.
.   [5 Seiten]
.

Read-Only
Registered Senior Senior User (3,335 posts)
  04-25-07, 02:24 PM   #96 

” Originally Posted by Ethyl
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
Registered User (3 posts)
  01-06-08, 03:03 AM   #97 

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
Registered User (3 posts)
  01-06-08, 03:08 AM   #98 

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
Canned (4,301 posts)
  01-06-08, 10:25 AM   #99 

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
Registered Senior User (232 posts)
  01-06-08, 03:08 PM   #100 

"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
Registered Senior User (232 posts)
  01-06-08, 03:16 PM   #101 

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

” Originally Posted by 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.  ”

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
Registered Senior User (3,335 posts)
  01-06-08, 03:32 PM   #102 

” Originally Posted by 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.  ”

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
Canned (4,301 posts)
  01-06-08, 05:33 PM   #103 

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
Registered User (8 posts)
  01-06-08, 11:22 PM   #104 

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
is at DarkVisitor.com (6,245 posts)
  01-07-08, 07:13 AM   #105 

” Originally Posted by 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. ...  ”

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
The Truth is Out There (14,011 posts)
  01-07-08, 03:33 PM   #106 

” Originally Posted by 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  ”

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
Registered Senior User (7,513 posts)
  01-07-08, 06:11 PM   #107 

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
The Truth is Out There (14,011 posts)
  01-07-08, 06:23 PM   #108 

” Originally Posted by 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]  ”

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

Billy T
is at DarkVisitor.com (6,245 posts)
  01-07-08, 10:46 PM   #109 

” Originally Posted by kwhilborn
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
Registered Senior User (7,513 posts)
  01-08-08, 10:18 AM   #110 

” Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
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
The Truth is Out There (14,011 posts)
  01-08-08, 05:35 PM   #111 

Whatever we produced, I suppose.

riverline
Registered Senior User (91 posts)
  01-10-08, 04:22 AM   #112 

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

ThGossmann
Registered User (3 posts)
 01-14-08, 09:12 PM   #113 

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.