digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at dailymail.co.uk

Scientists Invent Machine to Suck CO2 & Fight Global Warming

dailymail.co.uk — Scientists say they have invented a machine that can suck carbon dioxide out of the air – potentially creating a vital weapon in the war against global warming. The blueprint for the CO2 'scrubber' raises the prospect of a generation of machines which would help reduce the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • msmaggie, on 06/01/2008, -32/+11Excellent article! Very interesting content and an exciting development if it can actually come to fruition
    • kingfoot, on 06/01/2008, -11/+16***** you.
    • lead2thehead, on 06/01/2008, -8/+2dugg down for being such a useless comment
    • 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.
      • shady8x, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1We must kill all cows and plant more plants.

        Global warming solved...
    • dmallymally, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2People are still buying this crap?
  • leszek, on 06/01/2008, -27/+15"The Lackner team says the captured carbon dioxide could then be pumped into greenhouses to boost plant growth."

    They don't get it. Once they made a machine to suck CO2 from the air what are they going with the CO2 captured ? Release it again in the atmosphere !
    The plants naturally takes CO2 from the air. If you give them CO2 pumped from these machines, it is CO2 which is not taken from the air directly by the plants. So this machine becomes completely useless.

    If you want this machine to really help to solve global warming, you have to find a way to bury the CO2 captured in the ground.
    • 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!
      • mokodo, on 06/01/2008, -8/+3and did you know that oxygen in its pure form is not good for humans, that's why we breathe a mix of gases, where NITROGEN corresponds to 70% of earth's atmosphere?
        • ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5I'm not sure what your point is, there will still be plenty of nitrogen in the atmosphere.
        • prophetpimp, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1are you a retard? only ozone is harmful for humans not oxygen. during space missions in the early 60's the compartment of the space craft was of pure oxygen, it only changed after the accident that killed 3 astronauts during a training session on ground.
        • MWeather, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1Ozone IS oxygen actually. The chemical formula is O.
        • ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2@MWeather: Let's look closer at prophetpimp's statement:
          "only ozone is harmful for humans, not oxygen"
          There are two ways I see to interpret this:
          1) Ozone is the only chemical substance harmful to humans, and oxygen is not.
          >>hmm, I think it's not that one.
          2) Ozone is the only form of oxygen harfmul to humans, the more common diatomic form of it is not.
          >>we may have a winner! I'm not enough of a chemist to know if ozone is the *only* form of oxygen harmful to humans, but that's the gist of the point and it's more or less true if you consider that oxygen in the atmosphere comes in basically only those two forms. (Am I incorrect?)

          (And I assume you mistakenly missed the 3 in your formula for ozone?)
      • oneoverzero, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1Oxygen in its pure form isn't bad for us either.

        Nitrogen gas is more or less inert in the human body.
        • kingfoot, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1you know what else are inert?





          the balls.
      • Modiga, on 06/01/2008, -1/+380% of the world's oxygen comes from the ocean. Most plants on land are pretty much oxygen-neutral, since firstly the oxygen they produce is used by the plant to respire and secondly any excess produced during the day is countered by the respiration that takes place during the night.
      • 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).
        • Terr01, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Because of rapidly diminishing returns. The only CO2 that trees will semi-permanently remove from the atmosphere is the carbon directly used in their own trunks, branches, etc.

          So to deal with more CO2, you need more space to plant trees.
      • 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.
        • JustinTX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3If you raise the amount of CO2 available to the plant it will grow faster and bigger, thus absorbing more carbon in a shorter time frame than the same plant growing outside.

          Indoor gardeners have been boosting their output with CO2 supplementation for years.

          The problem is, what do you do with it after it is part of the plant? I guess you can bury what you don't use.

          I think a far better application of these scrubbers would be to find a way to take it from the film directly into a material we can use in industry. Carbon-fiber building materials or carbon nano-tubes for building or electronics, that sort of thing.
        • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1It has been suggested that we bundle up some material such as straw and dump it in the ocean near river mouths. That way the carbon will eventually become buried by river sediment for a long time.
    • 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.
      • TopherT, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2There arn't enough greenhouses in the world to handle the kind of CO2 we're talking about here. I could understand a small distribution of this technology, but it would obviously be more expensive than natural gas, so would not likely be used. If you want to combat global warming, the only technology we need is a shovel, provide incentives for poor people to plant a whole ***** of trees. Problem solved.
        • flashingcurser, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#10
          http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200706 ...

          You would need about 1000-2000 trees to equal one of these devices. From what I found googling most full grown trees lock up 15-500 lbs CO2 per YEAR. Notice I used the words "full grown" A tonne per day would be very welcomed. How many poor people have room to plant 2000 trees? Don't get me wrong, I love trees and think people should plant them and take care of them as much as possible. As a note, there are other types of plants that use far more CO2 per weight biomass than trees. A combination of this and algae could be a great source of renewable energy.
        • MWeather, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"How many poor people have room to plant 2000 trees?"

          Most developing nations have huge areas suitable for planting trees. I know because they cut down the trees that were growing there.
        • flashingcurser, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"Most developing nations have huge areas suitable for planting trees."

