. Not at all practical, sorry.

[MetaKron]

A lot of different kinds of plants can be grown and then plowed under. This sequesters carbon and builds soil.

[Read-Only]

A lot of different kinds of plants can be grown and then plowed under. This sequesters carbon and builds soil.

Something tells me you don't understand the word "sequester" because that only stores it for a while until the natural flora and fauna in the soil break it down and release it again. No solution in THAT scheme.

[kwhilborn]

Thanks for setting me straight. I am trying to get it.

So it would not be possible that oxygen and co2 could be defracted to individual levels via polarity?

Or any ideas that might function towards a high speed separation.

I was not looking for a high degree of accuracy, but with repeated processing, etc.

I think if anyone could think of a way to do something similar, it could be the invention of the century.

any hope?

[Read-Only]

Thanks for setting me straight. I am trying to get it.

So it would not be possible that oxygen and co2 could be defracted to individual levels via polarity?

Or any ideas that might function towards a high speed separation.

I was not looking for a high degree of accuracy, but with repeated processing, etc.

I think if anyone could think of a way to do something similar, it could be the invention of the century.

any hope?

You are very welcome, kwhilborn. I can easily see that you are serious about this and that you're making an honest effort with it. I'm always glad to help someone like you - as opposed to the many "know-nothings-say-a-lot" that this place is so full of.

No, there just aren't principles that one could employ to do any of that on an effective basis. Several things could be done but my algae idea would remove the CO2 at a thousand times the rate and do it very cheaply.

I didn't go into great detail about it but it's very workable. And no, there would be no mosquito problem at all becasue the material would be removed continously and any mosquito larve present would just be swept right along with it since they require a minimum of five days to develop under the most ideal conditions.:)

There are also other water plants that could be used. The water hychanth is another good one and it's also well known for removing any toxic heavy metals that might be present. And as anyone in Florida can tell you, it grows VERY fast and can also be removed continously.

Vegetation is the way to go, but not in the simplistic forms some here have suggested, Those ideas wouldn't even begin to make a small dent in the problem. For one thing, land is already at a premium and there is less and less of it available every single day. That's not going to change, either.

[grover]

The double bond in CO2 make it incredible stable, but I have heard people talking about this idea. One way that I recall had to do with building fake trees. Basically, one would make a surace which catalyzed the process CO2--> C(s) + O2. Basically, one would grow solid carbon on the leaves of these trees, which would have to be cleaned/replaced periodically. I don't know the technical details, but I seem to remember that the inventor thought the technology wasn't too far off.

I could be wrong on this, so correct me please!

Building fake trees? What's wrong with using real ones? Oh, yeah if you say trees are good you're a tree-hugger.

[MetaKron]

Something tells me you don't understand the word "sequester" because that only stores it for a while until the natural flora and fauna in the soil break it down and release it again. No solution in THAT scheme.

Something tells me that you don't understand any words because peat bogs are like this and so is topsoil, and the age of the carbon sequestered "temporarily" in those places runs to thousands of years.

[Billy T]

....Vegetation is the way to go, but not in the simplistic forms some here have suggested, Those ideas wouldn't even begin to make a small dent in the problem. For one thing, land is already at a premium and there is less and less of it available every single day. That's not going to change, either.Certainly true that vegetation (algae included) can remove carbon (as CO2) from the air much more economically than any man-made device, but one must bury it or in some way reduce its decay and return of CO2 to the air.

An alternative is to (when the biotechnology permits) use the vegetation to make "cellulose alcohol." This alcohol, when burned as fuel in you car etc, will of course also returns the CO2 to the air, just as the decaying vegetation would, but the displacement of fossil fuels is a big reduction in the release of currently well sequester carbon (in oil) to the air. Thus, producing alcohol, reducing the cost of driving while reducing the release of fossil fuel is the way to go. (I suspect that to bury a ton of vegitation carbon will cost about half as much as extracting a ton of fossil carbon in oil and transport of it to the end user. Thus, the economics, considering the cost of water and land for the algae pond does not seem good to me, but I am only guessing.)

Currently sugar cane is the best vegetation source of the alcohol. It can already achieve the reduction of fossil carbon release and lower the cost of driving your car. If 'cellulous Alcohol" every does become economically viable (there remains considerable doubt that it will in the next decade or two at least) then the infrastructure will already exist (I.e. your local "gas" station will have a pump for alcohol. All already do in Brazil, but Brazil has a 30+ year head start on the US in the alcohol as car fuel technology.)

Land for growing cane is not in short supply only a few percent of the land that is already in pasture is being used. In many areas, the critical limit is water. Thus large ponds full of algae (evaporating under the strong sun need for rapid algae growth) is not feasible - a land crop is more economical and feasible as only the evaporative loss thru the leaves exists. Perhaps some bio engineering of sugar cane plant can give it the same wax coating hat is found on cactus to reduce this loss and even desert land could be used (not much water for algae there!)

[Read-Only]

Something tells me that you don't understand any words because peat bogs are like this and so is topsoil, and the age of the carbon sequestered "temporarily" in those places runs to thousands of years.

Wrong again. I made no mention of peat bogs because that's correct - unless it's harvested for fuel. But organic matter in topsoil does NOT stay in place forever. Undoubtedly, you have no idea just how active the microbes in topsoil are. If what you said was even remotely accurate plants couldn't grow in it because all the nutrients it contains would be locked away for thousands of years also. Just plain silly.

[Read-Only]

Certainly true that vegetation (algae included) can remove carbon (as CO2) from the air much more economically than any man-made device, but one must bury it or in some way reduce its decay and return of CO2 to the air.


Evidently, you only saw my last post on that subject and missed the first because I also proposed it be stored deep underground in abandoned salt mines. There are lots of those available world-wide and they provide the ideal storage space.

So I still maintain that it would be - by far - the least expensive and most practical solution.

