It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists discover a way to capture and use CO2 from the atmosphere

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

As rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to threaten drastic climate change, some scientists are scouring for ways to scrub the key offender, carbon dioxide (CO2), right out of the air. Now, a team of chemists led by Stuart Licht at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., thinks it has discovered a method that could possibly pay for itself by making something potentially useful out of the CO2 pulled from the air. Today in Nano Letters, the group presents a process that turns atmospheric CO2 into carbon nanofibers similar to valuable materials used in industries such as aerospace, construction, and electronics.


Science

I think this is a great idea! If more technology like this comes along, it is a positive solution to Climate Change that doesn't involve shutting down factories and putting people out of work. This technology sucks the carbon dioxide out of the air and then uses it to create carbon nanofibers that are used in many different industries.

This turns the carbon dioxide in the air into a resource instead of a burden. If enough new technology comes out like this, we could potentially reverse climate change while creating jobs and boosting the economy.




posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Yeah,
it is called planting a tree.
I learned this years ago,
and therefore I did the scientific thing.
I planted hundreds of trees.

I tried my best to plant as many
as I could to make up for the ones
the son's of bitches cut down and
pulped into junk mail.

In fact, I still plant a tree to this day
whenever I am able.


Flag to you, even though I disagree with your Nano.
I'm a firm believer that a few shovel born
blisters on ones hands never did
anyone real harm to their souls.
edit on 19-8-2015 by Wildmanimal because: add content



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

There are more forces involved in climate change than humans.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal



we need the reverse of ..



more plants and trees...


Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone


less man made parking lots...



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

I will continue to work on that.
Thanks for the sonic.

Joni's voice is a gift.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

This technique will probably never scale up to the point where they can remove a definitive amount of carbon from the atmosphere, but what I love about it is just the clever approach they're taking.

Removing CO2 from the air is very expensive, but so is making carbon nanotubes. I like how they've basically ported one cost into the other. That's the kind of outside the box thinking we're going to need to solve the problem. Very cool S & F



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal

You are right! We already had the technology in the form of trees. One of my friends has a tree farm.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I love it!

Seems like a direct response to the perceived threat and presents little or no side effects.

Such a system could be controlled in a way that any geo-engineering solution mightn't be as easy to back-peddle from.

Now what about methane?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
They should build floating trees,converting that c02 into oxygen. .

Update" I just read that it's heavier than air so planting more trees should do a better job..

edit on 0b38America/ChicagoThu, 20 Aug 2015 03:58:38 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoThu, 20 Aug 2015 03:58:38 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: darkbake

Yeah,
it is called planting a tree.
I learned this years ago,
and therefore I did the scientific thing.
I planted hundreds of trees.

I tried my best to plant as many
as I could to make up for the ones
the son's of bitches cut down and
pulped into junk mail.

In fact, I still plant a tree to this day
whenever I am able.


Flag to you, even though I disagree with your Nano.
I'm a firm believer that a few shovel born
blisters on ones hands never did
anyone real harm to their souls.


Unfortunately, ATS will only allow me to give you one star



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

This turns the carbon dioxide in the air into a resource instead of a burden. If enough new technology comes out like this, we could potentially reverse climate change while creating jobs and boosting the economy.


I assume you are referring to Kshe, the bloke from Iran.

I brought the kit to take the CO2 out the air but there is no movement at the ranch on the second part of the technology to turn it into electricity.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Trees take CO2 and make OXYGEN with it and release OXYGEN into the atmosphere. It's part of a natural cycle. Why don't we just do away with fossil fuel? I am all for that, but I don't think the super-rich oil companies would agree with me. So until we do away with fossil fuels.... climate change is just a lot of hot air.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal

Planting a tree will not lower the CO2. Once you burn the tree, all co2 comes back in the atmosphere.
In Norway is a a real co2 reduction process developed.

It is developed by real smart people from university.
It's process is in use for many years now, so nothing new.

Once the co2 is extracted from the atmosphere, the co2 is put in a container in the shape of cylinder.
Then send (sunk) to e deep place at the bottom of the ocean, so the pressure prevents tho co2 to become released again in the atmosphere.

A lot of money goes around in co2 emissions, and country's who produce to much co2 can by co2 production-rights from other country's that are staying well under their limit.

So there is a trade in co2 going on and Norway leads the way.

If your country produces to much co2, they can by rights from those country's who are staying well below the limit of the co2 they may release in the atmosphere.

It's money and trade in CO2 rights, nothing new.

Norway is the best, meaning they make the most of money.

Due to the pressure from the water in the ocean on very deep places, the co2 that is send in the cylinders to those deep waters, will never again be released in the atmosphere.

The process is cheap, so country's can use fossil burning-fuels , capture the released co2, put it in cylinder-like containers and send them to the bottom of deep places on the ocean-floor.
The pressure of the water, makes sure, the co2 can't escape into the environment anymore.

So those co2 rights is big business for Norway.
Norway leads the trade.

At least they where number one a few years ago in making money of the co2 emissions-rights-trade.
I do not follow the development , but haven't heard if an other country has taken over the leading role in co2 trade from Norway.

This co2 capturing technique is around for many years now.
I think it's around for about 15 years now, maybe a little bit longer.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Wasta

Yes, the tree will produce oxygen for decades
or even centuries.
That is , of course, until you render it back into
carbon in a matter of your "convenient hours".

Do not confuse endpoint residual with current potential.

S A A V Y ?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I have planted by hand over 2,000 Trees.
I still continue on a random rate to add to that number.

I hope it helps somehow , long after I am gone.

Thanks for your reply.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal

Did you know that a good portion of the North American continent was under miles of ice during the younger dryas?

I guess the enviornment bounces back faster than we think...



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bigal7997

No tensions,
that is all I really need.

Thank you for that.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Bouncing back is a matter of speculation.
Kind of like,
'Closeness only counts with Grenades and Atom Bombs.




top topics



 
6

log in

join