What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
86 Comments
- dartmanx, on 11/14/2008, -3/+72I propose the creation of some sort of biological facility (or, in industrial terms, a "plant") to remove Carbon Dioxide from the air and split it into its Carbon and Oxygen components. The facility would then use the Carbon to increase its own size (to "grow") and improve its process of splitting CO2 and Oxygen apart.
These facilities could start from a small "seed" facility. In fact these "seed" facilities would be small enough that nearly anyone could start their own facility. A small investment, say, in the Spring, would likely be popular amoung the population, even possibly becoming a hobby among some.
There could easily be different types of seed facilities for the population, who could then chose the type that most suited them. These "plants" would then effectively lock up CO2, with minimal necessary input from heavy industry. This would appeal to the environmental (aka "green") lobby.
This seems to me to be an excellent way to store Carbon Dioxide. - Elliuotatar, on 11/14/2008, -0/+24Sure, it sounds great on paper, but the minute someone drops a Mentos in the ocean, we're all *****.
- Cruelapollo, on 11/14/2008, -0/+17Pfft, you've got your head in the clouds! It'd never work!
- screwedcork, on 11/14/2008, -0/+17sounds like magic!
where does the energy come from? carbon solar panels? - AutoXer, on 11/14/2008, -0/+11It's hard to determine whether the replys know what the OP is talking about.
To the OP: That post is golden! - plr4ever, on 11/14/2008, -0/+10They also have a pleasing shade of green, and cheer up the surrounding area.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 11/14/2008, -0/+10How is burying CO2 OK but burying nuclear waste is not? The only environmentally sound form of carbon capture involves plants (the green kind; not factories). Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.
- AndrewMoyer, on 11/14/2008, -0/+9You realize that all of these plants will eventually die, be buried, and turn to coal for later generations to burn, ultimately releasing the trapped CO2 into the atmosphere anyways.
I bet the dinosaurs tried this, and look where it got them! - dartmanx, on 11/14/2008, -0/+9If Newton was alive today, what would he be saying?
That's right: "Hey, who the **** buried me, I'm still alive!" - inactive, on 11/14/2008, -2/+11great idea, now my co2 tanks will stop exploding
- TTURabble, on 11/14/2008, -0/+7Brilliant!
Now what do we call it? It has to have a snazzy name or the marketers will have a fit. - dartmanx, on 11/14/2008, -0/+7Luckily, that's only Science Fiction. As the intelligent ones among us know, the true danger is the Zombie Apocolypse, not global warming or nanomachines.
- jjgames, on 11/14/2008, -0/+6Sounds like it would work to me. I'm no salt water carbon engineer though.
- ultraJesus, on 11/14/2008, -1/+7Spies sappin' my CO2 tanks.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 11/14/2008, -0/+5That's like saying don't piss off apples and oranges, because bananas will spin in their grave.
- Malik112099, on 11/14/2008, -0/+5THIS JUST IN:
Engineer has an unsinkable ship idea! - inactive, on 11/14/2008, -0/+5Stop Deforestation.
Plant More Trees. - jiganto, on 11/14/2008, -1/+6Or we skip the whole heavy industry part which will be fueled by non-renewable energy and go straight to planting more trees and iron seeding the ocean.
The ecosystem already has a process for recycling CO2, we might as well use it. - CatsAreGods, on 11/14/2008, -1/+6...and then we can turn the carbon into diamonds and put the South African slave mines out of business!!!
- robynbanks303, on 11/14/2008, -0/+5eCO2
- InsaneMachine, on 11/14/2008, -0/+4Sure this works nice, until (insert worst case here) happens.
- inactive, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3Don't you be going all "Murphy's Law" and ***** now.
- phillipj06, on 11/14/2008, -2/+5Call me if your looking for investors for you crazy plan. I've always wanted to get in on the ground floor of new technologies.
- Greengoo, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3Prepare for unforeseen consequences.
- dartmanx, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3In short, yes. Trees.
- Julie188, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3Wow. Thank goodness this world has engineers ... I wouldn't have been able to come up with an idea like that.
- Stormwern, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3How much CO2 can you solve in water really? Considering we need to bury a trillion tons of the stuff, I doubt there are enough caverns in the world.
- EricAnderton, on 11/14/2008, -1/+4::facepalm:: Not this crap again.
While this may technically work, it creates an unstable solution that is just waiting for the right conditions to set it off. To wit: where are all the natural underground pockets of CO2, and underground lakes of carbonic acid? That's right, there aren't any because they're not stable.
Also, a massive CO2 eruption can have rather disastrous consequences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
A subterranean formation may be more stable than a lake, but how long before it turns into a geyser, releasing all that gas? IMO, there are only three ways to sequester the carbon in the atmosphere in a way that won't create a chemical time-bomb for future generations: artificial diamond, graphite, highly stable plastics. Everything else lets the carbon re-join the atmospheric cycle too soon. - inactive, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2Actually pretty good Idea.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 11/14/2008, -1/+3They're great at driving trains too.
- TheThirdWheel, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2There are offshore natural gas drilling sites that pump the seperated CO2 directly back under the ocean into pourous rocks where it will stay for millions of years. You could store all of our excess CO2 in the same manner with enough drilling platforms dedicated to the task. The problem is seperating the CO2 from the atmosphere in sufficient amounts to make any difference.