[MetaKron]

Wrong again. I made no mention of peat bogs because that's correct - unless it's harvested for fuel. But organic matter in topsoil does NOT stay in place forever. Undoubtedly, you have no idea just how active the microbes in topsoil are. If what you said was even remotely accurate plants couldn't grow in it because all the nutrients it contains would be locked away for thousands of years also. Just plain silly.

You're on IGNORE.

[Read-Only]

You're on IGNORE.

Yea!!! I finally accompished something positive with the village idi..., well, you know what.:D He just couldn't stand the truth - in this case being that he knew nothing at all about soil chemistry.;)

[kwhilborn]

It already is highly used process with natural gas, they mix absorbents in the air, so this is the working model that needs to be improved upon.

The absorbent solution may not be the best when we are dealing with air environments. As suggested by READ ONLY, algae could be used in an oxygen setting.

"how about very slow moving streams of algae within extremely long air tunnels." I just know there must be better methods than obsorption.

[Pete]

Dumping bales of organic waste (eg spent stalks from grain crops) into the ocean in alluvial fans where they will be quickly covered in silt is another useful idea.

[kwhilborn]

Also forgot to mention, the Algae would convert the co2 into food energy, and would be a cheap way to grow food fast, for emergency relief. So the spent algae could solve starvation problems. There is also a university who is growing triple the amount of catfish in a algae pond environment, as opposed to regular fish farming. TRIPLE! Fertilizing potentials. There is also an incredible amount of possibilitieas as Algae as a biofuel, the obstacles in its way right now is its unavailability as opposed to corn. The growth of which is hampered by lacks of light, food, etc. We would be supplying the algae with as much Co2 as they "could dream of"(figurative). I wonder what a pound of Algae is worth. Hmmm.

So you could clean the co2 from air, grow food/fuel at the same time.

So save the world in two ways at once. lol. Good idea READ ONLY.

Can't wait for that Algaeburger. MMmmm. lol. I guess it beats not eating though.

I wonder what the math would look like, (and I am not doing it today)
on a wind production facilties air intake into increasingly smaller sectioned tunnels of algae, how much algae would be required to reduce the co2 by over 50%.

They could be marketted as food production facilities to countries who don't give in to environmental aid.

real estate would be a prime concern, so masking size with verticle ducts, etc. I guess I'll post back here when I've done some math.

Include good search terms in your answers, because this idea deserves to be looked at on google. seriously.

[MetaKron]

Algae already grows as fast as it possibly can and becomes part of the food chain in any waterway or body of water. Things eat it and it runs out of essential nutrients like phosphates. This is part of how water is cleansed. Any contaminant is something that some life form eats, or it becomes part of the mud on the bottom.

[Read-Only]

Also forgot to mention, the Algae would convert the co2 into food energy, and would be a cheap way to grow food fast, for emergency relief. So the spent algae could solve starvation problems. There is also a university who is growing triple the amount of catfish in a algae pond environment, as opposed to regular fish farming. TRIPLE! Fertilizing potentials. There is also an incredible amount of possibilitieas as Algae as a biofuel, the obstacles in its way right now is its unavailability as opposed to corn. The growth of which is hampered by lacks of light, food, etc. We would be supplying the algae with as much Co2 as they "could dream of"(figurative). I wonder what a pound of Algae is worth. Hmmm.

So you could clean the co2 from air, grow food/fuel at the same time.

So save the world in two ways at once. lol. Good idea READ ONLY.

Can't wait for that Algaeburger. MMmmm. lol. I guess it beats not eating though.

I wonder what the math would look like, (and I am not doing it today)
on a wind production facilties air intake into increasingly smaller sectioned tunnels of algae, how much algae would be required to reduce the co2 by over 50%.

They could be marketted as food production facilities to countries who don't give in to environmental aid.

real estate would be a prime concern, so masking size with verticle ducts, etc. I guess I'll post back here when I've done some math.

Include good search terms in your answers, because this idea deserves to be looked at on google. seriously.

Nice thinking, kwhilborn, I knew you catch the value of the idea.:)

I'd also like to point out that there are several fast-growing varieties, like Chlorella that are especially high in protein. And there are others that produce substantial amounts of oil - and it's simple to extract.

And pay no attention to the village idiot, there are several effective ways of increasing the growth rate - despite what he says. The most obvious, of course, is aeration.

[Billy T]

I mentioned it before, but note more clearly: Algae is like any other "crop" in that it requires CO2 and water, but much more water than most crops. Fresh water is much more limited than land. One always needs to consider the economics. I doubt that algae can even match growing cane, or even some trees, in tons of dry vegetable matter produced annually per surface acre used.

Sugar cane is one of about four plants that has developed a more efficient "four carbon" photosynthesis process. - Another reason why I think that algae can not match its productivity per acre.

[Read-Only]

I mentioned it before, but note more clearly: Algae is like any other "crop" in that it requires CO2 and water, but much more water than most crops. Fresh water is much more limited than land. One always needs to consider the economics. I doubt that algae can even match growing cane, or even some trees, in tons of dry vegetable matter produced annually per surface acre used.

Sugar cane is one of about four plants that has developed a more efficient "four carbon" photosynthesis process. - Another reason why I think that algae can not match its productivity per acre.

Sorry, Billy, but unlike cane, algae is not limited to fresh water. In addition, blue-green algae also fixes nitrogen from the air like land-based legumes do. And although blue-green algae is not edible for humans, there are many, many varieties of it that thrive in seawater making it another good candidate for my vegetative carbon sequestering suggestion.

Edit to add footnote: pound for pound of dry matter, no other form of vegetation produces more than algae.

[kwhilborn]

Also... Sugar cane is a crop. I am trying to think in terms of a fresh air factory, or giant co2 filter.

series of lighted tunnels/tubes Vertical and horizontal aerated by the wind generated in "whichever method" they choose. The land space could be kept to a minimum as opposed to a "crop".

Also using Chlorella or whichever Algae is chosen would alter the Co2 in such a fashion that there would be no need to "bury" or otherwise dispose of the carbon.

