What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusine… - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
108 Comments
- sweetdeals, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36Or just call in mega-maid. Make sure she's on "Suck".
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37The BEST way? Destroy humanity.
- rtini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17The contest is for removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere, not preventing CO2 from entering the atmosphere.
There is a lot of research going into CO2 emissions reduction, but not into CO2 scrubbing.
I think it will take a lot more work to remove it from the atmosphere than it will to prevent it from entering the atmosphere in the first place. Still, the problem is serious enough that we'll probably want to attack it from both ends... - evensong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Algae. Good on paper. Except that minor side effect of eutrophication of all our water ways. GG marine life.
If it were that simple, there wouldn't be 20m up for grabs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13dude, that's completely circumventing the problem. the sun isn't to blame because we've surrounded ourselves in a virtual magnifying glass. the emissions are the problem.
- fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The only Digg posting of this story to make the front page... and also the only one of the bunch to get the numbers wrong.
Prize is $25mil (£12.5). And don't blame rounding errors... that's 20% of the total gone missing, not a rounding error.
This is why professional editors are a good thing.
(if only The Independent had them, too...) - miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16The sun isn't the problem. Its output hasn't fluctuated significantly in the past couple oh I don't know...billion years or so.
- evensong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"As long as it doesnt take away my freedom im all for others conserving"
Sound to me you want others to do your part for you. How convenient. In a job, you would be fired. On earth..? - neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The official competition website: http://www.virginearth.com/
And don't forget Al Gore's backing Branson here too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6345557.stm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Imma go plant a tree. Gimmie my money!
- benbread, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Just grow a ***** load of Algae, they're much more effective at converting CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen that trees, either that or just stop polluting so much - prevention is the best cure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You know you've got to give it to this guy.. he's a true independent and seems to HONESTLY try and make a difference with his cash! I think this is a great idea, and its about time these rich bloody guys used their money constructively...
Business week recently listed "The 50 Most Generous Philanthropists" and some of these guys literally give away Billions (Warren Buffet's est lifetime charity exceeds $40Billion)... http://bwnt.businessweek.com/philanthropy/06/index.asp I wish they would start being a little more creative like Branson... its quite OBVIOUS that the bloody govts are NOT going to take responsibility for the continuing mess they are responsible for creating on a daily basis... the world needs more Bransons!!
Thank YOU Richard Branson! - OsakaWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Plague.
- Domza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Thankyou Sir Richard Branson. We need more of your initiative and debacle regarding envirnmental issues before its too late.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The EU has mandated a CO2 g/km rating for all vehicles. That is nothing more than a reworked mpg rating because a given amount of petrol burned gives off a specific amount of CO2.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
Combustion of gasoline yields 19.564 pounds of CO2 / gallon. (2344.3 grams of CO2 / liter)
15,000 miles/year is a reasonable average for driving. Although 40-50,000+ miles/year isn't unusual in large metropolitan areas.
MPG ratings by car
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
The Toyota RAV4 is compact SUV. The 2007 model gets 21 mpg = 0.93 lbs CO2 / mile
15,000 miles * 0.93 lbs CO2/mile / 2000 lbs/tons = 7 tons CO2/year
The Ford Expedition is a full-size SUV. The 2007 model gets 14 mpg = 1.40 lbs CO2 / mile
15,000 miles * 1.4 lbs CO2/mile / 2000 lbs/tons = 10.5 tons CO2/year
So, a Ford Expedition that is driven over 40k miles per year is putting out 30 tons of CO2 per year. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Switch over to nuclear power. It's the most realistic solution: solar, wind, etc are not practical on a large scale, modern pebble bed designs mean that Cherynobl-style accidents are physically impossible, and while hundreds of tons of nuclear waste sucks, it beats billions of tons of carbon thrown into the air.
If you still oppose nuclear power, you need to get educated. - MadScientist420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Ya cause like that's the main source of CO2, our breathing..
- olddirtycr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If people really want to make a differance plant atleast 50 oak trees in your yard. Show you care.
- Necoras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The reason to paint a roof (or wall) white isn't to reflect the energy back into space. It's to keep your house cooler so that you don't use as much electricity (and thus less CO2 in the air) cooling your house. The initial sunlight still has to go somewhere (ie back into the atmosphere) but this way you have less of a carbon impact.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This "X-Prize" style challenge has nothing to do with curbing emissions. It is specifically about finding an efficient way to remove the already emitted CO2 from the atmosphere.