Solving atmospheric CO2 increases:
1. more nuclear plants
2. better batteries for useful electric cars
3. drilling platforms funded by carbon credits seperating CO2 from the air and pumping it under the ocean
I say all of this even though I don't belive that our introduction of a 2% CO2 increase is melting any ice caps, but it looks like we are doomed to spend billions since so many in power are convinced.
The sad thing is right now I think Obama's plans are to fund useless oil alternatives like bio-diesel and fine existing companies out of the market. - OrangeTide, on 11/14/2008, -1/+3CO2 laden water kills marine life. so you can't just leave it on the bottom of the ocean to slowly spread out. I think the key was to drill wells and keep it in there.
Under tremendous ocean depths I believe CO2 becomes this blobby bubble that sinks. I seem to recall pictures of it. But maybe it wasn't CO2 and it was some other gas (methane?) - redxxx, on 11/14/2008, -1/+3Ok, so when these "plants" stop functioning and start to break down, what happens to the carbon they sequestered?
- ultraseamus, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2Something like:
"Warning: high salt intake is linked with an increased risk of high blood pressure."? - inactive, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2You're welcome.
- inactive, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2Train drivers aren't real engineers. They just like to call themselves engineers.
- OrangeTide, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1It's not solid. It's a blobby bubble, but CO2 also is somewhat soluble in water. Even at depth. Do you think that all deep ocean life is anaerobic? I sure would love to see some deep fish and squid exhaling solid chunks of CO2.
The bubbles (or bricks, as you claim) will saturate a localized area of water with CO2. Once saturated the bubble (or chunk) will no release any further CO2 because there is nowhere for it to go. If there are ocean currents or increased temperature or decreased pressure it can speed up the process greatly. One problem you run into is that in the deep ocean there isn't anything that can take the carbon from CO2 to make oxygen like you get near the surface with plants, algae and certain bacteria. From the limited amount I have read on the subject, it appears the oxygen used by animal life in the deep ocean comes entirely from oxygen filtering down from the surface. (volcanic vent bacteria tend to produce things other than oxygen with their substitute for photosynthesis for producing food) - KMye, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1I think the main idea is to capture it directly from coal plants, other CO2 emitting industrial process rather than trying to farm it directly from the atmosphere...which means if we're actually stupid enough to require to try to require this rather than, say, your #1 & #2, we're going to have build an entirely pipeline infrastructure around the country/world...
- m0llusk, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1This would result in large amounts of highly acidic water being stored under the surface. Depending on exactly where it ended up geological change would eventually move it somewhere else, possibly back to the surface or where it would mix with ocean water. This sounds only as safe as the geological formations used for sequestration.
- Gemfinder, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Want carbon to drop off?
Easy.
Plant a tree. It'll take fifteen minutes out of your day, tops.
Oh, you live in an apartment? There are miniature fruit trees, like Meyer lemons, that do double-duty: be small, suck up CO2, and provide you with lemonade throughout the year.
What about your parents? More successful siblings and friends? Do they have back yards? Plant a dwarf fruit tree there. Apples, cherries and lemons for everyone! - inactive, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1And this is cheaper than building a factory to pump out cheap solar panels?
- fireburner23, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Psssh Foo! Dinosaurs were placed there by God to throw us off.
- bincoder, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Grow a tree, chop it down, build a house, plant more trees. Carbon contained.
Unless the house catches fire and burns down.
That method has worked nicely for billions of years. Why reinvent a way to do it at great expense and little benefit? Oh, I know.
If you remove all the trees and do it via 'technology' instead that creates more desert lands suitable for covering in solar panels and you get a 'green' world with silicon, not all those nassy, dirty, trees cluttering up the view.
hmmm - 955701, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Just make sure you're burying it in a deep enough body of water:
http://www.seanbuckley.ca/blog/2007/05/22/lake-emi ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos - EricAnderton, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Not a bad idea.
- EricAnderton, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1"I say all of this even though I don't belive that our introduction of a 2% CO2 increase is melting any ice caps, but it looks like we are doomed to spend billions since so many in power are convinced."
Look at it this way: at some point the entire planet is going to be (literally) out of gas. There's only so much petroleum to go around.
Better to be ahead of the curve and find a sustainable way to keep the lights on, then get caught with our pants down when oil becomes $600/barrel - even if that's a hundred years from now. Because it very well may take a hundred years to figure it all out.
Now the sequestration problem is another can of worms... - OrangeTide, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1We must start a foundation to sequester CO2 for future coal. How many hundreds of thousands of years does it take to make some coal anyways?
- vertigo32, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1If we just built a space elevator we could run a hose up it and pump the CO2 out into space.
Problem solved. - MrSlumberjack, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1This idea seems interesting, but I think in the long term it would be better to just let the carbon naturally make its way back into the carbon cycle. What will happen in the long term if carbon is subtracted from the cycle? Maybe there isn't enough carbon in all the fossil fuels to make a difference, but it's still something to think about.
- salinemist, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1This would be handy if we actually needed to store CO2.
Which we don't. -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is