It is my current understanding however that Algae does produce a toxin, and laughably the best way I have read "so far" is to remove this toxin is with a carbon filter. The water of course would be recycled, and added to.

This co2 removal idea could work on many levels, as it has two valued end products. a) save the world b) provide food/oil

Excellent idea READ ONLY.

I do think this idea might be overlooked at first because the norm for co2 removal is not for environmental protection, it is for co2 removal in gases. co2 sequestration in air has never been needed in our current evolution.

I still have not had time for the math of it. X number of algae (space) treats Y Volumes of air. I am assuming the space required would be fairly large, and every tube would need to end somewhere towards mature growths that would hinder lighting. I am still skeptical about whether it is practical in that regard, as I did read on the co2 removal link I posted much earlier that in order to keep up with co2 productio 3/4 of the worlds oceans would need to have seaweed (algae), also an option prefereable to mass deaths. also math considerations are quickest growing versus lighting capabilities and the proficiencies of each, etc.

Many forms of algae just need an area to latch onto, Perhaps THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE method would be simple wires strung across massive ocean floating frameworks (anchored), for floating oxygen farms. If large enough (thousands of square miles each) they could be floated/towed towards high hurricane areas and impede the hydrological cycle, or would they act as insulation and aid in evaporation? I'm betting the former, especially if we aimed at lighter coloured (sorry that is correct Canadian spelling of "Coloured") algae. As has been shown in Algae pond studies, some fish/shrimp thrive in Algae water, so we would also increase fish populations by providing food.

These floating frameworks could start with a simple anchor point, and have baseball size floats attached to 2 - 10 foot lengths of wire (or substitute), they would connect to each other at 2 points ever expanding, and huge networks could be assembled ashore and unrolled to connect to existing frameworks.

Every factory/Powerplant/car buyer, would have to "donate" a certain number of square miles of these simply built ocean oxygen farms, perhaps enough to "purify" quadruple their expected yearly outputs. This idea would need to be contributed to worldwide, and perhaps they could be harvested in cycles.

Please Note: I am not an alarmist; however I am assuming that Global Warming IS a threat. Perhaps it is not, I am solution minded, as in "plan for the worst, hope for the best".

End note: Algae currently provides almost 80% of the oxygen in our atmosphere.

Positives.
- The real estate value of the oceans is NILL.
- Construction costs per square mile would be negligable.
- Oxygen farms could help prevent or slow down Global warming.
- CO2 sequestration would not be necessary
- Fish populations would improve.
- Possible uses as Hurricane inhibitor ???? (not thought out)
- Shipping lanes are mostly established and lighthouse type frequency emitters could warn ships, not that they'd sink if they collided with one, but...
- It is a semi-NATURAL solution
- The farms could be towed to shore for harvesting in whichever country we choose, for food.
-the farms could be towed to shore for harvesting in whichever country we choose for OIL. The main drawback for Algae as use for fuel is the lack of harvesting available. Corn however is already being grown and is a more viable option at this time.
- voters would get a bang for their buck.

Negatives.
- Why should we pay for clean air for every other country?
- Possible disruptions of natural ecosystems under the ocean.i,e, whales trying to surface,etc. The "wires" used should be easily detached so they do not form a net.
- The low impact it would have as a pilot project. It would take years to develope structures capable of removing significant amounts of co2. We would litterally need hundreds of Farms say 100 miles by 100 miles
each. before we could start "breathing easy"

Just thinking out loud... You got me thinking READONLY.

This thread has progressed off topic, so I am starting a separate thread in EARTH SCIENCE, where it kind of belongs.

[MetaKron]

Or we could grow billions of tons of new hemp plants in a single season.

[kwhilborn]

Or both. I am suggesting this is in conjunction with kyoto an whatever other methods they would like to employ, or we could all just smoke it and laugh about global warming if that's what you are implying. lol

[Billy T]

Sorry, Billy, but unlike cane, algae is not limited to fresh water. In addition, blue-green algae also fixes nitrogen from the air like land-based legumes do. ...
Edit to add footnote: pound for pound of dry matter, no other form of vegetation produces more than algae.I did not know there was much algae in the sea - Is it eaten by small fish, etc? Why do I not see more of it if it can grow there? Does not seem likely, to me, that man could significantly change the amount already in the sea. Do you have any ideas as to how that might be possible?

Just tonight on CNN (or perhaps BBC) I heard that the rain forest in Brazil is in danger with the climate warming, may dry from lack of rain and burn. They said it alone stores 15 years of global fossil carbon release by man. - Thus, a very bad thing if 15 years worth of CO2 gets released in a few months of massive fire! Because of this, and other reasons, I find it hard to believe your edit added footnote, but do not really understand how, and to what, you are comparing. "Produces more" What? per acre? per day? Can you state your claim more clearly?

[MetaKron]

I can tell you how much algae is in the sea. As much as the sea can carry and as much as doesn't get eaten.

[kwhilborn]

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

The above is a wikipedia link to Algae.

A common type of Algae is various forms of "SEAWEED". The name seaweed itself implies that much grows in the sea.

According to the wikipedia link above 73-87% of our oxygen comes from algae

[Read-Only]

I did not know there was much algae in the sea - Is it eaten by small fish, etc? Why do I not see more of it if it can grow there? Does not seem likely, to me, that man could significantly change the amount already in the sea. Do you have any ideas as to how that might be possible?

Just tonight on CNN (or perhaps BBC) I heard that the rain forest in Brazil is in danger with the climate warming, may dry from lack of rain and burn. They said it alone stores 15 years of global fossil carbon release by man. - Thus, a very bad thing if 15 years worth of CO2 gets released in a few months of massive fire! Because of this, and other reasons, I find it hard to believe your edit added footnote, but do not really understand how, and to what, you are comparing. "Produces more" What? per acre? per day? Can you state your claim more clearly?