          My point is that these areas aren't owned by the poor, especially in developing nations. In fact, very few poor in developing nations own any land.
        • MWeather, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Not owning the land didn't stop them from illegally cutting down the trees, why should it stop them from planting new ones?
    • KevyB, on 06/01/2008, -2/+0Add to this the fact, that those plants are most likely to undergo genetical modifications, to be better suited to a increased CO2 presence. Shh, brain usage is really fun! lol -.-'
    • stix213, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately in "reality" you need a means of paying for the machine. Unless you want to buy one for yourself, people who operate a CO2 sucker will want it to pay for itself..... So that means using the CO2 for something other than stuffing it away never to be seen again.
  • ordig, on 06/01/2008, -4/+167Isn't that what trees do?
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • 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, -4/+5Do you have a source to cite your claim that Volcanos are the #1 C02 polluter?
          I'm not agreeing or disagreeing - I just can't seem to find any numbers for or against your argument.

          Thanks
        • 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.
        • 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

        • cryan28, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3"Irregardless? That's not even a real word. You're affixing the negative prefix 'ir-' to 'regardless', but, as 'regardless' is already negative, it's a logical absurdity!"
        • vikingcoder, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, TaylorTAP is entirely wrong & crazyjake is ignoring one side of a natural cycle to support a preconceived notion.

          Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes. The most actively degassing volcano in the world, Mt. Etna in Italy, emits ~14 million tons CO2/year.

          Humanity emitted 28 billion tons of CO2 in 2005 from the burning of fossil fuels. That is more than all volcanic emissions during the entire 20th century.

          http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/ab ...
          http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
          (table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ...


          The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year.

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc


          Solar irradiance does directly track historical temperatures; however, the past 30 years have shown increasing temperatures with decreasing solar irradiance.

          http://skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-t ...
          (peer-reviewed, primary sourced papers referenced by the article)
          The sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 3 decades. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect.
      • xptoast, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3Did you know there are more trees now than there was before? Strange to think it but yea. More trees replanted because of people thinking oh no trees are going away. Now there is a ***** ton of them. Check this out...more people=more CO2. You going to start killing off people to reduce it? I like nature but some people go do dang far and it just agravates the piss out of me. You see what you just made me do? Now I have to go find a mop and clean up that piss and change my pants and fcking A man. Just go away super hippy.
        • brad3378, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1I'm not a tree hugger, but I'm skeptical of your claim.
          Are you suggesting that there are more trees now by sheer numbers or more trees now by mass?

          In other words, have we replaced a few really big trees by lots of saplings?
        • kelmaster1, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4Did you make that up? I can't fathom the stupidity in the statement you made, it's just so wrong. Deforestation has been going on for thousands of years and is the cause (among other factors) of many societal collapses. Australia, Iceland, Easter Island, Haiti, China, the Southwestern US are among the many countries that are testaments to deforestation; ie soil erosion, soil salinization, topsoil loss and the crop failures that result.

          Granted, Douglas Firs can recover quite well in clear cut environments as long as precipitation is not excessive or minimal. Just because we're planting trees in areas that have been logged before doesn't mean we're doing much. Tree farms are helping, but cannot account for the massive forests that used to exist before mankinds intervention.

          *****, I don't know why I'm wasting my time explaining this to a dumbass... I guess I'm bored..
        • xptoast, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1I didn't know it till someone showed me. If it's not true it's ok. I am human. It is just what I saw so don't bug me about it alright?
          Also...calling me a dumbass doesn't matter because I don't take heed to insults from dumbasses:)
        • GWBARNHOUSE, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1There are groups, other than Red China, who are trying to kill off humans to cut down on human consumption therefore human waste.
        • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I can think of ways to reduce our population besides killing people off. :) (WOW, I MUST BE SMART!)

          Available land: 1.8 hectares/person.
          Used land: 2.2 hectares/person.
          (IIRC. And I believe those numbers are from 2006.)
      • kelmaster1, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4You can thank deforestation and soil erosion humans have incurred over the past thousands of years.
        • GWBARNHOUSE, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1There has always been deforestation and erosion. Wood is combustible there forest fires. Before man was here to stop the fires millions of acres burned causing mega-ton erosion.

          do you drive an SUV?
        • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1You don't want erosion going faster than new soil is developed though.
          And not all trees disappear after a fire.

          Btw, I recommend the book "Collapse" by Diamond.
      • GWBARNHOUSE, on 06/01/2008, -5/+5How do you know there are not enough trees? Because some drugged out Hollywood has been says so? Could be the new "science" marvel machine will kill trees. Have you heard Al Goardhead talk about bipolar bears lately. There are today 3 times as many as 50 years ago. The polar ice is thicker this winter than it has ever been in recorded time. It is amazing how far Al Goardhead has come for someone having an IQ below 90.
        Al Goardhead's family has done more to destroy the planet than most people. The fountainhead of the Gore fortune is Occidental Petroleum who is guilty of raping the planet. Al has numerous palatial homes, SUVs, and private jet.
    • TJ11240, on 06/01/2008, -0/+28plankton does a better job of it
      • 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...
      • 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

    • wreckosaurus, on 06/01/2008, -2/+7Yes, but this device captures 1 TON of CO2 a day.
      • Kazumato, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4Well, we're going to have to build a lot of these machines then, because at the moment the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 3.000.000.000.000 tonnes.
      • djdole, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4Actually to be accurate, the device would capture 1.1023 tons of co2 per day.
        The 'ton' we commonly speak of is a 'short ton'.
        1 tonne (metric ton) = 2 204.6226 lbs
        1 short ton = 2000 lbs
    • 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
      • twinklyJesus, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Yeah, because everyone knows humans can do it SOOOO much better than Nature can, right?
    • xptoast, on 06/01/2008, -6/+7Here let me explain something. We don't need this thing because you know what? All of the CO2 that is released comes from somewhere. It has always been here or is converted from something else in which needs rebalanced. Oil...dead PLANTS AND ANIMALS..Guess what. That means we are composed of carbon and utilize oxygen while plants are mostly carbon structures that oh guess what...release oxygen. Nothing is wrong about this except people trying to screw with nature. Leave alone and be efficient and productive and not try to cut all the nature out of the world and we will be good to go. Don't compensate the man made crap with more man made crap. It is has always been here and guess what we are alive and thriving like the crazy humans we are. Stay organized just don't screw with nature.
      • sdcrym, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Nature also caused ice ages and mass extinctions. Your point is technically correct, but it's also natural for us to try to stave of the extinction of our own species.
        • xptoast, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1Ice age from the nature I spoke of? I thought you all thought the ice ages were from meteorites or something. Why does everyone not note that volcanoes blast more crap into the air than most humans could ever even imagine?
        • sdcrym, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2You're basically arguing that if natural fluctuations in the global climate were to cause another mass extinction that would wipe out all of the human race, we should do nothing to alter "nature's" course.

