DailyDirt: Getting Unwanted Carbon Dioxide Out Of The Atmosphere
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
People can debate whether or not governments need to do something to curb carbon dioxide emissions, but while the debate continues, technology could help give us more attractive options for dealing with unwanted carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Several methods of carbon sequestration have been proposed over the years, but none have really turned out to be financially viable so far. Sure, we could plant a trillion trees, but even that might have its own detrimental impact on the environment.
- Carbon dioxide from the air can be sequestered into carbon nanofibers with electricity (preferably from renewable sources or some kind of nuclear). This development could help spur carbon nano-materials AND reduce carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. Win-win! (But it’ll take a LOT of energy to make a dent in the existing amount of CO2 in the air.) [url]
- Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere might not be sufficient to reverse some of the damage already done to oceans and the ecosystem. Carbon dioxide levels have surpassed 400 ppm in the atmosphere, and some scientists have estimated that levels beyond 420 ppm would be detrimental to global ecosystems, as well as changing the climate around the world. [url]
- The Center for Carbon Removal wants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to clean up our environment. Carbon dioxide levels were at about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, and they could continue to rise if no one changes our current energy infrastructure. [url]
- Turning carbon dioxide into useful materials isn’t a new idea, but doing so in an economical way that actually produces materials that people can use has been tricky. Chemists are looking into catalysts that might fit the bill, but it’s a pretty hefty bill. [url]
After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Filed Under: carbon dioxide, carbon fixation, carbon nanotubes, carbon sequestration, center for carbon removal, climate change, nanotechnology
Comments on “DailyDirt: Getting Unwanted Carbon Dioxide Out Of The Atmosphere”
Ha ha ha the CO2 hype. LOL
To malappropriate Chappelle, Michael may not be a whore. . .but he is writing a whore’s advertainment copy.
For the “Diamonds in the sky” making Carbon nanofiber from CO2, I wonder, if it becomes economical on a large scale, if coal burning power plants could become both an electricity providing and Carbon nanofiber producing facility
What is an appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
One must ask on what basis is this level detrimental to global ecosystems? When one considers that one needs about 20 times this level to be detrimental to fauna but perfectly okay for flora.
Another site considers 350 to the detrimental level, what say you?
Add to this, that CO2 levels are a effect of temperature changes not the cause, one must ask what goes here?
CO2 I can live with, it’s the other pollutant gases I have a problem with.
Re: What is an appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Appropriate levels would be what they were before the industrial revolution. You can find out what they were thru ice core samples that go back a few thousand years.
But you can’t live on high levels of CO2 (ask the Apollo 13 crew). But just the same, we are warming the Earth up
Re: Re: What is an appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
There is a fundamental flaw with using ice core samples. There is no guarantee that these levels measured actually match anything of significance in any area of the globe away from where the ice core samples have been taken. There are many factors in how the CO2 gets into the ice and until one actually has a relatively complete understanding of the process, it is only a guesstimate at best and completely useless at worst. Not only that, we need alternate methods of measuring historical CO2 accurately all around the globe and there is NO way to do this (consider that 70% of the globe is covered by oceans).
I did a quick look at where they are measuring the current CO2 levels for the planet. It was a bit strange in that I could NOT get a list of measurements from a large number of places around the world. In fact, it was from one location only. This is and of itself means that the measurements are useless as a guide worldwide.
Since the toxic levels are, what, about 20 times (or 2000% of) the given level in the article, it would take a global catastrophe of proportions biblical to engender levels like this.
We warming, hmmm, winters colder than usual, summers colder than usual. The fundamental problem with temperature measurements (as for any measurement related to global conditions) is that they need to be made in many places simultaneously (at least 100 million sensors spread out over the globe to get a reasonable map of variation) with the current conditions environmentally around. For example, if the sensors are taking measurements in the middle of forest fire one needs to know the extent of the forest fire as well. If the measurements are taken inside the confines of a city, we also need to know the temperatures in the areas surrounding the city and the temperatures at a distance from the city. We also need to know the conditions surrounding each sensor.
Just having the raw data with little else can mean that this data is at best marginal. The engineering techniques for taking field strength measurements has been in known for many decades, we just need to apply this on a global scale.
I find it interesting that the political correct view doesn’t want to spend the money on doing this properly and actually get the facts but are willing to spend money on their reports an models and studies that pat themselves on the back and generate huge hysteria for their point of view.
Hysteria is never appropriate. If we don’t have the facts, we can’t make the appropriate moves for the future. Let’s put in place the following. If it turns out that these climate scientists are wrong, and seriously wrong, and that all their predictions come to naught. What happens next time, when someone gets the data and draws actually correct conclusions that we have a disaster coming that we have caused and puts out that information. How much will they be believed?