Billy, I clearly said it produces more on a pound-per-pound basis - meaning comparing what you had at one point to what you have now.

And just a wee bit of research would have taken you a long way. I grabbed this article at random from a Google search: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:AduZw0Nz0FUJ:www.iran-daily.com/1385/2548/html/focus.htm+algae+reproduction+rate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

and the pertinent point it contains is this: "Algomed is the sole organism and uni-cellular species of algae, with a rapid reproduction rate (it reproduces four-fold every 17 hours). "

So in just 17 hours you will have four times what you began with. Can you match that with cane or anything else????

[MetaKron]

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

The above is a wikipedia link to Algae.

A common type of Algae is various forms of "SEAWEED". The name seaweed itself implies that much grows in the sea.

According to the wikipedia link above 73-87% of our oxygen comes from algae

Carbon dioxide is about .04 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. That's one part in 2500. I don't think that it is physically possible for it to be responsible for global warming and at that rate it sounds like plants and algae have already sucked it down to the max. I'm surprised that they can work on such a trace gas.

[Positron]

Carbon dioxide is about .04 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. That's one part in 2500. I don't think that it is physically possible for it to be responsible for global warming and at that rate it sounds like plants and algae have already sucked it down to the max. I'm surprised that they can work on such a trace gas.

oh? do you really? well using that thinking i'm going to say the following satire:

As we can learn by looking at terrestrial environments when there is a competition for food or rescources in general, no one gets enough food and there is a massive die-off. The lack of CO2 in the air means that plants are competing for the gas. I propose that we immediatley begin putting out more CO2 to help make sure all the plants have anough energy. Or we could chop down a large amount of forest to help combat the problem. Either way we must do soemthing about the alarming low low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

You see? such blatant stupidity leads to stupid comments and while most people here remain unaffected by such things, you would be amazed at how many people out there would believe you. Having such a low percentage of CO2 just shows you just how influential the gas is. Wait a second, isnt the
CO2 seperate from the atmosphere? I thought i t was like a seperate little blanket, or in this case, big blanket.

Read-only,

I got thinking about your algae idea and it sounds like a good one. If you run for president or some influential position, i'll be sure to vote for you.:D about water hyacinths though, can they even remove heavy metals like lead or mercury? or are the limited to lighter things?

[Read-Only]

Read-only,

I got thinking about your algae idea and it sounds like a good one. If you run for president or some influential position, i'll be sure to vote for you.:D about water hyacinths though, can they even remove heavy metals like lead or mercury? or are the limited to lighter things?

Thank you, Positron. I'll be the candidate with the shamrock in my lapel and the crest on my jacket will contain an Erlenmeyer flask, Bunsen burner and a large X made of glass tubing. :D

Yes, they remove practically all heavy metals: nickle, chromium, lead, mercury, cadmium and others.

By the way that was a nice piece of satire. :) It did a good job of pointing out the silliness of such shallow thinking - I enjoyed it.

[draqon]

* Zirconia Electrolysis

Zirconia Electrolysis cell at 800 to 1000deg C, will take in carbon dioxide, and release oxygen.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ISRU/08Atmos.htm

[kwhilborn]

Thanks for the link

[Read-Only]

* Zirconia Electrolysis

Zirconia Electrolysis cell at 800 to 1000deg C, will take in carbon dioxide, and release oxygen.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ISRU/08Atmos.htm

Hello, Dragon,

Yes, that will certainly work but you'll notice it's designed for very extreme conditions - like on the surface of Mars as described in this article.:)

It's not at all practical for use here on Earth to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Note the extremely high temperature! That takes a TON of energy to maintain! Basically, it's breaking the chemical bond that was formed when the carbon was oxidized by replacing the energy that was given off in that original chemical reaction.

You should also note that it's an incomplete process because it doesn't produce carbon and oxygen - rather it produces oxygen and carbon monoxide. Again, not desirable for applications such as being discussed here since NO carbon is being removed.;) Fine for creating breathable oxygen on Mars, though.

[MetaKron]

Positron, not only did you fail to make sense, you also had to be insulting when no one was insulting you.

It is a very intelligent question to ask just how much difference it can make when you are dealing with a "greenhouse gas" that only makes up one part in 2500 of the atmosphere, or 400 parts per million.

When you get insulting because I ask an intelligent question, all you are saying is that I am going against a doctrine that you hold more dear than facts or reason. You are also saying things about yourself that I would rather not hear coming out of my mouth.

[Positron]

Positron, not only did you fail to make sense, you also had to be insulting when no one was insulting you.

It is a very intelligent question to ask just how much difference it can make when you are dealing with a "greenhouse gas" that only makes up one part in 2500 of the atmosphere, or 400 parts per million.

When you get insulting because I ask an intelligent question, all you are saying is that I am going against a doctrine that you hold more dear than facts or reason. You are also saying things about yourself that I would rather not hear coming out of my mouth.

or is it off of your fingers? I did not insult you, I simply pointed out something that I observed. How you took it is not my problem.

You did not "ask" the question. You said how you thought it must be impossible for the gas to cause global warming. Here's what you said exactly: "I don't think that it is physically possible for it to be responsible for global warming" that does not sound like a question to me. There was not even a single question mark in your post anyways.

Fail to make sense?! I suppose you are referring to my satire. obviously you don't know the meaning of the word then. Read some literature by Jonathan Swift then we'll talk again.

[Read-Only]

or is it off of your fingers? I did not insult you, I simply pointed out something that I observed. How you took it is not my problem.

You did not "ask" the question. You said how you thought it must be impossible for the gas to cause global warming. Here's what you said exactly: "I don't think that it is physically possible for it to be responsible for global warming" that does not sound like a question to me. There was not even a single question mark in your post anyways.

Fail to make sense?! I suppose you are referring to my satire. obviously you don't know the meaning of the word then. Read some literature by Jonathan Swift then we'll talk again.

