Scientists suck carbon from the air and build with it

We will cause the next ice age.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

have the saudis build in the middle of the sahara? make it part of a greater green project works. they are filthy rich and it would only take 10% of their desert ,they seem to want nuclear power in the near future so plop a nuke plant next to it for power

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
hmmm...this tech is useless...it could potentially stifle carbon tax scheme.

We can't have that.

Absolutely!

If this tech has the ability ( if we all got behind it globally ) to render our CO2 to zero levels, this tech will come under attack by the thieves NO doubt.

If the money they receive/d from these taxes went fully into research and solutions we may not have been having these conversations.

Heck this new tech has been under attack on this thread already by us peasants, in the same way the climate debates go, separate, divide to keep squabbling so nothing stands other than TPTB wants.

Anyway I`ll be keeping an eye on this.

There's no mention on energy used for this process in comparison to how much carbon is scrubbed. I'd like to see the details. I was emailing a guy in France a few years back looking for funding a project to convert carbon to micro diamonds that fall from the sky. He gave up after proving the concept and realizing too much carbon was emitted to make a difference for the carbon turned to eye scraping diamonds falling around. Funky character.

Really, really cool technology.

But it does nothing for methane so we're doomed anyway.

Yeah, but scientists also just plain suck.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Keep in mind that humans had deforested much of the areas in which we live (for towns and farming) for centuries prior to the IR--does that ever get taken into consideration when discussing the perfect CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

Interesting that you mention this - it is topical and a good thing to consider.

In fact, just the other day...
Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World

A team comprised of geological and environmental science researchers from Stanford University has been studying the impact that early European exploration had on the New World and have found evidence that they say suggests the European cold period from 1500 to 1750, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, was due to the rapid decline in native human populations shortly after early explorers arrived.

Following up on their paper published in 2008, the team has now brought their findings before the Geological Society of America. The researchers say that the population decrease, which came about due to the introduction of previously unknown diseases, led to the rapid reforestation of the Americas. This led to a sudden increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being pulled from the air, which meant the atmosphere wasn’t able to hold as much heat, which led to colder air covering Europe.

So... man-made cooling happened once upon a time - with a bit of evidence:

To further bolster their argument, they say that core samples taken from the ice in Antarctica have air bubbles in them that show a reduction of carbon dioxide by 6 to 10 parts per million between 1525 and the early 1600s.

originally posted by: gps777
originally posted by: pteridine

It takes much more energy to reduce the carbon with this process than the energy generated in producing it.

I`ve heard this line of thought on solar panels before and I don`t believe it, people have had solar panels on their roofs for over 10 years here in Australia, I have 12 large 2.5kw panels on mine and have done for 6 years generating me free electricity and I`m supposed to believe that these panels created more CO2 in their manufacture than they would have already saved, let alone in their life time.

Solar power can also be used to create solar panels.

As with this new Tech, heck I`m sure these guys have thought about how much CO2 they generate to capture carbon.

The idea is that if you have another source of power that does not emit CO2, you are better off just putting that power on the grid rather than losing half of it [or more] in a complex process with questionable outcome.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Yeah, but scientists also just plain suck.

You must have a tattoo with that statement on it.

any bets this disappears soon!
too good to be true.

Man I had an idea five years ago for doing this exact same thing. I envisioned these filters on light poles next to major roads and filters on smoke stacks as well. All with replaceable cartridges. This makes me want to be become an engineer even more.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: tinymind

a reply to: Ericthedoubter



Just think of it this way;



When there is enough methan in te atmosphere, it may just ignite and this part of the polution problem will take care of itself.

When there's enough methane in the atmosphere to ignite, pollution, as well as the Animal Kingdom (I'm not sure about plants) will have long since disappeared from the Earth. As Cornelius Evazan once said (at the Mos Eisley Cantina) "You'll be dead!"

I should have known someone would find a flaw in this plan.

I wonder it the device which takes the carbon out of the carbon dioxide will have any luck also taking the carbon out of the methane.

After all there is also carbon in methane.

a reply to: Greven

Yeah, but I don't buy into the weight that AGW theories give to the effect that CO2 levels, either rising or falling, have on the warmth or chill of the atmosphere.

My point was that there is no real way to measure the appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere without human intervention because as far as we've had measurements (reliable or not), we've been removing trees throughout the world for our own purposes.

Scientists don't really know what an "optimum" level of CO2 in the atmosphere is or should be, and to use the measurements of the pre-IR era as the baseline is, IMO, misguided and arbitrary.