          "Nature" doesn't care whether humans live or die, but most of the people would rather avoid the decimation of the human populace.

          To directly address your first point: it is most likely true that all the carbon in oil and such was at one point part of the earth's ecosystem, but it's also true that at that point the earth's climate was not hospitable for humans. If all the buried carbon were returned to the biosphere, the climate and life on earth would no doubt reach a new equilibrium, but humans probably wouldn't be part of it.
      • 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 *****.
    • RobertL, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1Can't believe that nobody has mentioned "cryogenics". It's how industrial CO2 is produced and CO2 (bought in liquid form) is the largest variable expense one has to deal with if one is in the "Hot House" agricultural business.

      "Hot Houses" are greenhouses into which CO2 levels are maintained at much higher levels than normal atmospheric concentrations and this increases growth rate of the plants being produced. There are a huge number of "hot house" operations south of Vancouver B.C. growing tomatoes for the Japanese market.

      Cryogenics is simply an industrial process where air is brought to a very low temperature (hundreds of degrees below zero) all the various fractions (Oxygen, CO2, Nitrogen, etc.) tend to liquify at various temperatures. This allows the equipment to separate them in very pure form.


      I mean, we've been doing this stuff for a half a century or more. There are companies that compete against each other for customers. This is not cutting edge technology folks.
      • sdcrym, on 06/01/2008, -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.
    • scuzzmonkey69, on 06/01/2008, -5/+1just to say, that the net CO2 reduction of trees is actually 0, because when there is no light, they opperate in reverse.

      over the course of the year, when there is approx. 50% light and 50% dark, all the good they do during the light, is nullified by the "harm" they do over the day.

      seeing as this scrubber doesn't pump it all back out again at night, it is in fact better than trees! :p
      • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3The net result is that trees reduce CO2 though, seeing how they grow...
        • scuzzmonkey69, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1and then release it again when they die and decompose...
      • beabis, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1You must go to a public school with union teachers.
    • 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.
      • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah, they'll have to think of that. But if the scrubbers can make up for those emissions in their "lifetime" I guess they could be a good complement to trees... They could be kept on roofs or something, out of the way. :)
      • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1PS. Aaaaaaaaand of course the machines will do it very fast! :p
    • Weejay, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Yeah vegetals do that, you should get +150000 diggs for pointing how ludicrous the situation has gotten.
    • TheImaginator, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Yep, and algae.
      Rainforests are good too, but we cut them down to make a quick buck or to make soy for biofuel.
      Shame rainforests don't grow back and that the land exposed is washed away by tropical rainstorms which also wash all the crops away - but there you go.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • jgtg32a, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8Manipulating DNA is easier then modifying infrastructure and habits
        • 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.
      • MoofTheStoof, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Our intervention got us to a point where nature can't keep up, anymore. It's going to take further intervention by us to correct the problem. Don't worry, we're a pretty remarkable species to get into this pickle in the first place - we'll get it fixed, too.
    • 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.
      • publiclurker, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2no problem, if you need the CO2, just burn the plants. Of course the heat might stop the gorillas from freezing to death, but I'm sure we can work that out.
        • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Releasing species into a foreign environment is not a good idea. You can't really know if they'll become invasive and impossible to eradicate if you change your mind.
    • joeanon, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1mass genetic engineering should always be a last resort plan because in the long run it will change our ecosystem in ways we cannot predict.

      Algae uses three times the atmosphere CO2 levels... AND it's the highest energy density biofuel that we've found. We just have no idustry that adapt at mass producing it as we do corn or soy.

      All the solutions to the energy crisis and global warming are already known... they just aren't funded.

      The best motivation out there is the high oil prices.

      We should hope they stay high long enough to keep big investment rolling into renewable. In the long run the worst thing that can happen is oil become affordable again and kills the move to renewable.

      Price will ALWAYS be the foremost motivation. A person will not freeze to death or starve in hopes of reducing their carbon footprint.

      It's likely we have NO reaslitc idea how bad CO2 pollution is or how much buildup we can resonably have without climate disaster.

      In the world of reaity we will not setence billions of poor people to death out of fear of climate change, but that's likely what carbon taxes would ultimately do.

      You'll have people moving back to wood because it's impossible to regulate and then producing even more carbon.

      We should dump the idea of making energy more expensive as a solution and invest into algae fuel and diesel fuel cells, both of which are already working.

      Solar powered sterling engines may also have a lot of potential.

      Thin film solar has potential as well, but who knows the longevity of such a new and low cost product.

      Algae is the safe bet. The national institute of science did large scale studies in the 70s. We can feed it sewage and sunlight and it will produce diesel.

      Beyond that the long term plan is moving everything to electric.