Don't even bother with him, Positron. He thinks he should jump into every thread and insert comments even though he know nothing about the topic. And he never asks questions - just spouts off out of ignorance, His knowledge of Earth sciences is worse than weak, it's practically nonexistent. If you look back up several posts ago, you'll see where he tried to tell us that simply burying organic material in the soil (something farmers have been doing for a very long time) locks up the CO2 contained in it. That makes it pretty obvious that he's never even heard of soil bacteria, fungi, or even earthworms! :D Pretty sad case, that guy.

[draqon]

Steel slag to remove CO2

using steel slag, which is a byproduct of the steel manufacturing process and has very little market value, to extract the carbon dioxide. The result is the production of calcium carbonate (limestone) and hydrated slag, both of which can be sold and used by other industries.

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?newsID=2920

"Mineral CO2 Sequestration by Steel Slag Carbonation"

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2005/39/i24/abs/es050795f.html

[draqon]

Crystal sponges to absorb CO2

metal-organic frameworks (MOF) used to absorb CO2

quoting the researcher:

""if you have a tank filled with MOFs, you can store in that tank as much carbon dioxide as would be stored in nine tanks that do not contain MOFs,"

http://yaghi.chem.ucla.edu/images292x258/MOF-177.gif

MOF-177
http://lem.ch.unito.it/didattica/infochimica/Idrogeno_2005/immagini/mof-177.jpg

Reserach cite: http://www.chemlin.de/news/dez05/removing-carbon-dioxide.htm

[Positron]

The CO2 cannot seep out of them again? and if not, can it be diffused back out? If that does work, and it looks like it would, that would be wonderful.

I think the use of by-products and also the use of new things with useful by-products, like algae is something I am surprised no one in power has thought of yet. It confounds me, it does.:shrug:

[Read-Only]

The CO2 cannot seep out of them again? and if not, can it be diffused back out? If that does work, and it looks like it would, that would be wonderful.

I think the use of by-products and also the use of new things with useful by-products, like algae is something I am surprised no one in power has thought of yet. It confounds me, it does.:shrug:

Hello, Positron,

I think I can answer that. Even though algae would work fine, it's too simple and low-tech to get people's attention. They are looking for things like solar mirrors in the desert, huge reflectors hung in space to reflect the sun's heat away from the Earth. Things that are high-tech and have a whiz-bang appeal.

Trees are acceptable to the masses because they have visual appeal and most people (me included) like them - and it sounds good. But in the long run, they just can't do a big enough job.

Politicians are the ones who drive these processes and they want some gadget that the general population will buy into, not necessarily something that really works.

[Positron]

So the reason why I was interested in Water hycainths in the first place was because we have some at school, in the greenhouse. I went in after being gone for about 4 days and noticed that the entire surface was covered with small lilly like plants, the hyacinths were still okay but I was worried so I skimmed most of them off. The next day there were more again. I think they reproduce by cloning at a very rapid rate until they cover the surface of wherever they are. They are basically tiny leaves with rough egdes and about the surface area of five pinheads. The root structure is only about 4 or five hair size roots connected directly to the leaf structure. I still don't know quite how they work, so i'm going to take a few observations and run some tests. I wonder though, how much CO2 they absorb, and how fast.

Possible applications of this plant could be giant areas that are sectioned off for them to fill up. The negative side of course is that they make a very thick carpet and would prevent sunlight from reaching the bottom.

Any ideas on what this plant even is?

[Read-Only]

So the reason why I was interested in Water hycainths in the first place was because we have some at school, in the greenhouse. I went in after being gone for about 4 days and noticed that the entire surface was covered with small lilly like plants, the hyacinths were still okay but I was worried so I skimmed most of them off. The next day there were more again. I think they reproduce by cloning at a very rapid rate until they cover the surface of wherever they are. They are basically tiny leaves with rough egdes and about the surface area of five pinheads. The root structure is only about 4 or five hair size roots connected directly to the leaf structure. I still don't know quite how they work, so i'm going to take a few observations and run some tests. I wonder though, how much CO2 they absorb, and how fast.

Possible applications of this plant could be giant areas that are sectioned off for them to fill up. The negative side of course is that they make a very thick carpet and would prevent sunlight from reaching the bottom.

Any ideas on what this plant even is?

Yep, I know exactly what they are - Lemnacea. :) Commonly called duckweed. And the interesting thing is that they are also a prime candidate for producing animal food. They, too, have a nearly phenomenal growth rate and an exceptionally high protein content. They are also the world's smallest flowering plant. Check this out: http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/duckweed.htm

[Positron]

Interesting stuff indeed. yet again the smallest and must unnoticed plants can prove to be the most useful.

[Read-Only]

Interesting stuff indeed. yet again the smallest and must unnoticed plants can prove to be the most useful.

Yes, indeed. :) And that's where the real hope lies for the future - low-tech and easily managable. And not with super-duper whiz-bang gadgets that are also super expensive to build and maintain.

[Vega]

I was wandering if gold dust could be used to repair the ozone layer?

[Positron]

Well, that would be nice! There is a volcano called mount erebus that erupts pure gold dust along with the rocks and such. If gold dust would repair it that volcano would certainly help.

I don't know of any chemistry involved with the ozone and gold. I suppose the gold might oxidize but other than that, I can't think of anything.

[draqon]

its silver people...not gold.