The 70′ climate scientists were predicting coming ice ages, then we moved onto global warming and the associated disasters. Now it’s just anthropogenic climate change and you’ll be crucified if you say it is natural climates cycles.
If they can spend the money to spy on everyone, then they have the funds to actually measure what is happening around the planet.
Re: Re: Re: What is an appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
You sound exactly like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6MIKcpvNY&feature=youtu.be&t=3m15s
and now this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6MIKcpvNY&feature=youtu.be&t=2m33s
Both of whom are debunked
How about plant a tree or something?
Or vegetables. Then we get food out of the deal. And we can all do it ourselves without waiting for any high-tech baloney.
Re: How about plant a tree or something?
Trees cause all kinds of problems. Cows can’t graze and product cheeseburgers, you can’t park a car where there is a tree, you can’t get to the coal and oil under them very easily.
Trees are clearly not the solution, they are simply another issue we have to resolve.
plant a trillion trees
Saying that returning that much active biomass to the environment could be detrimental is just plain mental.
Where is the imagination? Why not modify kelp to not require an anchor? How about free floating air plants? I kind of like the idea of green clouds that rain strawberries.
Re: plant a trillion trees
I kind of like the idea of green clouds that rain strawberries
Those of us with strawberry allergies could be injured or killed.
Why not modify kelp to not require an anchor?
Free range kelp could attack at any time.
Re: Re: plant a trillion trees
“Free range kelp could attack at any time.”
We need a sign that says this….
Forests are not the simple solution to excess atmospheric CO2 that many people seem to think, as a *mature* forest actually produces as much –or more– CO2 as it removes.
The solution is not to necessarily plant more trees, but to prevent the existing forest products –wood, bark and leaves– from ever decomposing (or burning) and thus converting this carbon-based material back into atmospheric CO2.
More liberal climate warming propaganda. Nice try.
We shouldn’t have cut down trillions of trees to begin with. But I guess we get what we deserve.
There is actually a much simpler, lower-tech solution: plant tons of bamboo. It grows incredibly fast and sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere. Let it grow up quickly, cut it down, sequester it someplace, (this is important; if you circulate it it will just end up back in the atmosphere soon enough,) and grow more bamboo…
Re: (growing bamboo)
…sequester it someplace…
We can’t even get our act together with landfills and nuclear material disposal!
Now if this were to become fuel for a biomass electrical generating plant using plasma incineration…
Re: Re: (growing bamboo)
Now this is just me talking, and I’m by no means an expert in environmental science, but seems to me one thing that would work relatively well would be to dump the bamboo down abandoned oil wells or coal mines. It has a certain sense of symmetry and appropriateness to it, no?
Re: Re: Re: (growing bamboo)
I’m not so sure about your solution to CO2. First, it’s not exactly carbon neutral or negative to grow and harvest bamboo (and then dump it all down a hole)? Second, oil wells and coal mines don’t exactly sound like great storage places for preventing organic material from rotting? Third, this bamboo scheme doesn’t seem financially advantageous for anyone, either, so there’s no economic incentive to do it.
If we can get carbon nanofibers in an economical way, we get some desirable building materials AND suck some CO2 out of the air.
Re: Re: Re:2 (growing bamboo)
The “carbon-sequestered” wood or bamboo or corn stalks would first need to be turned into a rot-free material before being buried in massive landfills. Charcoal (AKA: “bio-char”) is the preferred substance, as it is cheap to make, non-toxic, and resistant to decomposition.
Bamboo plantations are not even needed, as there is more than enough existing agricultural waste (normally either burned or composted) to produce literally mountains of charcoal every year.
While we can all agree that developing technology to produce carbon nanofibers or diamonds as cheaply as charcoal would be an ideal solution to global warming. However, it’s a pipe dream, since it’s likely to remain orders of magnitude more expensive than making charcoal, both now and in the foreseeable future.
http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar
Re: Re:
Blast the bamboo into the sun.
Problem with sequestration of CO2
There is a finite amount of C on the planet. If one continues to sequester CO2, one removes it from the circulating biological chain and then what are the consequences?
Does the massive amounts already locked up in mineral deposits then get released biologically to compensate for the anthropogenic removal of CO2? Does this become a “dog chasing its tail” affair?
Does the biosphere feedback work against human efforts – it seems to be doing that in any case.
It boils down to asking a very simple question. Do anthropogenic effects actually cause even tiny variations in global environment climate that other anthropogenic effects to compensate would even be effective against?
