What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
252 Comments
- ordig, on 06/01/2008, -4/+168Isn't that what trees do?
- RyeBrye, on 06/01/2008, -0/+87I call it... photosynthesis!
- inactive, on 06/01/2008, -1/+40This technology is quite old. We used it on Submarines while I was in the Navy, or a version of it. The real problem is what to do with the CO2 once it is sequestered.
- TJ11240, on 06/01/2008, -0/+28plankton does a better job of it
- Ninh, on 06/01/2008, -2/+30If you want a more efficient thing, genetically modify trees to draw on more CO2 to make wood and you already have it sequestered.
- a1cd, on 06/01/2008, -1/+28I will wait for a better source then the Daily Mail
- kingfoot, on 06/01/2008, -3/+22ok well, using the same quote you used... "The Lackner team says the captured carbon dioxide could then be pumped into greenhouses to boost plant growth."
that's your answer.
what do you do get when you have a box with a plant inside and start putting CO2 into the box in non-excessive amounts? OXYGEN. they will then take the oxygen from there and release it back into the atmosphere. a continuous cycle that will be created and tweaked for years to come until the perfect timing/amounts model will rise from it.
i bet we will begin to see oxygen farms begin to pop up around the world in the near future. a place that can suck the excess co2 (remember, we need some of it in the atmosphere still, we cant filter it all out) and use plants to convert it to oxygen, and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere to set the balance back to normal.
see; using your brain IS fun! - dansvan, on 06/01/2008, -1/+14The WAR against global warming? Really, manipulating the environment to 'fight' global warming is just going to make it worse. The best thing to do, really, is to just stop. The earth can correct itself.
- dood, on 06/01/2008, -0/+12It's OK for us to have some CO2.
- ScottieMc, on 06/01/2008, -6/+18Suck! Suck! Suck!
- WhipkickeN, on 06/01/2008, -0/+12But you don't want the new CO2 hungry species to overtake the old population, if that happens we might end up needing more CO2. Have to be careful genetically modifying organisms and putting them in the wild. Just a thought.
- TobiasParker, on 06/01/2008, -0/+10There will be no escape for the princess this time.
- SilverBack101, on 06/01/2008, -5/+14Correct. However, at the moment there isn't enough trees out there to combat the amount of CO2 being pumped into the air by growing populations around the globe.
- flangepiece, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9if he wasn't always trying to get the secret of those krabby patties, we might just have a chance...
- sentinel106, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9dugg for (possible) Space Balls reference
- jgtg32a, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9Plants are too slow this quickly removes the CO2 and puts it into a tank. I would assume the next phase would be to develop a plant that can live in a pure CO2 environment
- EricDrawback, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10what will plants breathe? this is ***** absurd
- roberto811, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7Hopefully someday scientists will invent something to fix the real environmental problems like mercury from coal plants, and getting the plastic islands out of the pacific.
- TaylorTAP, on 06/01/2008, -9/+16You know that volcano's are actually the number 1 CO2 polluter not us? You'd think the millions of dollars they're wasting on this stupid device, could be spent on genetically engineering highly absorbent plants or even just planting regular ones.
Not saying we still don't contribute to the problems because we do but a device that scrubs the air isn't a solution just a band-aid.
BTW, global warming is dictated by our Sun, not by our carbon footprints. Irregardless, of what we do to control this, we will fail in the end. - jgtg32a, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8Manipulating DNA is easier then modifying infrastructure and habits
- silent7seven, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6The real environmental problem is excessive procreation.
- whatever01, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6Not sure if you're being snide about changing humanities habits or not. But trying to modify the DNA of trees and other plants, and then introduce these genetically modified organisms in sufficient numbers - with the resulting fear and unintended consequences - seems very difficult.
- crazyjake, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8actually he is mostly right, although the ocean is the #1 emitter, volcanoes follow shortly after. but he is right about us having virtually no effect on the climate. this is just one big political movement and backed by scientists of unrelated fields so they can get funds. say i wanted to study dolphins, i would write up my topic as "The seasonal migration patterns of dolphins, and any effect to them by GLOBAL WARMING" i get my money, and make up something for the global warming part. yes, we are on a mostly warming trend right now, but the earth has been much hotter than now, especially in the medieval times.
- gofalcons, on 06/01/2008, -4/+10Wow, you're getting dugg down because no one wants to challenge what you said because it's most likely true. "NO NO NO people, global warming will kill you, the only way to protect yourself is to give us money and buy more expensive cars! It has nothing to do with the earth's orbit or natural heating and cooling cycles! Pay us money and we'll save you!"
- brad3378, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5I'm cautiously hopeful about the implications of an even more efficient life form - Algae.
A single cell can divide into 1000 cells in only 24 hours and absorb massive amounts of C02 in the process. Better still, some people think we will be able to efficiently extract the oil from Algae to create a true renewable liquid fuel source millions of years faster than the way mother nature does it. It grows best in sunny climates like Arizona or Texas (i.e. cheap land) and can grow in salt water or fresh water.
But there's a few "catches" to Algae Oil:
-It requires a source of Carbon Dioxide to grow - some suggest using C02 sources from Coal Burning power plants
-The cost needs to come down in order to be economically feasible.
-The optimal algae species is yet to be determined. Some strains grow better in some climates while others have more oil content.
-The main problem (as I interpret) is that the cell wall needs to be efficiently "cracked" in order to extract the oil. Some processes use high pressure and others use chemical processes. There are probably other methods, but unfortunately I'm far from an expert in this stuff.