[neddy]

Cleaning CO2 after the fact is inefficient. Where possible we need to use geothermal, solar electric and solar furnaces and wind for domestic and transport use and leave oil for making plastics and air travel.
A solar furnace or geothermal pipe for heat and pump steam and C02 to make methanol for fuel so its storable.
The expectations of sequestering large amounts of carbon in trees sounds good but CO2 isnt the limiting factor you also need nitrates and water for increased growth levels. So its going to be rate limited.
Theres an existing idea to promote algal blooms in the oceans , algal growth is limited by iron availability so the idea is seed the ocean with iron carbonyl and you get algal blooms, as well as plankton which grow lime skeletons. These die taking the carbon to the ocean floor where its locked in. Again I think this will be rate limited by lack of other nutrients these life forms need. As well we are going to severely upset natural balances trying these experiments. There have been some great new breakthroughs recently in solar cells reducing the costs to a quarter in claims ive read. If we facilitated this industry somehow, gave tax breaks, free land, low interest loans, (redistribute other subsidies like farm, ethanol) and used automation, even chinese factories we could reduce the price of solar dramatically. Reduce it enough so you have 20 KWtts on your roof and use solar cars for everyday transport as well as storing power using hydrogen each house could be self sufficient and self producing.
And think of the benefits clean air and water, new jobs and industry producing the new technology, we can reduce trade defecits by not buying oil, save foreign reserves and reduce the need for oil security. No need to send your sons to die in foreign wars to protect our access to oil. Oil would be conserved for plastics manufacture and air travel where its difficult to replace. Seems to me that we cant afford to go with solar, wind and geothermal power. The only thing holding me back is distrust of govt that they will make us pay useless taxes or institute useless schemes like carbon credits instead of doing the real necessary hard steps

[Ethyl]

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but there is a scientist (Professor Klaus Lackner) who developed a method of removing carbon from the air. I first saw it in a documentary from England (Five ways to save the world). It apparently was inspired by a high school project his daughter did. Anyway, the info is on the BBC news site (news.bbc.co.uk) and was posted on 022007. The estimate is that each 'tree' would remove 90000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

[Ethyl]

Sorry, wasn't positive I could post the link. Here it is:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6374967.stm

[draqon]

trees will not get funding they need, the world will fund only projects that illuminate with their technological national pride.

[Ethyl]

I would agree. It needs to be envied. The "tree's" are artificial. I can't wax poetic about it, but check out the article.

[Read-Only]

Sorry, wasn't positive I could post the link. Here it is:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6374967.stm

Please pardon me for being so blunt, but this is one of the WORST ideas proposed - absolutely absurd!

Sodium hydroxide, like calcium hydroxide, does not appear naturally in nature - it has to be made - and at a GREAT expense of energy. The most practical method (and therefore the most common one) of doing so is to pass an electrical current through an aqueous solution of sodium chloride. This produces sodium chloride and chlorine gas.

But the problem is that the electricity has to be produced somehow. And currently it's produced by burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, natural gas and oil - each of which dumps even more CO2 into the atmosphere. And the net effect of all that is negative. In other words, you would be releasing more CO2 than you would be putting away.

[ThGossmann]

Hey, wait a moment. It´s maybe not completely stupid.
Of course You´re right, it needs energy.

CNN stated, one week ago, that a quarter million "newly invented artifical trees" can remove all problematic CO2 from atmosphere. I haven´t checked it yet, but I maybe see a chance.
I study "total system analysis" (facts, people, options), so I have to check all possibilities.
I wondered how artificial trees can be so effective, and now found this discussion, so I realized energy is the first point.
If You can catalyse CO2 to C and O2 with little energy, that would be a miracle, like the "water car".
So one has to consider the energy.
So the first idea is: Every "tree" has lots of solar cells around it!
Then there can be an effective chemical process.
But: The energy needed is as much as the total C burnt in 100 years (or at least 2% of that energy per year), a big area with cells. Did someone check the report? Maybe I will later if I find time.

The other spontaneous idea is that the CO2 is connected to other molecules (with little amount of energy), such that it becomes solid, but I don´t know enough chemistry.

(Maybe the CNN report is just the same BBC-story from February. He wants to sink CO2 in holes, but then why does he need hydroxide?)

Read You later
Thomas Gossmann, Germany, volkscomputer.biz

[ThGossmann]

Sorry, I hadn´t seen this discussion has 5 pages, I thought it had ended in April. I read the other 4 pages tomorrow.
Thomas

[MetaKron]

If human activities put 24 billion tons (2.18 * 10^16 grams) of CO2 into the air, and the total supply of CO2 is 3 times 10^18 grams, then we are talking about less than one percent of the total supply that is being added and that can be subtracted. I am sure that the plant cover simply eats the stuff. One percent more leaves on the ground in the fall, one percent more mass to the oak tree that sheds the leaves, and we are taking carbon out of circulation when we build houses.

[Pronatalist]

"Global warming" is a cabal conspiracy to depopulate the world. See how quickly those green nazi communists move to suggesting putting a "carbon tax" on babies, because babies grow up and want to drive cars.

CO2 emissions relate to humans building much needed wealth by powering up machines to help us with otherwise grievious work. CO2 is released to liberate the necessary energy. To undo that, would consume all the energy liberated, so it's counterproductive.

In the future, there might be machines to "recycle" air and such, powered by nuclear power or something. But they are not needed now, because global CO2 levels are near normal, and nature just does not need our "help" in many such areas.

I suggest to put aside this luddite sort of thinking, to try to solve non-existant problems, and find a better focus. Like it makes more sense to expend energy to remove CO2, in a spaceship! But not tampering with nature where we don't even know what we are doing. Burning fuel makes perfect sense, because the benefit is so clear. But tampering with nature for uncertain and doubtful benefits, that's plain irresponsible! It must always be for human benefit, otherwise, humans will suffer at the hands of stupid and destructive policies.

[Pronatalist]

Re: Looking for ever more curious and witty reasons to go forth and multiply, naturally.

If human activities put 24 billion tons (2.18 * 10^16 grams) of CO2 into the air, and the total supply of CO2 is 3 times 10^18 grams, then we are talking about less than one percent of the total supply that is being added and that can be subtracted. I am sure that the plant cover simply eats the stuff. One percent more leaves on the ground in the fall, one percent more mass to the oak tree that sheds the leaves, and we are taking carbon out of circulation when we build houses.

Yes, I am sure the plant covers simply eats the stuff. Much of plants, isn't just stuff sucked from the ground, but carbon. We forget how much our planet is solar-powered, even when we burn needed fuels.

