NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly if you don't think lots of Co2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing stay out of this thread. I hope it will be a fun thread of people to discuss ideas and not for trolls to ruin. So with that in mind lets go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6345557.stm

ranson launches $25m climate bid
Richard Branson and Al Gore
Richard Branson and Al Gore launched the climate initiative
Millions of pounds are on offer for the person who comes up with the best way of removing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson launched the competition today in London alongside former US vice-president Al Gore.

A panel of judges will oversee the prize, including James Lovelock and Nasa scientist James Hansen.

Sir Richard said humankind must realise the scale of the crisis it faced.

Existing options for carbon storage

"The Earth cannot wait 60 years," he said at the news conference. "I want a future for my children and my children's children. The clock is ticking."

He said if the planet was to survive, it was vital to find a way of getting rid of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

He said he believed offering the $25m (£12.5m) Earth Challenge Prize was the best way of finding a solution.

Moral challenge

Overseeing the innovations are James Hansen, the noted climate scientist and head of the Nasa Institute for Space Studies; the inventor of Gaia theory James Lovelock; UK environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell; and Australian mammalogist and palaeontologist Tim Flannery.

They are looking for a method that will remove at least one billion tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere.

Al Gore, the former presidential candidate turned environmental campaigner, is also on the judging panel.

He said: "It's a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind to actually accept the reality of the situation we are now facing.

"We're not used to thinking of a planetary emergency, and there's nothing in our prior history as a species that equips us to imagine that we, as human beings, could actually be in the process of destroying the habitability of the planet for ourselves."

His recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, focused on global warming.

Stuart Haszeldine, professor of geology at the University of Edinburgh, commented: "Richard Branson is ahead of the pack in getting to grips with CO2 in the atmosphere.

"His decisive action places shame on the dithering of the UK Treasury, who will not let British power companies build CO2 capture plants, in case they are too expensive.

"I hope all other businesses, large and small, follow his lead. Yes, it's true Branson's company may benefit eventually, but we will all benefit, by a cleaner, greener planet. We all share the same atmosphere."

Carbon capture and storage is already a key area of research.

Scientists have been looking into removing the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and storing it in oil and gas fields, injecting it deep into the ocean, or chemically transforming it into solids or liquids that are thermodynamically stable.

However, these methods have raised concerns, notably because of the possibility of leakage from the storage sites and fears that C02 dissolved in large quantities in the ocean might harm marine ecosystems.

Other scientists are also looking at schemes that might "scrub" the air of CO2, collecting the gas for safe storage; but many critics say the energy required to achieve this would make such an approach self-defeating.

Sir Richard Branson has already pledged to invest $3bn (£1.6bn) in profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, towards research into renewable energy technologies.

Ok so here is my idea based on no scientific base whatsoever. A vision if you like.

There will be a big machine which will suck in air the the air will go through a series of chambers full of a substance which will cause a chemical reaction with the Co2 in the air. The Co2 will turn into a solid form through this chemical reaction which we can then use to back fill all the old coal mines etc .

There you are a simple solution, so come on Richard hand over the 25 million :)


So any feasable ideas?

Firstly if you don't think lots of Co2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing stay out of this thread.
So baisically you're saying "if you disagree, stay out", and that destorys the point of the debate, so I ask why you even started this thread?

Planting Trees on every single rooftop in every major city.

Not sure how efficient it would be, but it would look damn cool, as well as being fairly low maintenance. A city under a forest. I like it.

Kill all humans.

Biodiesel from algae.

So baisically you're saying "if you disagree, stay out", and that destorys the point of the debate, so I ask why you even started this thread?

Yep...

and I started this thread to have some fun talk ideas through wacky and senisible. But it kinda works on the principle that you see CO2 as a problem in the first place. The thread is not a debate as to whether you think CO2 is a bad or good thing it is a thread to discuss ideas as to a solution to the problem. All of which I explained when I started the thread. So I suppose you never got past my opening paragraph.

What a prize!

The bad thing isn't the co2, it's the heat the co2 traps. I'm annoyed Branson made the test so narrow in scope as to avoid solutions involving planetary engineering.

hmmm Richard Branson eh.....

….I say we bury him under a few miles of concrete and burn that damn balloon, I’m sure this will help the environment somehow :D

Planting Trees on every single rooftop in every major city.