It's fascinating stuff and I suggest reading more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel - kingfoot, on 06/01/2008, -11/+16***** you.
- wreckosaurus, on 06/01/2008, -2/+7Yes, but this device captures 1 TON of CO2 a day.
- leszek, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6I can't believe you're dugg.
The level of stupidity of digg has certainly risen recently.
Let me explain the photosynthesis mechanism.
the basic chemical reaction is the following:
6 CO2 + 12 H2O + photons → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O
It means that the plant take the CO2 from the air, releases Oxygen BUT the Carbon from the CO2 didn't disappear, it is now part of the plant.
Once the plant rot or is eaten, the oxidation of the carbon will transform it in CO2 again.
It means the plant can only keep Carbon for a limited time and if you want to hold the Carbon for a longer period, you have to bury it underground.
Now, let say I have a plant using an amount X of CO2 to grow naturally. It will take this CO2 directly from the atmosphere.
If instead I provide the amount of CO2 needed from the machine, the plant will still need the same amount X of CO2 to grow, it will take the CO2 from the machine and no CO2 is taken from the atmosphere directly.
So the machine with the plant removed the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere than the plant alone.
The only think that can help is that maybe a higher concentration of CO2 can help to grow the plant faster. But the main problem remains that if the plant is used, the CO2 will be released in the atmosphere in the end.
Using your brain IS fun BUT using your brain correctly is BETTER. - dn11, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6another solution: start growing vast algae plantations for use as biofuel and also as C02 syncs
- blahblah, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Didn't quite need that ill-informed, juvenile "explanation." We've already screwed with nature when we decided it was a good idea to release all of the CO2 that nature had sequestered in a crazy spurt of 100 or so years of private transportation. The natural cycle, or what would have happened if we hadn't dug all of this oil out of the ground and released it into the air has now been TOTALLY *****.
- TopherT, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Why don't we just plant more trees, it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper than 200,000$ scrubbers that only move the carbon into leaky greenhouses which will only marginally be helped by increased CO2 concentrations and are in essence little different than the trees (except that the trees will store the CO2 longer).
- flashingcurser, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Most plants will absorb CO2 proportional to the atmospheric CO2 up to a about 2000 ppm. In many green houses the limiting factor to plant growth is lack of CO2. The way they propose to get the CO2 is much better than using natural gas CO2 generators.
- OrlyonokEaglet, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6Get rid of the sails...
- HanSolo69, on 06/01/2008, -2/+7So..they invented plants?
- Sharky35, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5I was making a joke about the fact that the invention is actually a airboat in reverse. The net effect is nil... just like the CO2 scrubber. Like another poster said "just plant more trees".
- timberwolfdp, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6...or modify existing processes to operate more cleanly and let nature do what it was designed to do without our intervention.
- Bowie, on 06/01/2008, -10/+14
Yeah, I hear they're calling their invention "PLANTS".
***** idiots. CO2=Plant Food! - Sharky35, on 06/01/2008, -4/+8Hey I Invented a way to power a sail boat when it isn't windy. I mounted a giant fan on the back of the boat and I turn it on when there is no wind. The giant fan fills the sails with wind and moves the boat forward. What do you think?
- kelmaster1, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4You can thank deforestation and soil erosion humans have incurred over the past thousands of years.
- jgtg32a, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4It is I love it when comments like this get dugg down, because everyone on this site claims that they aren't 14 but comments like this getting dugg down prove that they don't get it because they are too young.
- koyaani, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4I'm not familiar with the details of the technology, but I imagine cryogenics is a very energy intensive process. The energy used likely comes from fossil fuels, in which case there would be an increase in CO2 elsewhere that's greater than the amount isolated and stored.
- gandhirs, on 06/01/2008, -4/+8"The idea is bound to be controversial, with environmentalists seeing so-called technological solutions to global warming as undermining attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries."
Environmentalists don't want a solution for global warming. The want global warming to occur in order to push their agenda. - Sharky35, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Cause the article stated that the stored CO2 would have to be pumped into "special" greenhouses where plants could absorb it. Or you could plant the same amount of "plants" outdoors and skip the feel-good techno BS.
- ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5I'm not sure what your point is, there will still be plenty of nitrogen in the atmosphere.
- maximatron, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4So they proved CO2 was the cause of global warming in the first place ?
- jahurt, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4I read it as a possible Frank Zappa reference.
- flashingcurser, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5Yes, but at 350 +/- ppm they do it much more slowly than in a contained environment with 2000 ppm. I guess the question is whether they are using plants that will "lock up" the CO2 for long periods of time. Then again, anything is better than a fossil fuel CO2 generator.
Here is an example:
http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp - sparkleyflowers, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4"The Lackner team says the captured carbon dioxide could then be pumped into greenhouses to boost plant growth."
- lukas88, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Considering that the construction of one of these probably (considering the energy that goes into shipping and manipulation of materials) is responsible for a great deal of CO2 emissions, and planting a tree takes, well, less than a minute, I doubt they will ever be viable over trees.
Not to mention that a tree looks better and creates resources for many other organisms. - MWeather, on 06/01/2008, -2/+5"You know that volcano's are actually the number 1 CO2 polluter not us?"
The following took me about 2 minutes to find on Google. You never even bothered to see if it was true, did you? At least in the old days when you had to read a book there was a half way decent excuse for parroting this crap. But with the internet at your disposal, you're just willfully ignorant.
" Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. "
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 255 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is