Although it may not amount to much as to make any difference, I like to count the "carbon sequestation" of the growing human population. Don't human bodies store carbon within them as well? It's not just houses and furniture, but more human bodies alive, is more places to store up the carbon. Not that that was ever a problem though.

So just another witty curious reason for humans to go on multiplying their numbers naturally.

[Read-Only]

If human activities put 24 billion tons (2.18 * 10^16 grams) of CO2 into the air, and the total supply of CO2 is 3 times 10^18 grams, then we are talking about less than one percent of the total supply that is being added and that can be subtracted. I am sure that the plant cover simply eats the stuff. One percent more leaves on the ground in the fall, one percent more mass to the oak tree that sheds the leaves, and we are taking carbon out of circulation when we build houses.

All of that sounds good and promising - EXCEPT is only the first half of the story. And the second half pretty much puts us right back where we were.

Those leaves are dead and in the process of decomposition release all that carbon right back into the atmosphere. The same is true of trees. They many live for a hundred years or more but eventually die, decompose and once again the scale balance of carbon is reset.

Of everything mentioned, only building houses has a positive effect - and even that is negated when one considers the whole story there as well. The majority of wooden houses eventually fall into disrepair and the wood meets with the same fate as the trees and leaves. Many houses wind up being torn down after some long period of time. And even the new ones that are built simply imply an increase in human population which, through normal activities - like driving and staying warm in the winter adds even more carbon to the atmosphere.

Bottom line? None of the things listed have any positive (reducing) effect in the least - that belief is a fallacy.

[MetaKron]

Global warming is utter junk science and all of the defenses of the theory that I have seen have been ludicrous. When Al Gore can barely get so much as his name right while selling the idea, I'm not going to bother to even think that there can be anything to the hypothesis.

[DavidFMayerPhD]

However, it is a by-process of a process for producing energy from the ocean thermal gradient: www . seasolarpower . com (remove spaces)

In the process of producing electricity, seawater from the surface is degassed, removing a large quantity of carbon dioxide in addition to oxygen. Some of this carbon dioxide can be sequestered by liquefaction and dumping into the abyss. Since surface water is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, this is equivalent to removing carbon dioxide from the air and sending it to the bottom of the ocean.

David F Mayer

[Billy T]

However, it is a by-process of a process for producing energy from the ocean thermal gradient: www . seasolarpower . com (remove spaces)

In the process of producing electricity, seawater from the surface is degassed, removing a large quantity of carbon dioxide in addition to oxygen. Some of this carbon dioxide can be sequestered by liquefaction and dumping into the abyss. ...Because of the small delta T, and Carnot limits the efficiency is very very small. Thus I doubt that there is net energy if the CO2 is compresssed and liquified. See how much energy it takes to make "dry ice" as that is well developed.

Better is to seed ocearn with iron - let nature send the carbon to the bottom in calcium carbinate of "micro shells."

[TruthSeeker]

I am wondering if it is possible to Engineer a device that could remove Carbon from the air. I only know of the bubbling CO2 through Calcium Hydroxide.

I know plants do it, and the above experiment. I would like to know how else this might be done. Any takers?

I am adding my last post from page 3 here, because I really would like some input...

O.K. Debating whether science is required is off topic.

What if we confined the air into threads, and used plates (positive/negative) to deflect and divert the problematic diatomic atoms.

We would still have to sequester the carbon from the target area, but we might be able to separate the problem air first. Yadda yadda. saving the treatment of 99.99% of the air

Is this a possibility? I have not seen anyone with this type of pre-sorting ideas (patent pending).

Would exciting the atoms help or hinder?

I am kind of thinking to align the atoms poles first with magnets, and then have ..... anyways. There is a decent proposal.

Or is there another way to use the atomic differences. i.e. mass, lower energy, etc. to otherwise filter out the diatomic particles?

Please tell me I'm off my rocker before I start renting equipment.lol
I've thought of this before. My idea was to make some form of biological-synthetic thing that would reproduce by itself and act like plants. We could coat such thing all over buildings.... or possibly simply use moss.


Another idea.... use the stuff from Nasa in space, low enough to capture the CO2, but high enough to capture sunlight (make the whole process based on solar energy). Then ship the CO2 farther away from the atmosphere, release, and then reuse.

[Buffalo Roam]

Question? what would happen to plants if we would clean large amounts of
CO2's out of the environment? don't plant need CO2s to be healthy?

Plant take in CO2 during the day and release oxygen, and then reverse the process at night absorbing Oxygen and release CO2,

Photosynthesis is the conversion of light energy into chemical energy by living organisms. The raw materials are carbon dioxide and water; the energy source is sunlight; and the end-products are oxygen and (energy rich) carbohydrates, for example sucrose and starch. This process is arguably the most important biochemical pathway,[1] since nearly all life depends on it. It is a complex process occurring in higher plants, phytoplankton, algae, as well as bacteria such as cyanobacteria. Photosynthetic organisms are also referred to as photoautotrophs.[1]

[TruthSeeker]

Question? what would happen to plants if we would clean large amounts of
CO2's out of the environment? don't plant need CO2s to be healthy?

Plant take in CO2 during the day and release oxygen, and then reverse the process at night absorbing Oxygen and release CO2,

Photosynthesis is the conversion of light energy into chemical energy by living organisms. The raw materials are carbon dioxide and water; the energy source is sunlight; and the end-products are oxygen and (energy rich) carbohydrates, for example sucrose and starch. This process is arguably the most important biochemical pathway,[1] since nearly all life depends on it. It is a complex process occurring in higher plants, phytoplankton, algae, as well as bacteria such as cyanobacteria. Photosynthetic organisms are also referred to as photoautotrophs.[1]
The plan is not to remove ALL CO2 from the air, it is to remove the EXCESS. Think about it.

[Billy T]

I am wondering if it is possible to Engineer a device that could remove Carbon from the air. ... What if we confined the air into threads, and used plates (positive/negative) to deflect and divert the problematic diatomic atoms....Would exciting the atoms help or hinder?