Not sure how efficient it would be, but it would look damn cool, as well as being fairly low maintenance. A city under a forest. I like it.

bird shit everywhere :p

hmmm Richard Branson eh.....

….I say we bury him under a few miles of concrete and burn that damn balloon, I’m sure this will help the environment somehow :D



bird shit everywhere :p

Cities full of leaves during Autumn.

ahh plant more tree's???

Shutting down Virgin Airways would be a good start. ;)

Sky algae. We coat helium balloons with algae that can live in the clouds and soak up all the CO2 that drifts up there. The sky algae then converts the CO2 to oxygen.

OK, dumb idea, but it would be cool to see hundreds of thousands of green balloons drifting across the sky.

There are two major ways the earth naturally controls carbon dioxide: Vegetation and rain.

Obviously, increasing either will help Earth regulate and even reduce carbon dioxide. Perhaps if we weren't so fixate on the Global Warming Flavor of the Month, we might have saved the rain forests by now. :p

Reverse sloths.

They hang around all day doing not much, whilst respiring. How taxing.

Instead, we really want animals that wonder about doing useful things like writing good plays and gaining their energy by photosythesis, excreting oxygen rather than carbon dioxide.

Now I just need to get the ALF on-side, and my work can commence!

So baisically you're saying "if you disagree, stay out", and that destorys the point of the debate, so I ask why you even started this thread?

if you disagree with the entire premise of a position, interjecting yourself into an argument that takes that position as given is necessarily off-topic.

There will be a big machine which will suck in air the the air will go through a series of chambers full of a substance which will cause a chemical reaction with the Co2 in the air. The Co2 will turn into a solid form through this chemical reaction which we can then use to back fill all the old coal mines etc .

i've got a machine that does that. go go gadget fast growing bamboo.

Note that Richard Branson is offering more money to Global Warming research than the United States government does yearly. The Government spends only 1.8 billion a year on Alternative Energy, Global Warming, and "Clean Air" every year, combined.

Obviously, increasing either will help Earth regulate and even reduce carbon dioxide. Perhaps if we weren't so fixate on the Global Warming Flavor of the Month, we might have saved the rain forests by now. :p
Normal trees just aren't sexy enough, we need made obscenely expensive future trees with self-targeting lasers and fusion based root systems.

My plan, however, is much simpler and less complicated: start killing stuff. Eventually, we'll have reduced the CO2 output from the combined breathing of all life on Earth enough that the Earth's vegetation is sufficiently caught up.

There are two major ways the earth naturally controls carbon dioxide: Vegetation and rain.

Obviously, increasing either will help Earth regulate and even reduce carbon dioxide. Perhaps if we weren't so fixate on the Global Warming Flavor of the Month, we might have saved the rain forests by now. :p
Problem is, if you "increase the rain", the water will turn (if only slightly more) acidic - I don't know if that's favorable.

So, plan B, vegetation. I like the idea of covering every space that could support it with plants.

Besides, it'd look really cool!

As for the algae balloons that reduce CO2 in the atmosphere - solarpowered Zeppelins FTW! :D

I'd love to see those giants return to the skies.

Another way to bind CO2 would be Calcium Hydroxide.

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

As CaCO3 precipitates from the water solution, it could be seperated and stored safely, thus taking CO2 out of the atmosperic cycle.

Now I honestly don't know if that's a workable solution, but ey, it's what came to my mind when I remembered my chemistry lessons (How to prove the existance of CO2 in a gas).

All we'd need is lime(stone). Sound good? (There's got to be a flaw somewhere - why else isn't this being done already?)

Normal trees just aren't sexy enough, we need made obscenely expensive future trees with self-targeting lasers and fusion based root systems.

My plan, however, is much simpler and less complicated: start killing stuff. Eventually, we'll have reduced the CO2 output from the combined breathing of all life on Earth enough that the Earth's vegetation is sufficiently caught up.
You know that decomposing bodies release their "stored" Carbon as CO2 or, even worse, methane.

Planting Trees on every single rooftop in every major city.

Not sure how efficient it would be, but it would look damn cool, as well as being fairly low maintenance. A city under a forest. I like it.

That idea is not nearly so far-fetched as you think. Ecoroofs are already praised for their benefits in increasing the heating efficiency of buildings, reducing polluting/eroding roof runoff, cleaning the air, and beautifying the skyline. Cities such as Portland, OR and Chicago are taking the lead in ecoroofs and rooftop gardens, and already enjoying the benefits thereof.