      We'll have to wait for ultra capacitor batteries to really do that, but in the short term the next generation of lithium ion should have 5-10 times the capacity.

      The problem is the gap between HEY ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND KILLING THE EOCNOMY... and actually getting these project up and running.

      We have to face the reality that without MAJOR World War 2 like unified efforts to mass produce and distribute renewable solutions... we will live through an unfortunate peroid of high costs.



      On the other hand.. if we invest a couple hundred BILLION instead of a few million... the US would without a doubt become the global center of renewable technology.

      We could be the diesel center of the world.

      What we can't do, is force poor nations to upgrade to electric technology.

      This machine is a waste of time. You can bet it cannot have an impact on the world atmosphere and that the energy used to run it doesn't exist in renewable form.. and... if it did... we should be using that energy to power our homes instead of coal power plants.

      It's an interesting technology, but it has ZERO real world use because the power demand is very high.

      The one cool feature is the delivery method. The atmosphere does all the work for you when it comes to providing a steady stream of CO2.

      However, algae is far ... far more efficienct when you look at the power it takes to run.

      Even with todays technology, nature usually has the superior solution.
      Algae is the perfect example of this. It's a truly ancient technology that's been refined for billions of years or so. Mankind cannot compete with that with a mere 10,000 years of civilizastion and only a few hundred of the scientific method.

      That's also why genetic engineering is so dangerous. We are taking the most powerful machines on the planet, which we only partially understand, and tweaking them many times through trial and error.

      If thers is a better way to obliviously wipe out mankind.. I can't think of it.

      I personally don't buy into the idea that global warming has us on the edge of climate disaster.

      Earth's weather just isn't all that stable when you step back and look at it. We are affected by all kind of trends, even celestrial. Our climate is prone to shift and we have to accept that as an eventuality and prepare for it.





    • metric7, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Or plant more trees
  • Ruler4you, 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.
    • friendlyman, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3We will give it a free room, free food, free swimming pool, free HBO and Free Willy!
    • 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."
      • jasdf, on 06/01/2008, -2/+3Won't the plants just die at the end of the season and decay? This would release the C02 straight back into the atmosphere.
      • stilesja, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Or they can give to Jamie Oliver to suffocate more chicks.
    • blim8183, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3I attended a lecture recently by one of the scientists affiliated with this project. One of the proposed solutions is sending the carbon dioxide in containers deep into the oceans. Unfortunately, organizations like Greenpeace are preventing this solution from being tested. There are also theories that that the carbon could be deposited in certain parts of the earth where the chemical makeup of the soil/rocks would neutralize the carbon. I don't remember the details of where or what exactly happens, sorry.
      • Terr01, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"sending the carbon dioxide in containers deep into the oceans."

        I can imagine why Greenpeace wouldn't like this idea. At some point those containers are going to corrode or each crush depth. Then that CO2 will either be absorbed (as a lot already is) and acidify the water, or it'll bubble back out.
      • ratexla, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I wrote a bit about this in an essay a while back. They haven't found a perfect storing method yet. Leakage / ocean acidification are risks, except if we could incorporate CO2 into limestone, BUT those processes are (so far) too slow / energy-demanding to be feasible.
    • MoofTheStoof, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Carbon is a pretty useful material. I'm sure we'll find uses for it.
    • skidooer, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Fertilizer for corn so we can produce more ethanol to restore the CO2 back to where it was. There are already farmers who are pumping the exhaust from their tractors into the ground while planting to achieve that effect. A bit more advancement in technology and theoretically it could be scaled up to use the output from these devices.
    • rheaume, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2Feed it to Mrbabyman in pill form
  • RyeBrye, on 06/01/2008, -0/+87I call it... photosynthesis!
  • jr93087, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3There must be some technical information not provided in the article. I find it hard to believe that a team of physicists would overlook such an obvious problem as waste treatment.
    • ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Technical information skipped over by a short half-page article? No way!! :-p

      But I think they did address it in brief:
      "The Lackner team says the captured carbon dioxide could then be pumped into greenhouses to boost plant growth."
    • Stormwern, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1The greenhouse idea is not a terrible one. Could glass in a valley, up the co2 level to 100% and farm the hell out of it.
  • 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.
    • noahhoward, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Filters, nets, my work here is done.
    • silent7seven, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6The real environmental problem is excessive procreation.
  • ScottieMc, on 06/01/2008, -6/+18Suck! Suck! Suck!
    • sentinel106, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9dugg for (possible) Space Balls reference
      • 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.
      • jahurt, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4I read it as a possible Frank Zappa reference.
    • TobiasParker, on 06/01/2008, -0/+10There will be no escape for the princess this time.
  • namar777, on 06/01/2008, -13/+1I BET they're gamers!! lol
  • a1cd, on 06/01/2008, -1/+28I will wait for a better source then the Daily Mail
  • 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?
    • OrlyonokEaglet, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6Get rid of the sails...
    • usgovterrorists, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1You have to know how to bribe a terrorist politician if it's really going to work.
    • 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".
      • ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3How is the net effect of the CO2 scrubber nil?
        • 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/+2If plants can beneficially use more CO2 than would come to them by natural diffusion of gas, then the net effect is not nil. If the plants are in isolated environments which do not receive CO2 from the atmosphere as much as outdoor plants, then the net effect is not nil. Am I incorrect?
        • whatever01, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Another article on the same subject: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recyclec ... (thanks glinsvad) is much more in depth, with links to the original white paper. The prefered option is to use the captured CO2 as a feedstock for making gasoline, jet fuel, etc. Also, existing infrastructure, such as cooling towers, could be modified to act as scrubbers. So your nuke plant could not only generate electricity, but create gasoline.
          So, maybe the 'feel-good techno BS' actually has a point?
        • bluesatin, on 06/01/2008, -1/+0@ozydingo I'm pretty sure that works because the trees will use as much CO2 as they can get their hands on, or at least a lot, therefore it's restricting them.
      • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1One tree sequestrate about 730 kg carbon dioxide during its lifetime (~100 years). That means one of these machines working one year will remove 40 260 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere while one tree will remove 2 kg. One of these machines is equivalent to over twenty thousand trees in other words.

