NationStates Jolt Archive

OKay, here is something rare and special that you can tell your grandkids about; I'm going to start a serious thread. :)

It has to do with an idea I have involving global warming. Now before you get too carried away, let me explain my position on the issue: I am not convinced that global warming is the catastrophic threat it's made out to be. I think fear and hype have overemphasized one small part of the larger environmental conservation picture. However, it IS a larger picture, and most of the methods suggeted to combat global warming are good ideas and beneficial for our continued symbiotic relationship with our environment. So I'm not going to argue that point.

Also, I am very nervous at the idea of scientists believing they might have to manipulate future climate. Environmental science has a dismal record when it comes to such things. However, if such a time comes to pass where we might have to take an active role in the reduction of global temperature, I have the solution!

Forget orbiting space mirrors and aerosols and other ludicrous suggestions. Create Carbon Farms. Here's what you do: Grow something that is relatively rapid, not particularly valuable and absorbs large amounts of carbon dioxide(new plant growth does. Existing old growth is carbon neutral). THen throw it into one of those lovely old strip mines we've decorated the landscape with. After each year's crop, cover it with a layer of concrete. Then start again. With each year and each layer, the carbon crop is packed away and compressed beneath layer after layer of concrete and crop sandwich. A Carbon Vault!

Hundreds or thousnds of years later, they will become oil or coal which we can use to help warm our rapidly cooling planet. :)

A sensible seeming plan. Although that concrete might be a bit troublesome later on.

Who are you and what have you done with LG?

while there is no such thing as free energy, once you collect and harness it; there IS a more then sufficient abundance of ways of doing so that don't involve the burning, in any sense, of anything. that and effective unbiased ways of reducing the human birthrate, either seperately or togather, were they to be implimented, would prove quite adiquite. the VERY probable consiquences of failing to do either, far from overrated, are if anything, very much under.

other schemes, simple or elaborate, while potentially to varying degrees bennificial, are neither neccessary nor adiquite substitutes.

=^^=
.../\...

OKay, here is something rare and special that you can tell your grandkids about; I'm going to start a serious thread. :)


AIEEE!!!


It has to do with an idea I have involving global warming. Now before you get too carried away, let me explain my position on the issue: I am not convinced that global warming is the catastrophic threat it's made out to be. I think fear and hype have overemphasized one small part of the larger environmental conservation picture.
You know, if you lived on the southern end of the Alps like I do, you would be likely to have a different idea... our rivers are running dry because of lack of snow - desertification is really beginning.



Forget orbiting space mirrors and aerosols and other ludicrous suggestions. Create Carbon Farms. Here's what you do: Grow something that is relatively rapid, not particularly valuable and absorbs large amounts of carbon dioxide(new plant growth does. Existing old growth is carbon neutral). THen throw it into one of those lovely old strip mines we've decorated the landscape with. After each year's crop, cover it with a layer of concrete. Then start again. With each year and each layer, the carbon crop is packed away and compressed beneath layer after layer of concrete and crop sandwich. A Carbon Vault! Hundreds or thousnds of years later, they will become oil or coal which we can use to help warm our rapidly cooling planet. :)

That's nice. However, I see two problems.

1.Time. It's millions of years, not thousands. Geology... is... slooooowwww...

2.Land doesn't go only "down". It can go also "up", o stay there and be subject to erosion. So, just to be safe, we should capture carbon and place it in a subsiding seabed, or a subsiding land, or pedemontane plains (erosion from the mountains will cover the land).

My two c€, of course.

Muffins are carbon rich. We should just eat the tops and then sequester the bottoms in old salt mines.

Muffins are carbon rich. We should just eat the tops and then sequester the bottoms in old salt mines.

You may be on to something here...

A sensible seeming plan. Although that concrete might be a bit troublesome later on.

Who are you and what have you done with LG?

I figure that as it compresses, it'll generate a lot of heat. Concrete seems like it would probably be able to tolerate that heat. *nod*

I would just use said crops as a source of energy and displace fossil fuels. That enables you to use the plants to create a more carbon-neutral cycle; the plants wouldn't really need any kind of fertilizer or a lot of water, and if you ran the distribution infrastructure on the stuff, you further extend the carbon cycle down the line.

From there, the sky's the limit...good stuff.

You may be on to something here...

My first thought was to bury tacos and cover them with mud, but I was afraid you might have some kind of spasm.

My first thought was to bury tacos and cover them with mud, but I was afraid you might have some kind of spasm.

This thread is beautiful.

My first thought was to bury tacos and cover them with mud, but I was afraid you might have some kind of spasm.

Even the suggestion has earned you a visit from the scrotum-seeking attack weasels. *nod*

The production of concrete produces a fair bit of CO2 itself. Then there is the embuggerance of actually transporting all those carbon sequestration crops to the landfill site.