The political correct answer (with no actual factual evidence except the usual “trust me, I a climate scientist”) is yes. But reality is highly complex and the the predictions are based mostly on very simple computer models that (I confidently predict) ignore far too many important real effects and are just based on some simplifying assumption that is basically wrong. The rest of the predictions of these climate scientists seemed to be drawn from some wild drug induced nightmare that they suffer from.
If they completely open up their computer models and the data they use for systematic critique by all and sundry then we may actually get to where the models might have some confidence of making a marginally valid prediction.
But as long as they keep all the relevant information and code out of the hands of the general public (for investigation by anyone who wishes to look at it) then their models aren’t worth a brass razoo.
Re: Problem with sequestration of CO2
That sounds pretty reasonable right up until you realize that that’s not the way we do anything else at all.
When the doctor tells you you have X and you need to do Y about it, you’ll probably either do Y or seek out a second opinion from another doctor. You might even not listen at all, but you certainly wouldn’t demand that your doctor explain every detail of the diagnosis and refuse to believe him until he did because he’s “obviously hiding something” otherwise.
Likewise if you took your car in for maintenance and they reported that they’d found a problem and told you it would cost a certain amount to fix, you might agree, or you might simply ask for your car back and take it somewhere else (or not), but you’d have to be out of your mind to think that demanding a tour of the inner workings of their diagnostic systems would return any sort of productive results.
As much as deniers with a political motive to detract and distract from the reality of climate change hate to admit it, “trust me, I’m a specialist” is the way of modern civilization. It’s called division of labor and it’s what our entire society is built upon; we couldn’t get even a fraction of the things we do done if we didn’t have specialists in many different areas. They learn about all this stuff so the rest of us don’t have to.
If a doctor told me something I didn’t want to hear, I might ask another doc for a second opinion. But if 97% of all doctors told me the same thing, I’d be a fool not to listen.
Re: Re: Problem with sequestration of CO2
I don’t know about your doctor, but mine does talk me through the details of the various tests and shows me the results so that I can make a decision on how I want to proceed. He also talks through the pros and cons of the various treatments. He has no problem with me getting a second, third or even fourth opinion if I so want it.
I have dealt with other doctors who just basically work on the basis of “believe me, I’m the doctor” and their treatments led to unexpected side effects. From my point of view, they are NOT to be trusted. Hence, I found a doctor who would provide the required information.
I certainly would want to know what they found and what were the consequences of what they found and if I had any suspicions as to their abilities, then I would be asking around for further information. I may not know their diagnostic machines, but I would like to know that they are well trained and competent.
It is interesting that your statement implicitly implies that climate change is anthropogenic.
However, climate scientists are not computer programmers by speciality, nor is their speciality numerical mathematics. As programmers, we can doubt the veracity of their computer models as we know how easy it is to get the models wrong. As programmers, we also know that using floating point calculations (in the numerical mathematics domain) can lead to inaccurate results or completely bogus results, if the order of operations and the quantities have been done incorrectly.
It behooves the climate scientists to have all their data and their models open for complete inspection by those who can determine if their models are correct and they have processed their data appropriately. If they are NOT willing to do this and open their models to critique then we can quite honestly say that they have agendas not in accordance with the proper scientific method.
If you think that your 97% of all climate scientists statement has any meaning, then show me the same 97% of all climate scientists discussing the methods for energy retention that is required for their predictions. A question I have put to various climate scientists and on the whole, they refuse to discuss the specific physical problem. If they had a semi-reasonable response, I would be more than happy to look at it. But many are “true believers” and anything that opposes their world-view is to be immediately rejected. That is actual personal responses received.
I am not a climate scientists, but many of their claims are open to analysis from other perspectives and simply using know physical processes, one can garner that these climate scientists are either, men and women who have a political agenda that they are working to (including fame and power) or they are ignorant of the various physical laws that normal people like physicists, chemists and engineers work with on a daily basis.
Look, climate scientists, as a whole, may have some veracity as to what they are reporting. However, on the whole, those who claim anthropogenic causes as being the main driver (or even a significant driver) to climate change are to be doubted. They don’t seem to be able to understand the significance of boiling a cup of water to melting ice, let alone the complexity of global climate and all the changes therein.
Does climate change? Of course it does, anyone over the age of forty should be able to attest to that. Is it anthropogenic? That is a question we have nary a clue about and anyone who says they know for certain or even with a significant degree of possibility is deluding themselves. Are we causing damage to our environment? There are various places where we can see the veracity of that. Is this causing significant climate change of the kinds that the climate scientists and others are predicting? We don’t know. We don’t understand the feedback cycles in the planetary system.