Similar to this:
Project for Chemical CO2 Fixation and Utilization
http://www.rite.or.jp/English/welcome/Project/chemical.html - BdON003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well I remember seeing this problem in a wise t.v. show one time called Futurama. Their plan: "Kill All Robots!!!"
In the end though instead of killing lovable Bender, they effectively made a large boost of thrust to knock Earth slightly out of it's orbit. Let's put that plan to action!
I guess I cannot collect the reward since it was not my idea, give the money to The Professor - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Neiby
Water is the primary GHG. However, it is only a feedback agent - not a forcing agent like CO2. Water is a feedback agent because when it reaches high concentrations in the atmosphere it condenses and falls out of the sky; usually after being in the forms of clouds which reflect solar radiation. Water's residence time in the atmosphere ranges from 2 weeks to 3 months. CO2 has a residence in the atmosphere ranging from decades to centuries. That is what makes it a forcing agent.
The natural greenhouse effect totals 33°C (15°C instead of -18°C). Only a small amount of enhancement is neccesary.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
"there are just as many studies that lead us to believe that isn't the case"
No. There aren't. Please point to any that you know of. Opinion pieces do not count as studies.
Pointing to only one side of the natural CO2 cycle is another canard. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Humanity is emitting over 27 billions of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
Table H.1co2 ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls ) - KyotoWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I was watching him on Richard And Judy this morning (GASP!) and it was quite interesting.
There will also be smaller cash prizes for the general public who discover a way to help cut our emmisions.
Branson is also hoping governments will chip in and help fund it. He also said it was 25m on the show - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yes, I've seen a R&D project that involves pumping atmosphere through a tank of algae. The algae make use of the CO2, which in turn produce a biomass that could feed livestock. Of course, one has to wonder how big of a tank is needed to nullify the CO2 output of just one SUV?
We need to reduce the source while we develop methods to convert CO2 to useful materials such as food or building materials. - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I hope he succeeds.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3liquidfirex,
yep. it's called Global Dimming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
"It is currently thought that the effect of global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere. Aerosol particles and other particulate pollutants absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution, resulting in more particulates, creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets, which in turn makes them more reflective, therefore bouncing more sunlight back into space." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4invent paint which changes color from dark to light color 20°c so it will absorb sunlight energy when it is cold and reflect it when its hot.
- mogus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Until your house gets real cold in the winter because it reflects all of the solar energy back instead of absorbing it into your roof and you crank up the heat in response. Maybe for southern climates. But, really, you could do the math. Calculate about how many people live south of Nevada, average roof square footage, and then solar irradiance incident on those houses at noon on a clear day, and I bet one volcanic eruption's worth of CO2 would put you ~100 years behind the curve.
- Kingslasher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Sockpuppet says "The BEST way? Destroy humanity." and gets dug up? Perhaps sockpuppet and his buddies could commit suicide for starters.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3neighbors cant make you cut down trees, even branches that overlap their property. (not here anyways)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3make something that stirs up the crud on the bottom of the sea. make it wave or wind powered and movable. Put a whole bunch of them in an area where lots of nutrients settle to the bottom but is never stirred up (just eventually turns in to rock)
This is where all the algae which is the base of the worlds biggest carbon sink (when it happens naturally from storms and currents)
it also creates a huge food chain including lots of tasty fish for humans to eat. - m00dc0ntr0l, on 10/12/2007, -19/+22Richard Branson can start by not having an airline.
I know, I know, I'm a dick. Digg me down. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's where he's being smart and showing why he is a billionaire.
By the time he might have to pay out the dollar will have crashed and the $25m prize will be equivalent to about 1m euros.
Liabilities in dollars
Assets in Euros or similar - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The contest dictates that your design must remove 1 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year.
That's about 32 tons per second.
A typical SUV outputs about 30 tons of CO2 per year.
This seems unreasonable. - Domza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I totally agree. Creativity often leads to a solution, that is thinking outside the box.
I think charity is fantastic, and those with the means must continue their good work. I'm not goign to poo poo Warren Buffet's efforts, and his subsequent appointment to the Bill and Melinda Gates board, however, it seems as if giving money devoid or anything else seems to the be the current bar of recognition of a "charitable" or "philanthropic" billionaire.
Outside of donating money however, is a totally different issue - I'd like to see money being donated but a true push to solve the worlds problems, or what ever chosen field the donor is interested in. Sir Richard goes above and beyond merely donating money, by involving his personal interests directly in the issue. He seems to be a very 'hands on' philanthropist. - angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Neiby
"There is NO hard evidence that emissions from human sources are having any significant impact on our climate."
