digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at icis.com

Carbon capture needed (Green Chemicals)

icis.com — Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are very much needed to reduce one-third of the world's global carbon dioxide emissions.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • louiebaur, on 07/14/2008, -4/+11CCS technology sounds very interesting although I am new to it.
    • xptoast, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I designed something that would solve two problems in high school...

      A mechanical leaf.

      It absorbs CO2 and produces glucose.

      So you get rid of CO2 as well as produce oxygen and glucose which would be a sweetener that is a simple sugar that the body can easily break down. One panel would be able to produce large quantities of oxygen as well as the glucose while decreasing the CO2 in the air. This would be good in larger cities.

      Chlorophyll makes plants green so that it filters out light to a certain useful wavelength so that it can do the chemical reaction.
  • orientaltouch, on 07/14/2008, -5/+8sounds interesting for me to know about such thing, great job
  • desertDenizen, on 07/14/2008, -2/+14CSS = Rain Forest
    • BCCStu, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6Unfortunately, due to deforestation this may no longer be a viable option.
      • desertDenizen, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Exactly.
      • Hrodrik, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7That's why governments first need to take action to protect the forests, then worry about technologies.

        I suggest war on logging/farming companies. With bullets if needed.
      • angryredplanet, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3@Hrodrik

        It's amazing how much power some of these companies have. In the Australian state of Tasmania, Gunns Timber run the government. These guys are responsible for logging some of the planets oldest old growth forests with reckless abandon. They employ a huge number of Tasmanians and have monopolised their local timber industry. When legislation looks like it's going to be unfavourable for the company, they threaten to rethink their political donations, withdraw their public investment and also to pull up stumps to go elsewhere. They get whatever they want, environment be damned.
      • mweels, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Are your houses made out of Tin? Its easy to say don't do this and do that, but I don't see a lot of people living in caves now days.

        My point is, what is the alternative? You can't blame the suppliers when the consumers (you) are creating the demand.
      • Hrodrik, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2mweels, there are alternatives. Sustainable development. We can plant what we use. But it's cheaper to just cut off what's already there, especially when those woods are rare and therefore more expensive.

        Profit. That's the downfall of us all.
      • desertDenizen, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Clear cutting the Amazon basin is primarily because a billion Chinese are becoming wealthier. As more of them enter the middle class, they are eating the "rich man's diet" -- more meat, primarily pork. The pig farmers feed pigs soybeans grown in Brazil. You could feed the same number of people the same daily grams of protein with 1/10th the acreage if they just ate soy, courtesy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As the Chinese migrate toward the Western diet, they are experiencing for the first time large incidence of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. In a couple of decades, the cancers will begin, until they reach parity with U.S. levels.

        I hate to sound defeatist, but I can't think of any realistic way of reversing this trend, when even such austere bodies as the UN suggest reducing meat in diets, yet the AMA does not promote what is now well-known science among nutritionists, but not the lay public, doctors, or policy makers. For some reason I don't understand, serving up straight facts about meat's dietary and environmental implications is as incendiary a topic as abortion. Nobody wants to go near it.
  • funlove, on 07/14/2008, -4/+4CCS - I am new to it.
  • AmyVernon, on 07/14/2008, -4/+3thanks for the info... interesting concept; hopefully it can work as planned...
  • LewP, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9If we could just use more wind energy, there would be less CSS to capture....
    • Velnich, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2add on solar, water movement, geothermal and there would be none of it.
  • scamerica, on 07/14/2008, -12/+3Total *****... CO2 is not a problem.. It's all about selling to the idiot-slaves-know-nothing the idea that it is... then raped them with a CO2 tax
  • sogeshirts, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Not much of a science guy but fascinating stuff.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6Make it so the plants can sequester the carbon without dying. Trees and shrubs sequester more CO2 than any other process.
    • angryredplanet, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, phytoplankton sequester more CO2 than any other natural process.
  • monoa, on 07/14/2008, -2/+7"...idiot-slaves-know-nothing..." - scamerica publishes his autobiography.

    For anyone just tuning in, check out scamerica's comment history - it redefines 'mega tool mouth-breathing retard'.
  • ninepointfive, on 07/15/2008, -1/+9These people who want drastic measures to combat a potentially benign problem are ***** crazy.

    Some want to dissolve Iron into the oceans.
    Others have proposed spraying Sulfer Hexaflouride in the upper atmosphere!
    citation:
    http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/ ...


    Do you ever think about how your methods will actually end up effecting ecology of Planet Earth?! Potentially more harm can be done with these stupid carbon capture schemes!

    you crazies!
    • mweels, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2How could catching and eliminating carbon from an energy creating device cause problems with earth?

      The idea pictured is a closed system.
    • caponumen, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Too right!
      The "loony left" has consistently done more damage than good in all recorded history.
      Prohibitionist thinking is the only tool in their kit and why they always fail so miserably.
      They are masters at overlooking the obvious insanity in much of what they promote as they are incapable of seeing themselves as part of the overall problem, but expert at placing blame and punishing others.

      The carbon agendaists have a rather excellent analog in the form of the prohibition of alcohol disaster visited upon the law abiding citizens of this country via much the same set of broken rationals and self righteous zealousness. This time, "we are sorry we where wrong" is not going to cut it.........
  • Terry12345, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3CCS = Scam = make work project= more taxes for us.