Re: Re: Re: Problem with sequestration of CO2
Oh yes, I wondered if anyone would trot out the old “scientists with an agenda conspiracy” trope. Anyone who thinks this is horribly mistaken on two points. First, they seem to think it’s ridiculously easy to establish and maintain a conspiracy on a massive scale, and second, they have no clue about the motivation of scientists!
Quick, put yourself in the shoes of a random man on the street, of average intelligence and knowledge about the way things work. Who, according to John Q. Public, is the greatest scientist and smartest man that ever lived? That’s easy: Einstein, the guy whose very name has entered the lexicon as synonymous with “genius”. And now, John, what did Einstein do that made him so famous for being so smart.
“Uhh… e = mc squared, I think?”
Right. And what does that mean?
“I… I dunno. Something about relativity and physics, right?”
That’s where things get really interesting. What Einstein did was take established science that everyone was in agreement upon–Newton’s Laws of Motion–and find a big problem with them, and then show what the correct model was. And for that, he ended up regarded as the archetypical genius.
Bearing this in mind, if we were to posit the existence of an all-too-human climate scientist driven by ego and not a desire for pure research, (which is by no means an implausible thing to believe in!), then the idea of him distorting and falsifying research to support the status quo doesn’t even pass the laugh test; he has every incentive to prove that this thing that everyone in his field believes in is wrong. That’s how scientists become famous!
But there’s one other very interesting and relevant thing about Einstein’s story. As fascinating as Relativity is, it turns out that Newton’s laws really weren’t all that wrong. Even today, when an engineer goes to calculate things for real-world applications, he uses Newton’s equations, not Einstein’s, almost every time. The only thing that ordinary citizens regularly use that is designed with relativity calculations is GPS, because it’s both dependent on fast-moving satellites in orbit and highly time sensitive, and relativity is all about speed and time distorting the laws of motion. But outside of a highly specific niche, Newton was right, and he was correct enough that we still use his work even now that we know it was wrong.
Consider the implications WRT climate science.
Re: Re: Re:2 Problem with sequestration of CO2
What conspiracy? Trying to artfully misdirect the discussion, are you? Just because you associate people having agendas as a conspiracy doesn’t mean that I do. In point of fact, everyone has an agenda. In the case of climate scientists (no different to other scientists), if the research grants require specific lines to be followed and you don’t follow them then you lose your grant. If you, as a climate scientist, wish to keep your job, will you rock the boat or live within the requirements of the job. Look at it this way, just a minor difference as to what an asset is can lose you your job. A few of us found that out the hard way. Let alone a big difference in what is supposed to be going on with climate change (a very politically charged field).
Bringing up Einstein as your example, and taken out of historical relevance and context. Hmmm. Einstein did open up his models and methodologies for inspection by everyone who wanted and wants to look at it. So it has been noticed that his corrections were and are still incomplete. They certainly added more precision to the basic model. Of this there is little or no doubt. His insights have, unfortunately, been taken too far and instead of challenging them appropriately, they have been given a status unbecoming to the scientific method.
Case in point, the n-body problem and a general solution for this.
How many examples have we had in recent decades of this very falsification of results for fame and glory? Hmmm. Man oh man.
Engineers can use relatively simple models for relatively simple examples because the examples are within very specific constraints. Take them outside those constraints and you need much more complex modelling to handle this. It is the difference between DC and AC modelling and high frequency AC modelling. A simple thing like a resistor has different characteristic depending on the frequency of the associated signals, etc. That it can act in very strange ways.
But for all of your response, you still do not deal with the complexity of data collection that is required for the proper modelling of global climate. Nor do you answer the requirement that these climate scientists should be opening up of their data and models for inspection by those who are expert in computer models, numerical mathematics and data analysis. In this, I mean fully open to all comers.
I would hope that you would have enough wherewithal to allow any systems that you have developed to be opened to others for inspection. I have seen and corrected enough invalid computer models to ever trust a model that has not been fully reviewed or for which I cannot get my hands onto the basic code and data used. I know that any code that I develop for the use of other people is fully available for review. I have made simple mistakes myself and didn’t at the time see the problem. It required other people to look at the code to see the specific error. I have also had to deal with the mindset that believes that the computer model is correct because it gives what appears to be the right answers. Such a mindset can be very difficult to change. This mindset can be found in very intelligent individuals.
I would expect scientists (of any stripe) to be willing to show all of the raw data they have collected and the various modelling tools that they have used for the analysis. This would go to some way of ensuring that their conclusions could be validated or invalidated appropriately.