"My plan, however, is much simpler and less complicated: start killing stuff. Eventually, we'll have reduced the CO2 output from the combined breathing of all life on Earth enough that the Earth's vegetation is sufficiently caught up." This plan is complete garbage, and not just for the obvious reason: decaying biomass releases CO2.

Chemical conversion of CO2 is possible but requires a lot of energy. CO2 is a very stable molecule, as it is the product of combustion of hydrocarbons, an exothermic (energy-releasing) process. To reverse that process not only requires the same amount of energy as is released by combustion, it actually requires more since the second law of thermodynamics states that energy is wasted in all processes. Plants, however, are quite efficient at performing these functions utilizing sunlight, water, and certain nutrients. However, as explained in the previous paragraph, this CO2 is mostly released again into the atmosphere as the plants decay. This is not always the case; natural carbon sequestration has occurred in the past, resulting in the fossil fuel in deep geological layers that, by being released back into the atmosphere rapidly, have produced the current situation. The process, however, is going on even to this day; peat bogs are an example of the early stages of coal formation, and suboceanic plate edges are the sites of a sophisticated water-purification system that removes CO2 from ocean water, as well as maintaining current ocean salinity by removing salt. These end up dissolved into the Earth's mantle. A good possible solution for reducing carbon dioxide is to develop a means of removing the oxygen and making it into pure carbon, which can easily (and securely) be buried or put to non-CO2-producing uses, such as air filtration.

You know that decomposing bodies release their "stored" Carbon as CO2 or, even worse, methane.
Oh really, Mr Science, and just how much CO2 do you suppose is going to get released into the atmosphere on account of your being such a huge kill joy?

Problem is, if you "increase the rain", the water will turn (if only slightly more) acidic - I don't know if that's favorable.

So, plan B, vegetation. I like the idea of covering every space that could support it with plants.

Besides, it'd look really cool!

As for the algae balloons that reduce CO2 in the atmosphere - solarpowered Zeppelins FTW! :D

I'd love to see those giants return to the skies.

Another way to bind CO2 would be Calcium Hydroxide.

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

As CaCO3 precipitates from the water solution, it could be seperated and stored safely, thus taking CO2 out of the atmosperic cycle.

Now I honestly don't know if that's a workable solution, but ey, it's what came to my mind when I remembered my chemistry lessons (How to prove the existance of CO2 in a gas).

All we'd need is lime(stone). Sound good? (There's got to be a flaw somewhere - why else isn't this being done already?)

Actually, increased atmospheric CO2 is, in some cases, making the rain quite acidic. While sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides are worse culprits behind acid rain, CO2 plays a role as well. All three gases result from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The trouble with the calcium carbonate solution is that the reverse reaction also holds true, so that, when wet, calcium carbonate tends to form calcium hydroxide and carbon dioxide, reducing the efficiency of the technique. Besides, lime is calcium carbonate, so to produce enough calcium hydroxide to extract carbon dioxide, the same amount would have to be released.

Oh really, Mr Science, and just how much CO2 do you suppose is going to get released into the atmosphere on account of your being such a huge kill joy?
Listen, you do the wacky stuff, I go for the sensible approach, a'ight?
I started this thread to have some fun talk ideas through wacky and senisible.

If you don't like that, H N Fiddlebottoms VIII, you can always leave and get your "joy" I supposedly "killed" somewhere else.
Actually, increased atmospheric CO2 is, in some cases, making the rain quite acidic. While sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides are worse culprits behind acid rain, CO2 plays a role as well. All three gases result from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Okay, so we don't want that.

The trouble with the calcium carbonate solution is that the reverse reaction also holds true, so that, when wet, calcium carbonate tends to form calcium hydroxide and carbon dioxide, reducing the efficiency of the technique.
That means that once the Calcium Carbonate has formed, it must not get wet again. That should be possible, don't you think? Wrap it up and store it in a salt deposit or salt dome.
Besides, lime is calcium carbonate, so to produce enough calcium hydroxide to extract carbon dioxide, the same amount would have to be released.
Ah, my bad.
So, from where do we get the Calcium Hydroxide? It's got to be around somewhere, and hopefully somewhere where not more energy needs to be used to extract it (or make it out of lime or other sources).