You'd have to make sure that the ground water didn't leech CO2 out from the vegetable matter while it was decomposing as well.

It would be easier just to offer tax credits for people who telecommuted.

The production of concrete produces a fair bit of CO2 itself. Then there is the embuggerance of actually transporting all those carbon sequestration crops to the landfill site.

You'd have to make sure that the ground water didn't leech CO2 out from the vegetable matter while it was decomposing as well.

It would be easier just to offer tax credits for people who telecommuted.

Yeah, but Carbon Vault kind of rolls off the tongue.

would the end result of all that effort be worth it in energy terms though?

I mean if you made a jam jar and manage to find a way to store all that material inside you still probably wouldn't have enough to make the Jam jar (and the Mrs would kill you)

Isn't there some kind of algea that produces oil and absorbs CO2?

Isn't there some kind of algea that produces oil and absorbs CO2?

Yes, but unfortunately, it'll grow anywhere. Before the energy companies can use it, they have to find a way to make sure they maintain sole control over it. *nod*

I figure that as it compresses, it'll generate a lot of heat. Concrete seems like it would probably be able to tolerate that heat. *nod*

Use ore from mines in areas that would induce the creation of oil. I assume that a geologist would be able to tell you what rock types (shale comes to mind) are most likely to have petroleum. The same geologist would also be able to tell you what sort of mines would have ore rich in that rock. Ideally, it is from the same mine that you are filling in.

OKay, here is something rare and special that you can tell your grandkids about; I'm going to start a serious thread. :)


Oh merde... It's bad enough getting bird crap on my car windows... What am I going to do about the pig crap that'll be there now.

Oh merde... It's bad enough getting bird crap on my car windows... What am I going to do about the pig crap that'll be there now.

Throw it at the neighbors. :)

Couple of problems: 1. You run into the problems that biofuels have. We don't have enough food on this planet as it is (or rather we do, but we waste it all while others starve), and trying to grow massive amounts of biomass just exacerbates the problem.

2. As already pointed out, Concrete emits CO2 while it cures

3. You won't get coal this side of 1 million years, at least.

4. It also requires high temperatures and pressures.

It would make far more sense just to stop burning fossil fuels.

Growing trees (or any other plant life) is a great way to reduce atmospheric carbon. The problem is that it would have to be on an absolutely immense scale to have any global impact. I think you are vastly underestimating the size of the project if it is going to be anything more than a public relations boondoggle (like the vast majority of 'environmental' legislation and projects).

While carbon dioxide has captured the focus of environmentalists, other gases such as methane are far more damaging. Of course, modern industrial society is not easily blamed for methane, so everyone conveniently ignores that and just looks at raw tonnage rather than actual environmental damage (too complex a concept for most foolish college kids that want to protest for the sake protesting?).

Global warming is not anything near the problem that popular culture seems to think it is - one of the many reasons why I am appalled that Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize. Anyone who grossly twists scientific research to use blatant hyperbole to try to get more attention is despicable (sea levels will rise 20 feet this century!!1! - research says that it will be about 2 feet, but that doesn't freak people out enough to give you money).

The reality is that most of the world is very poor and making sacrifices for the sake of the global environment is pretty far down on the list of priorities. Making choices based on what is best for the global environment is a luxury only the rich can afford. There is no possible way of raising the living standards of the entire world to a level where the majority of the world has the freedom to spend more time worrying about saving the wales than providing for their families within a timeframe to significantly stop environmental change.

You can stop burning coal in the US and Europe, but that is globally meaningless when China burns that much and more. The only way to significantly make changes is to develop technology to a level where it is so cheap to implement that it is more attractive for impoverished peoples than environmentally damaging practices.

You want the world to stop burning coal, get a big consortium of environmentalists together and pool your resources. Take that money and buy coal mines and stop production. Eventually you will buy enough to choke the supply and drive up the price high enough to reduce demand. Of course the abundance of coal would mean it would take an absurd amount of money, but if people actually cared about burning fossil fuels rather than just mouthing platitudes, it should be possible. If you think you couldnt get anyone to donate to that cause, youve just shown that people really dont care all that much.

What's with all this technology? They should of stuck to maths, not all this crazy engineering. Can't we all just sit down and relax? Do a bit of yoga, bit of tai chi. Then go to sleep happy. Instead we come to this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lBvaHZIrt0o, what happened to the simple life? The more simple the idea, the more complex the concept, or however people say it, "the simpler things get, the harder they are to understand", "the more you know, the less you understand", or something. You can explain the cause of global warming, but can you tell me what the number "one" is?

I mean, come 21st December 2012, we'll all be dead. Might aswell have a stylish last 5 and a bit years.