It is also interesting that you haven’t even discuss the big problem of the energy equation for some of their predictions. Even at the simplest level, the energy equation disparities raises significant doubts about the validity of their models. Let alone putting in all the various pathways required for energy transfers, storage and releases.
What Exactly Is Unwanted CO2?
Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere might not be sufficient to reverse some of the damage already done to oceans and the ecosystem. Carbon dioxide levels have surpassed 400 ppm in the atmosphere, and some scientists have estimated that levels beyond 420 ppm would be detrimental to global ecosystems, as well as changing the climate around the world.
The paragraph above is loaded with some of the stinkiest diaper fillings ever smelt by man.
60 Million years ago during the epoch of the late Palaeocene CO2 concentrations were present in Earth’s atmosphere at levels in excess of 2,000 ppm in volume and rather than the CO2 levels to be detrimental to global ecosystems the flora/fauna of the epoch flourished worldwide.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406695a0.html
Additionally modern greenhouses use CO2 enrichment in concentrations ranging from 500 ppm to >1500 ppm in volume and rather than witnessing detrimental effects from increased CO2 levels the farmers reap increased crop yields in short growing times.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304423887900288
https://www.hydroponics.net/learn/co2_calculator.asp
Re: What Exactly Is Unwanted CO2?
Are you saying that we should be putting even more CO2 into the air because it seems to make make some plants grow better?
I don’t think anyone is saying that the Earth itself is going to be lifeless due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. The ecosystem changes all the time in response to climate, but do we want to be the cause of the changes? (Especially when we’re not sure what will happen?)
Re: Re: What Exactly Is Unwanted CO2?
The same goes for carbon sequestration? There are indications that if you take it down to under 170 ppm, we will be heading for a lifeless world.
We are a part of the ecosystem. The question is whether we are a big enough part of the system to cause such changes by ourselves.
Re: Re: Re: What Exactly Is Unwanted CO2?
Sure, but no one is advocating taking CO2 down to 170 ppm. They’re generally advocating getting it back down to about twice that: 350 ppm.
Re: Re: Re:2 What Exactly Is Unwanted CO2?
Are you really, really sure about that? You might want to further check that.
CO2 is a Prerequisite for Life on Earth
The Center for Carbon Removal wants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to clean up our environment. Carbon dioxide levels were at about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, and they could continue to rise if no one changes our current energy infrastructure.
Again the statement above is complete balderdash.
CO2 is a prerequisite for life on Earth. Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis and without photosynthesis there would be no respiration and thus no life on Earth as we know it.
Photosynthesis – CO2 + H2O + Sunlight -> CH2O + O2
Respiration – 02 + CH2O -> Energy + H2O + CO2
>96% of all CO2 present in Earth’s atmosphere today is naturally occurring through a variety of non-controllable sources such as:
Vulcanism, decomposition of bio-mass and out gassing of various carboniferous rock (coal, limestone, sandstone are some examples)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Re: CO2 is a Prerequisite for Life on Earth
I don’t think anyone is suggesting to remove carbon dioxide COMPLETELY from our atmosphere. That would be insane.
Re: Re: CO2 is a Prerequisite for Life on Earth
Problem is that there are many who want to reduce it to the lowest possible levels and the lower the better.
Re: Re: Re: CO2 is a Prerequisite for Life on Earth
Yeah. There are a lot of ignorant people on both sides of it. On the one side, you’ve got folks who’ve been led to believe that it’s not our fault and there’s nothing we can (or should) do about it, and it’s probably not that bad anyway. On the other hand, there are people who freak out and overreact and say “get rid of all the CO2,” which is wrong and also stupid. But the people who actually understand the science involved aren’t saying anything like either of those ridiculous extremes.
Re: Re: Re:2 CO2 is a Prerequisite for Life on Earth
Dust of the dried faeces of the indigenous cattle of many mountains. How often do we see the climate scientists advocating the extremes? Hmmm. Too often.
Secondly, show me the people who actually understand the science involved and I’ll show you those who either are investigating to try and understand or those who are deluded in thinking they understand. They may have some inkling into what is going on, some hypotheses but real understanding, at this point very unlikely. That is why it is under investigation.
It looks like Mike Ho hit a nerve. This might even be a record for Dailydirt comments.
Re: hitting a nerve
hmm. not a record, even for the same topic:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110902/04112015784/dailydirt-renewable-energy.shtml
But I didn’t write that one. I think my record number of comments is slightly lower:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/0146249930/dailydirt-healthcare-nightmares.shtml