You know that decomposing bodies release their "stored" Carbon as CO2 or, even worse, methane.

and that's why we put them in space DC-8s and dump them into a volcano somewhere. perhaps on io.

and that's why we put them in space DC-8s and dump them into a volcano somewhere. perhaps on io.
How are you planning on achieving that without using more energy than it's worth?

How are you planning on achieving that without using more energy than it's worth?

magic. duh.

magic. duh.
Oh, well duh! Silly me. I totally dismissed that.

How about you used the same magic to simply take the Carbon out of the Carbon Dioxide and press it together to make diamonds? That ought to work, and we could all get rich while saving the planet!!!

Too bad these ideas are all based upon the mistaken notion that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas.

(psssst: It's water vapor. 85% of the heat from the sun is trapped by water vapor. Don't tell anyone.)

2 ideas neither of them mine originally

1) I was at the Boston Museum of Science (http://www.mos.org/) a few months ago and saw a fascinating exhibit put together by GreenFuel Technologies Corporation (http://www.greenfuelonline.com/index.htm).


If this technology were put into widespread use (which can be done NOW) it would drastically cut (by up to 40%) CO2 emissions from power plants and other smokestacks.

2) Start growing massive amounts of cannabis and use the cellulose produced to create biofuel.
The seeds can be used for food and the flowers for medicine and recreation.

Too bad these ideas are all based upon the mistaken notion that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas.

(psssst: It's water vapor. 85% of the heat from the sun is trapped by water vapor. Don't tell anyone.)
And what exactly, do you think, makes more water evaporate? Could it be the greehouse effect other gases in increased levels further, gases like, let's say CO2 or Methane? Mmh?

That aside, I believe the way to go would really be increased energy efficiency. Use less while achieving the same, and thus produce less waste.

Two interesting facts I have heard in recent weeks:

98% of the Co2 in the world is natural, only 2% comes from humans.

Cows create wayyyyyy more Co2 than humans.

Two interesting facts I have heard in recent weeks:

98% of the Co2 in the world is natural, only 2% comes from humans.

Cows create wayyyyyy more Co2 than humans.

True, but humans breed cattle so...

I say we take off, nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

True, but humans breed cattle so...
...we can blame all our problems on McDonalds and pat ourselves on the back for being so smart?

Two interesting facts I have heard in recent weeks:

98% of the Co2 in the world is natural, only 2% comes from humans.

Cows create wayyyyyy more Co2 than humans.

small problem. neither of those things are facts. and the first one is probably flat out incoherent.

...we can blame all our problems on McDonalds and pat ourselves on the back for being so smart?

...we must engorge ourselves on steak to the point where cattle ranchers can no longer keep up. For the good of the planet. :)

Too bad these ideas are all based upon the mistaken notion that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas.

(psssst: It's water vapor. 85% of the heat from the sun is trapped by water vapor. Don't tell anyone.)

and what is the primary determinant of how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

Two interesting facts I have heard in recent weeks:

98% of the Co2 in the world is natural, only 2% comes from humans.

Cows create wayyyyyy more Co2 than humans.
You know what's also completely natural? That if you burn oil, coal, wood, or other stuff that contains Carbon, CO2 is released.

And the cows also generate a lot of Methane, which is worse than them breathing out CO2.
I say we take off, nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Fuckin' A...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/LV-426.PNG/350px-LV-426.PNG

This seems super serial guys.

Planting Trees on every single rooftop in every major city.

Not sure how efficient it would be, but it would look damn cool, as well as being fairly low maintenance. A city under a forest. I like it.

Unfortunately the canopy would block a lot of light to the fauna already on the surface :(.

If you really want to stop global warming remove the Earth from its position near the sun. The Earth goes through periods of warming & cooling and we're in the warming period. If anything, all we did is speed it up a little since the Industrial Revolution. It isn't like we can "stop" global warming, because that would be really bad. You don't want to stop a cycle of nature.

Unfortunately the canopy would block a lot of light to the fauna already on the surface :(.

If you really want to stop global warming remove the Earth from its position near the sun. The Earth goes through periods of warming & cooling and we're in the warming period. If anything, all we did is speed it up a little since the Industrial Revolution. It isn't like we can "stop" global warming, because that would be really bad. You don't want to stop a cycle of nature.
You also don't want to speed it up the way we did and do...