        And no, it is not a nil net effect.
    • th3heretic, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3I guess people on digg didn't catch the joke, oh well. I salute you sharky.
  • Brick86, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2I'm sure it won't get popular. I will see this on a shelf at the Sharper Image in 6-8 months.
    • Zoxive, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Did you read the article? It's the size of a shipping container. (~40 feet long)
  • lazerus9, on 06/01/2008, -9/+3Oh Yes! Really good idea! Now if they could only remove that terrible oxygen we could have a beautiful barren wasteland of a planet! Doesn't that sound great?
  • dn11, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6another solution: start growing vast algae plantations for use as biofuel and also as C02 syncs
  • Bowie, on 06/01/2008, -10/+14



    Yeah, I hear they're calling their invention "PLANTS".


    ***** idiots. CO2=Plant Food!
    • 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
      • whatever01, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Or continue on the path of developing gasoline from the sequestered CO2
      • KevyB, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Hell, NASA plans to develop plants that are genetically modified in order to be able to take on different climates and chemistry on alien planets. In order to colonise them.

        I mean, hell, one day mars may become as green as a god damn jungle, and the cold would
        be much much lower the plants, and the human installations would warm everything up.
      • Bummer12, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1You want to put it in to tanks?? Why don`t do you destroy it like plants and trees does. It is not hard to do.

        Hey if they decide to build this thing WE`LL got to play the taxes. And plants are not very expensive.

        Do I got a point?
  • TheMachine1, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2"It turns out that humid air can make these membranes 'exhale' the CO2 they have trapped – leaving them clean and ready to absorb another load."

    CO2 solubility in water may explain that. If the process is energy efficient then its real
    practical use would be growing algae.
  • saxreturns, on 06/01/2008, -5/+4Cretinous. Daily Fail, please stick to the anti-immigration and scaremongering, you're no good at the science.

    Actually forget that... just shut down the presses and kill yourselves. We'll all be better off!
    • gofalcons, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Gotta love the source whores. "This source commented on something that I didn't agree with 3 years ago, so obviously it can never be right about anything ever again!!!111"
  • ligyron, on 06/01/2008, -8/+5No one's done it yet? Alright.

    ***** THING SUCKS!
  • demogorgonx, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3What is this powered by, electricity? I wonder how much CO2 that's going to generate, and if it will negate some (or all) of the benefit.
    • oneoverzero, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1It doesn't have to be powered by fossil fuels.

      Also, there's a pretty high chance I'm mistaken, but the article read like it was just a filter, which usually don't require power.
    • amoro99, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah I'm sure the scientists forgot to consider that. Thanks!
  • 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.
    • ssjninja, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1the only way to advance as a race is to "fix" this problem to think we should just stop advancing is stupid. If we are smart enough to fix the problem while still advancing there's no reason not to try. this is ignoring the fact sooner or latter we are are going to run of space. ... too many ***** people
    • ArchangelZLT, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1We already manipulated the planet by filling it with tons of people. Why not try to manipulate it back?
      • dansvan, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1The point is to STOP manipulating.
        • ssjninja, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0we have already past the point of no return. we have to "fix it" or kill millions can't really just get rid of people
    • brad3378, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Why not cash in on the absurdity by investing money in the stock market like the rest of us? Propaganda equals opportunity.
  • jmichaelg, on 06/01/2008, -3/+2"Give me a tanker of iron and I'll give you an ice age"

    http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/talks/revelle/text.ht ...
  • banido, on 06/01/2008, -6/+9OM NOM NOM NOM
  • ljsmithx, on 06/01/2008, -6/+1What if we suck to much of it and then the trees have no CO2 to breath, and therefore no more oxygen to pump out?
  • dOOBiEx213, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3Umm... I thought this was already invented... I thought they were called plants... you know, the ones that GROW faster when there's more CO2?
    • ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1Because the various environmentalist campaigns to get people to plant more trees etc have really worked so well in the past...
  • usgovterrorists, on 06/01/2008, -13/+8Too bad there's no profit in planting a tree!

    The terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists!
    The terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest environmental terrorists!
    • whatever01, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Actually, there is monetary profit in planting trees.

      The problem is they don't convert CO2 to O2 fast enough, and they eventually give up all the carbon the sequester as CO2. So... no, there isn't much benefit to planting trees from a carbon sequestration perspective.
    • gofalcons, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Do you honestly expect people to take you seriously repeating that phrase like you're a member of a cult. There is some merit to some of the things you say, but you sound like a babbling, homeless alchoholic on the side of the road scaring children and yelling at everyone who walks by. No one is going to actually listen to the things you say until you change that.
      • usgovterrorists, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1You mean like how the terrorist United States Government kept repeating Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

        The terrorist United States Government could be contrued as a cult, and the most dangerous!