It is impossible to get "hard evidence" linking emissions to global warming. The number of variable factors involved are huge and we are not able to control emissions to the point where we can say "All other variables remaining constant, our change in GHG output has changed the climate by X degrees". Due to there being so many uncontrollable variables, we can correlate but not scientifically prove without doubt.
We do know the effect of GHG's in the atmosphere and we also know that it has been held in equilibrium by Earth's natural forces, systems and cycles. With our emissions adding pressure to these systems, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that those systems and cycles bringing equilibrium will need to work harder up to the point where they simply fail.
"but it doesn't mean we need to freak out and cause a panic over something that real climatologists can't even agree on"
I disagree with this and so too do NASA. We need to panic, because as a species we screw over everything else, including at times, ourselves. You've added a disclaimer that "real" climatologists can't agree on this issue. Are the climatologists you refer to having their "independent" research funded by fossil fuel lobbyists?
"Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming."
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
I don't want to live in a cesspool of industrial emission. To that end, I'd rather proactively reduce emissions than leave it to others to prove before becoming concerned and acting retrospectively, by which time the effects may be realised in full. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He is right though. If everyone stopped breathing now, there would be a hell of a lot less cars on the road from tomorrow.
- rstarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://digg.com/general_sciences/Snow_laughing_matter
I didn't write the story...but you guys can read up on their ideas. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@benbread
Too much algae could suck the life out of other organisms so we would need a sure way to control the growth of it. I think carbon sequestering is probably the most logical and natural way to deal with the problem, but we have to be careful not to create additional problems. - warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2£10M is nothing this is guilt money, if he wanted to do something he should help fund the new hydrogen powerplant in Peterhead(Scotland) the first of what is to be many built by primarily BP(an oil company, also with the government but only BP is pulling its weight) and £10M would barely cover the cost of training operators(i know this for a fact ive helped with the numbers). Its a friggin joke he wants to help the environment don't start a commercial passenger space service which will cost massive amounts of pollution.
There are allready maybe half a dozen promising methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and i cant think of one where as little as £10M will make much of a difference as it would require a 100 times that amount to complete the R&D and put them into action.
Besides we arent yet at the point where we need to remove it, its causing climate change but its nothing to dangerous at the moment if we just stop pumping out the CO2 and move to neutral CO2,like the hydrogen power plant which is a pilot there are already several more on the boards after this first one is finished and its very efficient and simple process and then the relatively small amount of carbon released is then captured underground using existing fossil fuel extraction facilities. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look, why don't we all switch over to using water or hydrogen. Pass a 220v current through water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Burn the hydrogen and add the oxygen back in. You can also store large amounts of hydrogen inside metals such as Magnesium. There is NO pollution from this what so ever. You can even reverse the process to make water.
I find it amazing that after all these years, no-one has put more money into this. - itistoday, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Lot of people are rolling their eyes and joking, "Destroy humanity." The thing is that I think they're half-serious, and that's disturbing. How about you just shoot yourself instead and leave the job of saving the planet to someone with an intelligence greater than that of a complete ***** idiot. Heh.
- Necoras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@miles01110 that's simply untrue. You're true that it hasn't had a huge percentage swing (by huge i mean more than a few percent) but with a star vs its planets even a fraction of a fraction of a percent can change climates over the entire solar system.
- XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I read about a method for scrubbing CO2 a while ago. We have factories/plants that take lime, powder it, then let it fall through the air. The lime attaches to the CO2 and becomes limestone. Heat to remove the CO2 and repeat. We still have to find somewhere to put the CO2, my personal favorite idea is to ramp up diamond making technologies and replace glass with diamond wherever we can.... or something. I would love it if every computer display, cellphone, PDA, wrist watch, and iPod in the entire world was scratch proof, etc.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A typical SUV outputs about 30 tons of CO2 per year.
Just wondering How can it do that? do people burn at lease 30 tons of fuel a year? Has any one done the math? - detonate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/environment/Global_Dimming_Is_It_Making_Us_Underestimate_Global_Warming
- Jaryd2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1EXACTLY! Wouldnt it be much smarter to just convert Co2 into Oxygen rather than prevent Co2 from forming? I mean plants do it, Surely we can. Wouldnt you just have to remove the one Carbon from it? COME ON PEOPLE, Convert rather than reduce! If you want to stop Co2 from existing you might as well stop all living creatures from breathing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, thats what I was thinking.. bird-flu could do it.
- liquidfirex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The contrails of the planes actual stem global warming.
The days after 9/11 when "all" planes were grounded the global temperate variance increased some 1 degree. There's a video of a news segment on it somewhere. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
