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.

 

This machine draws CO2 straight out of the atmosphere to help reduce climate change

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

There is no evidence that C02 is anything other than a weak greenhouse gas.
It's airborne fertilizer, but we're told to fear it, that it will be the end of our world unless we submit to the UNFCCC.

Balderdash...




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555


In addition to electrical energy the Climeworks process requires hot water at 100 °C and cooling water at -15 °C. Climeworks Plants are engineered for integration of customer utilities if available to optimize energy consumption. In the absence of available heating and cooling Climeworks offers pre-engineered optional solutions.


Climeworks


Future direct-air capture plants will cost up to $400 per metric ton of captured carbon dioxide to operate, Gebald said, with carbon sequestration adding an additional $10-$20 to that cost per ton.


Article information was taken from.


It would appear the energy requirements of running these things would be substantial in both heating and cooling. I'd suspect that currently it would mean producing more carbon for the energy to run these in most area's and I don't find anything explaining how that would counter the CO2 reduction to get a real number.

On a large scale they would require a great deal of energy from current power plants to both heat and cool the water and increase the demand on existing power plants.

Somehow I think the voluntary planting of many more trees in denuded areas of the world would do far more good, for far less money.

Maybe fifty years from now this would be affordable.

Sorry, having trouble getting this to post.


You are correct. Technology is already available for CO2 capture from power plants and this looks remarkably similar. Often, these schemes neglect to mention the downsides, such as the large amount of energy required to make it go. There is an additional problem, the elephant in the room, where to store all that CO2.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


There is an additional problem, the elephant in the room, where to store all that CO2.

Carbon dioxide is not like nuclear waste.

Light-driven reaction converts carbon dioxide into fuel

It's a simple triatomic molecule that exists as part of the ecological cycle of the planet. It is invisible, non-toxic, hypo-allergenic. It has no ill effects unless present in amounts over five times present levels. You might as well be scared of water.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The energy balance for capturing C02 from the air and converting it to fuel, I'd just love to see those numbers.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
If they really want to help the environment, then they donate one of these to each major Enviro Nazi Lunatic out there who drives an suv and flies to Europe each year to talk about pollution and the environment.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

What a waste of money. Co2 does not cause global warming. lol Maybe a radiation machine is more worthy.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yeah, probably not stellar. But the higher the carbon dioxide levels become, the more efficient removal (and thus conversion overall) will become. It's an economic-ecological-technical negative feedback loop that few seem to want to acknowledge.

I actually did some work on a similar idea a few years ago, using magnesium as the catalyst and highly ionic fluids to create/increase hydrocarbon chains. I never even got to the energy calcs, because the amount of air flow needed to produce 20 gallons of gasoline (primarily octane) per week, for my personal use only, was astronomical! That's why these things are mounted over high carbon dioxide sources such as incinerators.

The lack of carbon dioxide was the unresolvable issue. The lack of the source of all airborne evil...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

The atmosphere they lived in was also sevral times thicker.

Only the scientifically ignorant and the knowingly corrupt refuse to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Which are you?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Thick atmosphere theory is being challenged.

Earth’s ancient atmosphere was half as thick as it is today
ScienceMag

But in recent research, this expected thickness hasn’t been found: A 2012 study of fossilized raindrops, for example, found that Earth’s early atmosphere was as little as half as thick as it is today.

edit on 14-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I think we were always on a path to use air scrubbers to remove pollutants and regulate CO2 levels. It will probably still be a while until implementation, but still good to see.

Im on the fence as regards to the whole picture of climate fluctuation. I do think the issue has been politically hijacked regardless, and we should all take concern with environmental pollution. But that doesnt necessarily mean carbon taxes or the US taking the big hit make sense in any but the political arena. I would like to see more environmental concern though, just in smart ways.

Ahh air scrubbers. Coruscant, here we come (in 10 thousand years)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

C02 isn't a pollutant.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: randomthoughts12

In the animal kingdom sure but we will always be at the very top.
Maybe mankind will slowly become larger until we are 10 feet tall at the least.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I think these guys are overthinking it.
Couldn't we just grow more plants?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: scubagravy
Wow, we built a tree.

Stoked!!
Thanks for my first good belly-laugh of the day.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

WE don't even have to do that, nature takes care of that all on her own. C02 levels go up, so does biomass.
Global Greening is real, crop yields have increased all over the planet. Can someone show me a downside to having an increase of C02 in the atmosphere?

Nasa link

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

"Reduce climate change"

...major facepalm.


What does that even mean ???



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
LiveScience



Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.


I read somewhere many of Trump's beach home will be under water in ten or twenty years because of global warming. It's kind of ironic, don't you think!



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: pirhanna

C02 isn't a pollutant.


Yeah, pollution is good for you. It clears your lungs like cigarettes do.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Great. Put up a 1,000 of these machines and man actually will change and wreck the climate. Just let it be people, we'll all be fine! Just turn AlGore off.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: pirhanna

C02 isn't a pollutant.


Yeah, pollution is good for you. It clears your lungs like cigarettes do.


You are emitting CO2 every time you exhale. All those who want to do something about it should stop breathing and save the planet.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join