        The terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists!
        • gofalcons, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2You're either poisoning the well or you're just a dumbass who won't listen. All you do is turn people off when you keep repeating words almost like you're chanting. Give people reasons why you think that and don't put adjectives in front of words, let people draw their own conclusions, but just give them the facts or your theories. Let Fox News do the suggestive thinking for people.
    • twinklyJesus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Actually, that would be China.
  • adam2z, on 06/01/2008, -3/+5Oh awesome! now we can keep cutting down trees!
    I mean, it's perfectly logical to replace a free natural resource with an expensive man made one, right?
  • SirvenomItsac, on 06/01/2008, -2/+0human made plants?

    unless we throw the captured CO2 into space, we are still as before...
    • dood, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1They're talking about pumping the CO2 into greenhouses, where it can help plants grow.
    • whatever01, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Or converting it to gasoline. Or just a rock. If you have it in sufficiently high concentrations, you can do interesting things with it.
    • foofightrs777, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Or we bury it in the ground. Ya know, kinda like it was before we dug it all up.
  • rockrapdude, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Plant more trees. The only use for this would be the North and South Pole, where nothing grows to suck CO2.
    • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1One tree sequestrate about 730 kg carbon dioxide during its lifetime (~100 years). That means one of these machines working one year will remove 40 260 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere while one tree will remove 2 kg. One of these machines is equivalent to over twenty thousand trees in other words.

  • yourpalOZ, on 06/01/2008, -8/+6The Oceans do a fine job of of removing CO2. Best part is the warmer they get the more plankton they grow and they remove even more C02 and make more 02. Real problem is CO2 is not the reason temperatures are rising. RELAX its just that old fire ball Sun of ours fluctuating as it has done since time was recorded.Reaserch Solar cycles and learn whats really happening. Been some unusual years lately. Why does everyone think everything remains constant?
    Weather ch ages hourly, daily, weekly, yearly, throughout decades and eons.
    I guarantee weather will never remain constant. Stop believing TV and the decade of doom mentality.
    • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1Problem is that CO2 is acidic and that acidity will rise with the change you describe thus killing plankton.
    • crazyjake, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1actually, the oceans release most of the CO2 in the atmosphere. when they warm up, CO2 escapes, when they cool down, CO2 is absorbed.

      it's science
    • Kythas, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Unfortuately, your heretical ideas will get dugg down here. How can you even SUGGEST that the one object in our solar system which produces heat, and the heat it produces has been proven to fluctuate throughout history, could be the cause of global warming?

      Why, how do you explain the fact that the same percentage rise in temperatures seen on Earth has also been seen on Venus and Mars? Is obviously because we aren't satisfied with ruining our own planet - we have to export our global warming activities to other bodies of the solar system!
      • Nenb, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0Being closer to the sun would suggest that planet Mercury should be warmer than Venus when Venus in fact is a much, much warmer stellar body at mean 460 °C compared to the cool mean 350 °C of the closest planet to the sun. Therefore you are incorrect, the difference, in one word: Atmosphere.
  • Samuraikhx, on 06/01/2008, -12/+3Besides the fact that Global Warming isn't real - this will only hurt the "environment". CO2 is .0002 of the Greenhouse Gases.
    Water Vapor is 95%!!!!. You've all been lied to. CO2 regulates our temperature. We need it. And what controls CO2? THE SUN.
  • TedLW30101, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Okay, so how is it powered? Will it be used to scrub the CO2 that it is responsible for? What is the net effect of it's own carbon footprint?
    • ozydingo, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2I'm rather sure that is considered in its design. At least I hope it is.
    • st00f72, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Disappointing, the article makes no mention of this. Probably because they haven't even built the first prototype yet.
  • lew2048, on 06/01/2008, -9/+4
    Global warming, at least warming caused by human activities, is completely bogus.

    Read "The Deniers", a book written by an environmental activist, that discusses all of the research by very eminent people that contradicts the basic assumptions of the "CO2 causes global warming" story.
    • 4321234, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1And here I thought all this counterproductive drivel about global warming being a lie was just counterproductive drivel. I had no idea that it was in a book. OMG!
      • lew2048, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0Actually, it is hard scientific evidence by quite eminent researchers that has been discussed in a book.
    • monoa, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3That'll be 'The Deniers' by Lawrence Solomon?

      Lawrence Solomon: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." - http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=12d ...

      P.S. You better phone up every scientific body of national or international standing on the planet and let them know they've all got it wrong, because each and every one accepts and confirms human influence on recent climate change.
  • lead2thehead, on 06/01/2008, -2/+0I think this was an episode of Dr. Who.
  • BradMajors, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1CO2 can already be removed from the air at a cost of about $150 per ton. (Equivalent to about 4 cents/kWh for a coal plant). Since this new machine costs 100,000 pounds and it only removes one ton of CO2 per day it does not sound like it is much cheaper than existing methods.
  • cubicledrone, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1So scientists have invented trees?
    • GlassAgate, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1I guess. Of course, these devices are not
      alive. They won't be trying to use the CO2
      in the various processes.

      Now, what happens if it gets to the point
      where the plants and trees start to starve?
      If we reach such a point, will they revolt?
      Perhaps they will reduce their O2 output.
  • connieLingus, on 06/01/2008, -6/+1too bad the #1 greenhouse gas is cow farts aka methane...its 30 times more trapping then CO2.

    well maybe that can be their next project, and lord know the world need a fart-sucking machine.
    • HappyScrappy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Cow farts do not contribute to a buildup of greenhouse gasses. Because the methane that comes out of their asses is created from the plants they eat, and the plants removed CO2 from the air to create it. Over time, the methane created breaks down into CO2 and thus there is a complete cycle of carbon here, no buildup.

