A Better Way To Deal The Problem off Climate Change?

MK001 wrote:
.....
The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.

MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.

Tim the plumber wrote:

MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.

When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?

MK001 wrote:
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.

IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 has no magical thermal superpowers and cannot affect weather. One would have to ask why you consider it a problem in the first place. For reasons of faith, perhaps?

If you're like Surface Detail and simply want a new tax, just to drain money out of the economy and to fuel government bloat, then you don't need any pretense. Just propose your tax. You can call it the "Government Appetite Tax" or "GAT." Just slap that tax on everything and keep increasing it periodically until the economy is dead. Simple.


.

Surface Detail wrote:

MK001 wrote:
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.

Well, that's not what you've been suggesting so far. Amines don't break down CO2 into C and O; they just absorb it.

Also, as Tim the Plumber mentioned, this would make no sense from an energetic point of view. It would require more energy to decompose the CO2 into C and O than would be obtained by combining C and O in the first place. Where's that energy going to come from?

MK001 wrote:I said at the beggining I am not convinced either way if it affects climate or not and to be honest I don't care.

MK001 wrote:Once again the thrust of my question is why spend money, as we are doing now, to reduce emissions when we could spend that money to recondition the atmosphere and use the by products for a more useful purpose.

MK001 wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

MK001 wrote:
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.

Well, that's not what you've been suggesting so far. Amines don't break down CO2 into C and O; they just absorb it.

Also, as Tim the Plumber mentioned, this would make no sense from an energetic point of view. It would require more energy to decompose the CO2 into C and O than would be obtained by combining C and O in the first place. Where's that energy going to come from?

You are correct the first element of CO2 capture based on amines does not breakdown into constituent parts. A different method described in the MIT Technology Review August 19, 2015 looked at some very promising work on doing just that using compounds of Lithium.

Dont get bent out of shape over the energetic cost of doing something. If you applied that logic to any manufacturing process it would never be worth making anything. In this case making Carbon fibres that can be shaped and processed as required and Oxygen.

MK001 wrote:
Read the article then comment, I will be interested to see if it makes sense to you after that.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/

MK001 wrote:
You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way) ...

MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......

still learning wrote:

MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......

Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/

still learning wrote:

MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......

Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.

When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?

Nobody's suggesting separating the CO2 into C and O. The suggestions generally involve capturing and permanently storing the CO2, typically in geological formations.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.

When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?

Nobody's suggesting separating the CO2 into C and O. The suggestions generally involve capturing and permanently storing the CO2, typically in geological formations.

He is.

Surface Detail wrote:This device takes some beating:



Efficient, solar-powered, maintenance free, gives useful side-products and even looks good.

Into the Night wrote:

MK001 wrote:
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way) ...

I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the structure of the argument you began this thread with. I don't know what you mean by 'you people'. I am only one person, last I counted.

IBdaMann wrote:

still learning wrote:

MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......

Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/

Do you realize that such a weapon would be able to kill life on earth?


.

Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover,


Human induced deforestation plays a significant role in causing rainforests to release carbon dioxide,[18] as do other factors, whether human-induced or natural, which result in tree death, such as burning and drought.[19] Some climate models operating with interactive vegetation predict a large loss of Amazonian rainforest around 2050 due to drought, forest dieback and the subsequent release more carbon dioxide.

MK001 wrote:
But as it seems the bulk of the worlds politicians are getting on-board the CO2 gravy train and already making people pay for that, taxes, research and cap and trade ponsy schemes etc; it would seem that money could be made in solving the symptom. Money would then be saved long term because we would have solved the perceived problem and we could burn all the oil and coal we want until we have to move into the nuclear age.

What do you think?

MK001 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

MK001 wrote:
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way) ...

I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the structure of the argument you began this thread with. I don't know what you mean by 'you people'. I am only one person, last I counted.