I have heard some people in America drive distances that would only take ten minutes to walk... mabey making them walk that distance would help both Co2 emissions and the obesity issue!

I have heard some people in America drive distances that would only take ten minutes to walk... mabey making them walk that distance would help both Co2 emissions and the obesity issue!
But, alas, that would require a sidewalk to walk on... I've been to places where you either have to walk in the street or trough peoples' front yard.

But, alas, that would require a sidewalk to walk on... I've been to places where you either have to walk in the street or trough peoples' front yard.

What about the curb?

What about the curb?
Yes, I can totally see that happening...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/FatPeopleOnTheCurb.jpg
Fat people on the curb

What about the curb?

I don't think I'd want to walk that close to traffic...

But, alas, that would require a sidewalk to walk on... I've been to places where you either have to walk in the street or trough peoples' front yard.

man, nothing pisses me off more than that. when i lived in sheboygan falls last year, we lived like a hundred meters from the grocery store. but walking there was an adventure, because we had to walk on the shoulder of 45 mph county C. fucking dangerous.

and in the residential neighborhoods they had inconsistent sidewalking. like it would just stop in the middle of a block, and somebody would have planted bushes or flowers in their yard where the sidewalk should be. i stomped the shit out of those people's plants, on general principle.

The one thing that could have a snowballs chance in hell of cutting into CO2 concentrations are vertical farms. I call them farm towers but they are just any old building where the floor space is devoted to hydroponic crops instead of cubicles. If you have them suck in air from outside it acts like a giant filter producing food.

Where does the power come from? Coal! Yes coal can provide cheap fuel that can provide the power needed to run the darn thing while also providing the extra CO2 the plants will need to grow that extra 15%. Farmers and scientists have observed that when CO2 concentrations in agricultural greenhouses are increased to 1000ppmv the crop yeilds can rise by up to 15%.

This setup provides clean coal power, lots of food and even satisfies eco-nuts by cleaning air.

And no I don't think that lots of CO2 in the air is a bad thing. It happens to make the world a greener place. If anything you should be handing out medals at Exxon for greening up the planet and delaying the next ice age.:p

stuff trees into the exhaust outlets of all CO2 producing machines. bonsai trees for the smaller ones :)

The one thing that could have a snowballs chance in hell of cutting into CO2 concentrations are vertical farms. I call them farm towers but they are just any old building where the floor space is devoted to hydroponic crops instead of cubicles. If you have them suck in air from outside it acts like a giant filter producing food.

You could also use these farms to produce biofuels, cutting down on the amount of CO2 produced from vehicles.

In fact, one of the major projects in the work is constructing algae farms to for biodiesel; they could use the heat and CO2 from the plants to produce biodiesel, which could be used in vehicles both out in the larger market and by the coal plants/mines, creating a circular economy that greatly reduces the amount of emissions produced.

man, nothing pisses me off more than that. when i lived in sheboygan falls last year, we lived like a hundred meters from the grocery store. but walking there was an adventure, because we had to walk on the shoulder of 45 mph county C. fucking dangerous.

and in the residential neighborhoods they had inconsistent sidewalking. like it would just stop in the middle of a block, and somebody would have planted bushes or flowers in their yard where the sidewalk should be. i stomped the shit out of those people's plants, on general principle.
Been there, done that. :p That's what happens if you "plan" cities with only the automobile in mind...
The one thing that could have a snowballs chance in hell of cutting into CO2 concentrations are vertical farms. I call them farm towers but they are just any old building where the floor space is devoted to hydroponic crops instead of cubicles. If you have them suck in air from outside it acts like a giant filter producing food.

Where does the power come from? Coal! Yes coal can provide cheap fuel that can provide the power needed to run the darn thing while also providing the extra CO2 the plants will need to grow that extra 15%. Farmers and scientists have observed that when CO2 concentrations in agricultural greenhouses are increased to 1000ppmv the crop yeilds can rise by up to 15%.

This setup provides clean coal power, lots of food and even satisfies eco-nuts by cleaning air.

And no I don't think that lots of CO2 in the air is a bad thing. It happens to make the world a greener place. If anything you should be handing out medals at Exxon for greening up the planet and delaying the next ice age.:p
So let's build this thing now and see how it works. :D