      The reason CO2 from burning fossil fuels is a problem is that the fossil fuels were created hundreds of thousands of years ago. By releasing that carbon, you put CO2 into the air that hasn't been there during recorded history.

      Also, I don't think methane is the #1 greenhouse gas. It's neither the most potent nor the most common. I think water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.
      • connieLingus, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1this is what i hate about digg...people know just enough to be dangerous...please read this...

        http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight ...

        "Due to its relatively short life time in the atmosphere (9-15 years) and its global warming potency — 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere — reducing methane emissions should be an effective means to reduce climate warming on a relatively short timescale."

        AND

        "The historical record, based on analysis of air bubbles trapped in ice sheets, indicates that methane is more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years"
        • HappyScrappy, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Just because removing methane would the carbon in the atmosphere in the short term doesn't mean it's part of the problem with global warming.

          Yes, putting bags in the asses of cows would remove carbon because then cows would be REMOVING carbon from the system by eating grass and not farting it out.

          But that doesn't mean cows are the cause of the problem. Cows are not adding to the carbon in the atmosphere, unlike burning fossil fuels.

          It's a complex issue and a complex system. It's not at all surprising that a person determined to twist it to their own meanings can do so.
    • ancientdinko, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0fart sucking machine?... well identifying the problem is the first course of action and scientists have already accomplished it
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbsCMhEOPbQ
  • kipmartin, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2hahaha...the Daily Mail 1, American readers, 0.

    i prefer The Onion.
  • Amadeus2490, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3I think that tax dollars should go towards setting these up in heavily populated areas, such as Manhattan and Los Angeles. However, the phrase "free as the air we breathe" would be instantly rendered useless in those areas.

    At the very least, factories which emit high amounts of CO2 and other pollutants should be required by law to have a few of these machines.
  • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/01/2008, -10/+6co2 is a vital, life-accelerating gas. reducing carbon dioxide emissions, (the same gas humans exhale and plants breathe), is a fraud, a hoax and a sham whose purpose is to tax the living hell out of every human being on the planet and to justify global depopulation and the creation of a global soviet-style command and control superstate. This is the tool of the eugenicists whose goal is a 90%+ reduction in global human population and dictatorial control.

    If you want to ban something, let's all get behind the movement to ban the deadly chemical dihydrogen monoxide.

    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

    DON"T LET THESE BASTARDS TAX OUR BREATH!

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=htt ...

  • libertymeister, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1I think the IDEA is great, though there may be issues in this particular implementation or its lack of full-cycle thinking/planning.

    Without arguing the root cause, it seems we should be able to agree that if industrialization and technology moderinity in general has brought us to this place where people are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, then we should not have a problem in using technology to try to mitigate and ameliorate said harm.

    If some of you want to piss and moan about it, and find fault in any proposed solutions, go right ahead. On the other hand, there are people trying to actually do something about it and repealing modernity and replacing it with just trees and algae isn't going to solve the problem, especially in a world with 6+ billion people on it and more everyday.

    What's your other choice -- start reducing population and work back toward a pure agricultural and/or nomadic/herding world only? No thanks.
    • JointVenture, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1No, Al GORE and the NEW WORLD government have brought us to this place where the knee jerk tell me what to do sheeple have bought into the NEW CHURCH of GREEN.

      Whats funny is the way it parallels the religious churches, even down to the selling of SIN waivers, IE. Carbon Credits.
    • joeanon, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Well, you're wrong there.

      Oil is nothing but solar power over millions of years.

      It's all about energy density per acre when you're talking biofuel.

      Algae has more than enough potential to meet the worlds oil demand AND most importantly provide it without end.

      Throw in a diesel fuel cell.. which we have... and poof. CO2 emissions are all but gone.

      Now the one bad aspect is the global economy. Once nations with large oil reserve realize oil is no longer highly necessary they will devalue it.

      The real trick is getting poor nations to mass adopt these technologies.

      However in the case of algae fuel, I'm confident you can produce it much MUCH cheaper than today's oil prices. That is most of the incentive. Beyond that.. STOP MAKING COMBUSTION ENGINES. They are inefficient, they pollute and they break much more often than electric.

      Many people cannot grasp how green slime can stop global warming.

      First off, algae uses 3 times the atmospheric CO2 level. SO, ideally you capture or pump CO2 from existing coal plants into the algae farms. This can cut power plant CO2 production in half or even down around 20% of what it is today.

      Even if the algae is ONLY used as a CO2 sponge it will be serving a great purpose and using very little energy to do it.

      So... what don't you understand about algae fuel which makes you think they replace 'modernity' rather than compliment it ?

      Algae is the most likely to make the tranistion smooth since it makes diesel which can fairly easily be used in todays existing transport and military. I'm not sure on algae jet fuel, but at the very least you can mix it with gas to get the octane level higher. There is also hydrogen for jet fuel.

      Thanks or not.. you will have no choice in how things go when it comes to population reduction.

      At some point humanity must hit a population cap, go beyond it and then decline.

      Have you ever heard of the little ice age. It was a peroid of climate shift only a few hundred years ago which lowered world food production.

      Of all things.. food production, not merely prices controls population.
      Things, which will certainly happen again, like the 1930's dust bowl will keep population dynamic, not ever rising.

      The average joe just can't bother to think on a large scale so it's all about here and now and IMMEDIATE returns and maximum comfort level.

      That's just not reality. Somtimes things get bad and people adapt and population declines.

      You should get used to that idea soon because if global warming is truly caused by CO2... it's not a process that will go away even if we were able to remove the CO2. The oceans a giant heat storage for the planet and once they warm up, they don't just cool right back down a year later. Add in all the wind patterns and such that keep the agricultural lands thriving and you shouldn't expect world population to blindly rise forever.