  • Terry12345, on 07/15/2008, -4/+2CCS=scam=make work project= more taxes from us.
  • chrisinsocalif, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3Most of the worlds carbon dioxide is naturally created and humans only account for a very low amount of CO2. Such actions would probably hurt the situation than fix them. The world goes on natural warming and cooling trends, all these global issues people speak of are not man made. So why build something to reduce CO2 when there is no conclusive proof whatsoever that the increase of CO2 is man made? Frankly most of these green products are propaganda to put money in certain peoples pockets. (for example look up the costs or recycling. Actually costs more money and uses more resources to recycle than to just make them new. We are not short of land for waste disposal. Only product worth recycling is aluminum)
    • Alexcarrier, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3[Citation needed]
    • mweels, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Go ride your bike for a day up any mountain in LA, Let me know how your lungs feel. Then tell me with a straight face that this ***** were pumping in the air is just part of nature.

      Look out the window.
      • chrisinsocalif, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1I said CO2, thats what they are trying to reduce, that's what the discussion is about. You are just side tracked with other pollutants in our atmosphere.
      • mweels, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2How could removing CO2 from a device that creates CO2 be bad? It's a zero sum. Are you saying by pumping CO2 in the air we are helping the environment?
    • angryredplanet, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3My fingers are getting sore from typing responses to the unstoppable comments coming from all the deniers. Read this and understand it: There is literally tonnes of evidence that we are outputting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is also very substantial correlating observations, as backed up by the opinions of approximately 95% of the worlds climate scientists, that this CO2 is affecting the climate.

      The Earth does have natural cold and warm periods, but not on the time scale we are experiencing (< 200 years). The climate is shifting too fast to be attributed to natural cycles. I'll copy and paste this because I can't be bothered re-typing it:

      Every "natural cycle" proponent, needs to identify just what this alleged natural mechanism is because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause. They'll also need to come up with some explanation for how a 30% increase in the second most effective greenhouse gas does not itself affect the global temperature.

      There is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing, so where is the skeptic model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature and where is the evidence of some other source of climate forcing from within the natural cycle you refer to?
    • petrodollar, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3"Most of the worlds carbon dioxide is naturally created and humans only account for a very low amount of CO2."

      Irrelevant. All that matters is that human activity is pushing CO2 concentrations above background levels. It wouldn't matter if human activity only accounted for 1% of CO2 production if all it took was a .6% increase to affect the climate.
      • Stormwern, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Without human interference there's a balance, plants bind co2 when they grow and release it when they die. What we're doing is digging coal out of the earth and burning it, that offsets the balance..
  • Sharky35, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3To answer the title of the article...
    No it isn't.
  • Smilex, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3I'm dubious of CCS, and this blog.

  • reesmaxwell, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2It seems tricky to come up with a system for sequestering CO2 for a long period of time. I've heard about pumping it under the ocean, but something tells me that idea hasn't been well thought out as to oceanic environmental impact. But I know one way we could keep the carbon from being released for a very long time, while making CCS glamorous ... strip the carbon from CO2 and make artificial diamonds with them! (Yes, I know it would take an enormous amount of energy to do so ... but isn't solar supposed to be our energy panacea?)

    Good idea?
    • Sharky35, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1That is actually a really good idea.
    • Stormwern, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1This isn't Buck Rogers, "energy" doesn't necessarily solve all problems. Unless you're willing to do it one molecule at a time, the only way to make coal out of co2 is with plants. Also, making diamonds doesn't really make a difference, once it's coal it's easy enough to store anyway.
  • indymike, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Two words: Lake Nyos.
    • rheaume, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Im trying to figure out if you are right wing freak saying CO2 saturation is "all part of nature, so whats my hummer going to do,etc" or if its a genuine interesting link, which I really like btw, haven't this lake discussed for a few years.

      Ok I'll digg it up
  • tinsanta, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0In the works in Australia at the moment
  • Kanele, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Shame people refusing to understand what GW is and that it exists don't question theirselves on the efforts put into fighting it :V
    As for CCS, they would be much better planting with all this money rather than trying to alter nature in a human way and frack up everything yet again.
    • Stormwern, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Couldn't agree more, binding co2 in something would only mean trillions of tonnes of waste every year. What we need to do is phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible.
  • maehem, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3If only someone could invent a biological process to capture carbon. :P
  • goph, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Do people not realize RAIN captures carbon in the air, cleaning it? Why do you think post rain air has that certain clean smell to it?
  • bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Scientists have recently discovered solar powered devices that utilize the power of the sun, combined with mere tap water and certain minerals that can actually suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In return, these same devices actually "exhale" oxygen into the atmosphere. It gets even better. These devices store the carbon in material that can be used to construct structures for human habitation. These devices can be placed almost anywhere even on steep slopes and they feature a matrix that increases soil stability. Amazing! They are called trees and last time I noticed, they didn't demand carbon offset credits or taxes to operate.
    • rheaume, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1But trees make money. I thought the process of being an human involved earning maximum profits, cash and gold at the expense of whoever gets in your way, then retire somewhere protecting your property with the latest in good old American-made weaponry.

      /Liked the rant though
  • bcronos, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2what a joke! you people actually believe this crap? the global warming scam is just the latest way to keep us down. look at the research by anyone that isn't govt funded or doesn't have some other financial stake in global warming.... see the video at ihatealgore dot com for example...
  • caponumen, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Or you could spend the money on something really useful like fuel cell technology and avoid ALL the pitfalls of hydrocarbons as fuel and CO2 production is really very far down on this list. Or you can support the do nothing "democrat" agenda and ride your bike to work or just move your card board box next to your job and walk. That is assuming you still have a job..........
  • lasterisk, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0pay attention!

    Global warming is not 'a potentially benign problem'!
    CSS = carbon capture & sequestration ... nothing else....
    Those other schemes are what you get when you ask dick-enlargement-therapy enthusiasts....f*ck 'em!

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.