just a thought

given(if it is) that carbon dioxide is a "bad thing" in the atmosphere, why can't we build a huge machine that sucks in air and removes all the carbon dioxide?

are there not chemicals that react with or sequester carbon dioxide?

i know plants absorb carbon dioxide- maybe there are not enough of them or they do it too slowly?

could we not make something like a giant leaf that could mimic how leaves work?


all silly ideas obviously- but I was just wondering

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think chemicals capable of reacting with that much carbon dioxide would take some resources and energy to produce, which are process that likely make co2 themselves.

Also, filtering the whole atmosphere is pretty ambitious, and would likely need alot of infrastructure and power to get up and going, which with current technology would probably involve, ironically, the burning of fossil fuels and creating more co2.

This is complete speculation though, don't hold me to this!

I heard they're currently developing algea-based systems that can filter the co2 emissions from, say, a factory and actually produce oxygen, all with the help of some sunlight driving the algea's photosynthesis. They're trying to get where you don't need several square miles of such algea farms to filter a single factory's co2 though...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You might take a moment to consider just how big the atmosphere really is. No, really, just take moment to think about it ...then think about how large that vacuum cleaner would have to be to filter all that air.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, this is possible. Just turn crop waste into charcoal and bury it. There are other, more technological methods.

 

How can you do that without expending more energy, which usually comes from other fuels being burned that release more carbons into the air?

It all comes down to one thing, folks, ....there's just too many people on the planet.

Baron Max

 

Making charcoal doesn't require any additional energy, except what it takes to gather it all up.

 

Wouldn't it be more logical to bury it like it is ?
Burning it will release CO[sub]2[/sub] into the air.

 

Yeah, and that's energy however you wish to view it. Where does it come from?

Baron Max

 

We can use zillions of little one, but I do have a slight concern

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

about where we plug them in. Electric power mainly comes from fossil fuels, and if we change that then there is no need for the CO2 vacuum cleaners. God I love these lose/lose plans.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Except making charcoal is different than burning, you let in burn in an oxygen starved container, and most of the CO[sub]2[/sub] is captured in such a way that it will not decompose, as it would if you simply buried it (or let it rot in the field).

 

Ah.. I see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How is it "captured"? How much energy is used to "capture" it? For example if pumped into old well by typical fossil fuel produced electric power?
If absorbed in some chemical reaction, how much energy needed to prepare the chemical, extract it etc.

Frankly, I suspect just burning the wood produces more useful heat per pound of CO2 generated and released to air than processing wood to charcole and then burning the charcole. If you think other wise, give some support. If you can not, I will go get my "Sheriff of Nonsense" hat and be back to you.

I note also that the US has abandonded the only "inject CO2 into deep Earth" test as not feasible, even if it stayed contained. (The CO2 will make the ground water acidic and rust pipes - law suits etc. They are even starting to worry that the huge ocean are becoming too acid just by contact with 0.004% CO2 concentration in the air.)

 

Hey, since president Osama has signed the new stem cell laws, why don't we just reform humans to breathe all the shit in the air? ...just reform lungs to suck the oxygen out of all that pollution and crap? Ooooohhh, such a deal.

Baron Max

 

one of the many, many discoveries that awaits us in the field of biotechnology.

ive been entertaining the idea of proteins being energy carriers that transport energy from your body to an outside machine.

 

Hmm, wouldn't it be easier, with the new stem cell research, to reform human lungs to breathe all the polluted air?

Baron Max

 

You are thinking too small. Why even bother to breath the air? There is no hope to avoid pollution so we must adapt to live without air.

The CO2 we now exhale can just be left in the blood once we have green bodies to recycle it and society gets over this "wear clothing" hang up. Sealed up noses also avoid the smell of the shit in the air; but we will keep the nose (to hold up glasses). Lungs will be done away with. Actually transformed into giant webs between feet and finger tips (sort of like the flying squirrel) all green also of course to collect more photosynthesis light.* As title says “It just a thought.”

I just hope it is not already too late. GWB's delay of US genetic research set this program back eight years!
-----------------
* The sunny tropics is the place to be. We are already going nearly clothes less on the beaches here in Brazil, but we lead the world to alcohol fuel too.

 

No, no! I like watching women's chests rise and fall with each inhale and exhale. How, oh, how could we live without such delights?!

No, we just reform our lungs to breathe in the polluted air, then glean the oxygen from it, and expell the pollutants or shit them out the next day. See?

Baron Max

 

There are probably some bacteria out there that consumes CO2 but manipulating bacteria so that it survives better could be devastating to the natural balance of lifeforms methinks, I think they are doing tests with algae which also produce an oil like substance that could replace oil and which needs CO2 to grow just like plants.

 

i have another thought, can one not store clean energy in the form of kinetic energy for eample in England the electricity board used electricity during quiet periods to pump water up to a vast underground reservoir and then released it to drive turbines as times when demand peaked.
moving on from that a new form of money could be credits earned for energy expended by a person/people towards raising a gigantic weight into the air, later to be let down to generate electricity. in England we had small versions of that in houses so one wounded a geared crank to lift a weight to the top of the house and generated electricity by letting it down again. yes I know it would take a lot of energy to build the mechanisms

watch the video " money as debt" and you will see why we have a real problem with money. we need something scarce we can value that does not only belong to the banks and that could be energy- too simplistic? - sighs probably

 

This reminds me a little bit of the plan which President Bush set forth for making a massive air conditioner system. (On top of Canada?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!