I am kind of thinking to align the atoms poles first with magnets, and then have ..... anyways. There is a decent proposal.

Or is there another way to use the atomic differences. i.e. mass, lower energy, etc. to otherwise filter out the diatomic particles? ...First: You would be removing CO2, not "carbon" from the air, but I think you know this. I only comment as some have been thinking of carbon as the product to sequester. That is energeticly much too expensve and not as desirable as converting the CO2 into calcium carbonate (which is a major part of shells and even more stable (in a lower energy state) than the CO2.

The three major atmosphereic gases (O2, N2, & A) will polarize in an electric field but as they are symetric, there will be no net force action on them to move them to either electrode (which is what good for your "electric separator" concept). Water molecules are a-symetric. (The two hydrogens are on one side and have 105 degee angle between them with oxygen at the apex of the angle.) Thus water is intrinsicly polararized even in the absence of any electric field.

As there is no net charge, it too will not move in a UNIFORM field. An array of fine wires, half + and half - would not be a uniform field and water molecules relative near the + wires would be attracted with the oxygen end of the water drawn towards the wire more than the positive hydrogen side is repelled, so some slight net force is available.

I think, unfortunately, that the CO2 molecule has symetric geometry like O=C=O but I am not a chemist. If it is more like water, then it too could have net force in a electric field gradient. Even if it is asymetric, the thermal collisons would be much more force and probably the minute force would require cooling to be noticed. I.e. probably better just to make "dry ice" than your electric separation machine.

There is one idea than might "pan out" - CO2 is heavier than other atmospheric molecules (with some rare exceptions, usually man made gases which might be nice to also remove.) Thus just as there are two ways to separate the two diffenent masses of uranium, centrifuge and diffusion could be used to separate CO2 from the other common atmospheric gases, but this too is going to take a lot of energy, so I suspect, making "dry ice" is best, but you should look at the phase diagram to see what pressure CO2 can be liquified with little or no cooling. I.e. make CO2 "rain" and then expand the higher pressure N2 & O2 etc gases against a piston to recover almost all of the compression energy. - The thermal cooling energy can not be as efficiently recovered as it is Carnot limited.

[Buffalo Roam]

The plan is not to remove ALL CO2 from the air, it is to remove the EXCESS. Think about it.

But what is excess? Think about that.

[TruthSeeker]

Whatever we produced, I suppose.

[riverline]

i havent read everything but I think the idea does not work becaue the concentration of CO2 in the air is so low

[ThGossmann]

I also see a conspiracy to depopulate the world.
10billion people are no problem in principle.
Instead, nature and sensible people are destroyed.
Killing most of the upper 800millions seems the only solution.

The solutions I found ("total system analysis") are: landscaping with permaculture, intelligent nation-building, and killing the conspiracy including voters.
Maybe the improved Nazis can do it, together with Russia, Iran, China, improved Al-Kaida, Cuba, Chavez and some others.

Business with CO2 is part of the conspiracy (Al Gore said mainly 2 things in Bali: 1.The Germans are guilty of the WWII and 2. The US will not pay for the CO2 they released).

But is there no global warming problem as one wrote?
As far as I know of course there is a problem:
Temperatures rise, Methane is set free, it looks like a 5-degrees-rise in short time, that is a problem. That can even cause H2S-saturation of oceans, which kills 6billions.

permaculture-landscaping:
I don´t mean stupid self-exploitation shit like the Green idiots, I study the intelligent stuff: landscapes (with nature, villages and cities), in which scientists (not specialized idiots and money-whores) can work and actually try technical things which are discussed here (if something works, nowadays it´s taken away by the conspiracy or doesn´t get money), plus quantum-mechanical energy-sources.

Soils (/ecosystems) is a main part of the environment-shaping:
Terra preta, Cuba, Montpellier, Mr.Braun/Freising, deserts,...
Terra preta: Improving C-content of soil is a problem:
Either wood is taken out of the circulation like one wrote (compare that to the yearly C-burning, haven´t checked yet), or the soils are rised to a higher permanent C-level.
Charcoal and humus can be consumed by fungi.
South american inhabitants obviously found a solution 500years ago: They put 20% charcoal into the soil, it´s still there. I think 50micrometer-particels with "polycyclic aromatic CH or something" developed.
My own small-scale trials with humus seem succesful, too (soils in Germany have strong C-losses).
Like in Montpellier, I combined trees and field plants, but with more soil-improvement (doubled growth speed of oaks etc, doubled size of oil plants like hemp, without gen-manipulation, and 10times more species per m2).
Mr.Braun did medium-size trials (farm) with plants, worms, permanent humus.
Big-scale tree planting in half-desserts can remove lots of CO2 (again, compare to daily C-burning). Later such systems have stable C-contents, but for the next decades it´s very good (except maybe water).

FeS.. for oceans is maybe not very succesful, oceans too f...ed up already.

Next to come: More studying (haven´t even gone through most of this discussion),
and I try to deadly insult the Arabs, such that they stop oil-export, har har.

PS: The conspiracy has destroyed my english-dictionary with poison, so some mistakes may be found.

TG

[Forceman]

I have drawn out the plans for a device that removes carbon from carbon dioxide using either vanadium or titanium. This relies on the oxidation state of the T or V because it is positive four. The metal removes the carbon turning it into graphite, and combines with the diatomic oxygen molecule.

[Forceman]

You could use vanadium or titanium to remove the carbon from the CO2 molecule.

[Read-Only]

I have drawn out the plans for a device that removes carbon from carbon dioxide using either vanadium or titanium. This relies on the oxidation state of the T or V because it is positive four. The metal removes the carbon turning it into graphite, and combines with the diatomic oxygen molecule.

OK, but then you have to reduce that oxide in order to recover the metal - and at what expense of energy?? Doesn't sound very cost-efficient to me.