      We've merely been luck for the last 70 years. Another dust bowl is coming. NASA is predicting global droughts. Subsurface water levels are dropping, temps are going up.

      People will in fact return to wood and coal fuels... globally.

      It may be hard to understand that from the computer chair of your industrialed nation, but MOST of those 6 BILLION people you talk about are living in third world conditions.

      Disease, drought, war, famine are all still realities which we are not even remotely above.

      The real problem is that American and other similar cultures haven't seen bad times since the 30s, so they really have no grasp of how bad it can get... and how quickly things can go downhill.

      That's why rising gas and food prices scare American's so much, they thought they were far more insulated from these things than they truly are. It's not that we can't afford them so much, as we though we had more sway in the world market than to merely be at it's whim. Yet they global market devalued the dollar and the price of oil went up 50%.

      If that doens't show you the true position of 'modernity' then you are living in denial.

      Things like the dust bowl and spanish flu are doing to happen again... without a doubt and with higher popuation densities or even longer term conseuences, such as the case of global climate shift.

      People wll adapt, people will resort to minimalism..a second dark age is possible.

      You can bet the Roman thought like you did. That the modern world is impossible to roll back to more primative days, but when the bottom drops out that's exactly what happens.

      Just read up on the Great Depression and see how people really lived.
      Look at the pictures or video of tent cities in California.

      AND then imagine that you're on a little rock spinning around a giant fireball who's dimensions are beyond your minds grasp with trillions of other rocks and projectiles the size of states or continents flying around space and getting ever so closer to barreling down on earth.

      The world used to be one giant continent. Imagine what kind of disaster would arise from a meteor or comet with enough force to break apart Pangea. Or just imagine the meteor that took out the dinosaurs.

      We live in a window of prosperity and relative geological peace and that window will close eventually.

      It's all too likely that we cannot stop many of these events. Giant meteors or comets are death sentences to humanity. Radiations burst moving at the speed of light could blow the ozone layer off and cook the planet like a ant under a microscope.

      None of these events care about the level of human 'modernity'.

      It's foolish to think that modern humanity marches on no matter what.

      That's like saying.. oil can't run out or CO2 cannot change the earth's weather. Long term eventualities seem commonly out of grasp of the average person.

      In the short term however, we can end the energy crisis and global warming by moving to algae fuel, electric transport and renewable power plants. We don't even need algae.

      Wind power is currently cheaper than coal... so.. whats the real hold up.... MONEY.

      We've have the renewable energy technology, we have the nano anode lithium ion technology. That's all you need to kill the gas car.

      Do you have even a remote idea of how much cheaper electric is than gas ? You'd be driving for around 1/10 the price per mile on an electric car.

      Imagine the economic boost that would give to America if we were the first to COMMIT to mass change. Beyond reversing the global opinion we are the most wasteful nation in the world... we'd also be paying 1/10 as much for energy as our foreign compeitors with even more advances on the way.

      Solving global warming is really just a side benefit to lowering energy costs and super charging the economy.

      However high costs are the most direct route to motivating the nation. Money is the universal language regardless of political stance, religion or education level.

      The soltion to high costs are.. high costs. BUT, those unfortunate must live through high costs to enforce that transition.

      Coal is no longer the cheapest way to generate power. That's the official measurment to the end of fossil fuels. Wind is not going to increase in price, coal will. Renewable energy is here and ready for MAJOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING.

      We should not allow private industry to single handedly buy and control our power infrastructure. We should retain something like 30% of the national energy generation via government It's a simple matter of national security in a world of globalized corpoate powers.

      As much as GM has done for America, they are a global corporation and their ultimatley loyalty is profit. If they can make more money by screwing us over, they will. Keeping a large chunk of power heavily regulated or just government run entirely keeps prices stable and you don't have to peroidically investigate why energy prices are skyrocketing.

      Prvate industry means... we don't know how they run their company or their long term projections. In most cases corporations don't have to tell the whole story, just the few facts the government asks.

      This is why the medical system is also broken. Drug companies review their OWN drugs and then report the facts they chose to the FDA. The are not disclosing their industry even through it's vastly more of a public service than an optional private service.



  • HanSolo69, on 06/01/2008, -2/+7So..they invented plants?
  • pinkninja42, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1One can only hope the next utterly ridiculous solution contains the phrase giant robots. At least that way its funny to watch instead of just sad.
  • EricDrawback, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10what will plants breathe? this is ***** absurd
    • brad3378, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Plants don't grow very well in Arizona (where the inventor is from)
  • Gillos, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1Science, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  • LostinService, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Assuming this can be done and a link between CO2 levels and climate change is undeniably confirmed, wouldn't this machine constitute a weather/climate control machine? Theoretically this can be used as a weapon and isn't there a treaty banning weather manipulation weapons? (Can't confirm, I've only heard that from a couple of polisci majors).
  • Maddoktor2, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Ok, let me get this straight - they're talking about terraforming Earth, right? Wait...what???
  • jdepp, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2This proves: if you pay someone to research something stupid, they will do it, no matter how stupid the thing you're asking them to research is, or how smart the people involved might otherwise be.

  • Dr.Lehoux, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1I'm not familiar with the costs or efficiency of an operation like this, but maybe you could install a bunch of these things and sell carbon credits to cover the costs and maybe make a buck or two.
  • sandman979, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Great!! Another tax on it's way!! It's the air tax!! This is getting soooo ridiculous.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
  •  

    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.