I apologise for using the phrase "you people". I am not looking an argument, the purpose of my original statement was to float my hypothosis that it would be better to solve the problem (perceived problem) of elvated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; by removing it directly, by some method, rather than destroying the hydrocarbon economy, in a huge push to reduce emissions.

Some have suggested the tree as the preferred method of CO2 extraction; but as I'm sure you all know, that is only removing the CO2 for the life of the tree and it converts back when the tree dies or is burnt.

If CO2 is not a factor in climate change, I am sure it is not the sole factor, and in my mind not even the prime factor (I think solar output is) then we will not have to worry about CO2 emmissions. But as it seems the bulk of the worlds politicians are getting on-board the CO2 gravy train and already making people pay for that, taxes, research and cap and trade ponsy schemes etc; it would seem that money could be made in solving the symptom. Money would then be saved long term because we would have solved the perceived problem and we could burn all the oil and coal we want until we have to move into the nuclear age.

What do you think?

MK001 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

still learning wrote:

MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......

Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/

Do you realize that such a weapon would be able to kill life on earth?


.

Are you really this stupid or do you just play stupid on this site to get reaction? What is your real view of the climate debate? it seems like you don't think there should be a debate at all so why bother posting?

I'm just interested!

MK001 wrote:
I see, you really are that stupid and still not one cohesive thought provided. I'll answer you questions though
CO2 i'm not sure if it is a problem or not but there is more of it now than there was 300 years ago.
Yes I went to school - I have a degree in chemical engineering and served in the miliatry for 20 years.
Bandwidth usage seems to be your problem not mine.
I think thats all the actual questions posed, oh I almost forgot the logic 101 bit:
you can turn the machine off when you get to the desired CO2 level whatever that is, or is the concept of an on /off switch a bit tough for you.

Jakob wrote:
­



@MK001


Maybe a good place to begin with such a project could be to save more rainforest..?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest

Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover,


Human induced deforestation plays a significant role in causing rainforests to release carbon dioxide,[18] as do other factors, whether human-induced or natural, which result in tree death, such as burning and drought.[19] Some climate models operating with interactive vegetation predict a large loss of Amazonian rainforest around 2050 due to drought, forest dieback and the subsequent release more carbon dioxide.

­

Into the Night wrote:

MK001 wrote:
I see, you really are that stupid and still not one cohesive thought provided. I'll answer you questions though
CO2 i'm not sure if it is a problem or not but there is more of it now than there was 300 years ago.
Yes I went to school - I have a degree in chemical engineering and served in the miliatry for 20 years.
Bandwidth usage seems to be your problem not mine.
I think thats all the actual questions posed, oh I almost forgot the logic 101 bit:
you can turn the machine off when you get to the desired CO2 level whatever that is, or is the concept of an on /off switch a bit tough for you.

Such a machine would necessarily have to be built by a powerful government, since it would be large enough to affect the planet. Who would have their finger on the switch? It's kind of like a nuclear bomb, but much more powerful. Who would decide that the reduction is 'enough', and on what grounds?

Into the Night wrote:
Most arguments to justify a mechanism by which carbon dioxide (or any other gas) has this magick quality centers around absorption from one direction only, radiation of energy in one direction only, energy traps built by this method, or the gas somehow acting as if it were an insulator.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Most arguments to justify a mechanism by which carbon dioxide (or any other gas) has this magick quality centers around absorption from one direction only, radiation of energy in one direction only, energy traps built by this method, or the gas somehow acting as if it were an insulator.

There's no magic involved, though I appreciate that it may look that way to those who struggle to understand the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect. The reason that greenhouse gases absorb the outgoing radiation rather than the incoming radiation is because most of the incoming radiation has shorter wavelengths that do not interact with these gases, while the outgoing radiation is primarily IR radiation, which as strongly absorbed. The overall effect of this is that greenhouse gases act as insulators.

There's a pretty straightforward explanation of the greenhouse effect here:

http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect