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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


Capturing CO2 is a well known industrial process. Power plants capture CO2 and sell it for secondary oil recovery. Capturing it from the atmosphere poses other problems that they don't want to mention, such as other acid gases reacting with the sorbent and the loss of sorbent over time. Further, reducing the CO2 into something other than CO2 takes more energy than was originally released, a losing proposition, so captured CO2 must be sequestered somewhere. This is the problem; where do you put it so it doesn't just leak back into the atmosphere?




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell
So when are scientists gonna invent a machine to regulate the power output from our sun ? they need to stop it from it's 11 yr cycles and more.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: network dude

AGW? Like the fuse rating system?

Sorry. Spent most of the day reading about dimensions and math. Sarcasm battery must be low. Could also be a blown fuse!!



must have been an .5 amp slo-blo.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Actually we are just about ready to make artificial trees's that draw Co2 from the air.

www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
In the Etrian Odyssey series on Nintendo DS and 3DS, there were 7 giant artificial trees, called Yggdrasil trees, that were built around the world to absorb pollution.

etrian.wikia.com...

Life imitates art?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

I have a question no one asked how much energy does it use?? Is it going to make things worse do to the increased demand on power plants?? Logic tells me the same thing could be accomplished by planting trees without the energy cost.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

They are using waste heat from "waste utilization" plant.

The CO2 collectors are "1,000 times more efficient" (OP's link) than a same size tree and capture more CO2 than a tree (the article say 50 kilograms for a tree while they are pulling 2,460 kg per day pending weather with 18 collectors. Over the lifetime of a tree they will have pulled tons per year).

They also say the plan on doing both (planting trees and ambient air capture). It is not an either/or condition.

They are pumping the captures CO2 over to a green house growing cucumbers and tomatoes. That is their first customer.

 


This showed up today. Another use of their CO2 should they get bored of making pickles grow larger.

ScienceDaily: Plastic made from sugar and carbon dioxide.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I would expect and believe we will prevail for sure. It was a fun random thought though. My brain saw the pattern of alligators being around back then and now. Roaches and lizards peeking out of a hole with ash falling in the background was the image I got.




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
I think these guys are overthinking it.
Couldn't we just grow more plants?


I am pretty sure they are finding out plants do not create oxygen the way they previously thought. Also the rate to plant and grow must outweigh the destruction and use which is another hiccup. I could be wrong but I did read a good article on the mix up and at the least different plants vary tremendously in how much carbon and oxygen intake and output.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

If you're suggesting storing carbon dioxide somewhere... forget it. Not even remotely feasible. The only solution is to convert it to something useful. Plants do that using only solar energy... so we can't figure out a way?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomthoughts12

originally posted by: skunkape23
I think these guys are overthinking it.
Couldn't we just grow more plants?


I am pretty sure they are finding out plants do not create oxygen the way they previously thought. Also the rate to plant and grow must outweigh the destruction and use which is another hiccup. I could be wrong but I did read a good article on the mix up and at the least different plants vary tremendously in how much carbon and oxygen intake and output.


6CO2 + 6H2O +++sunlight----> C6H12O6 + 6O2 is quite straightforward. What indicates to you that 'they' have the chemical reaction for photosynthesis wrong?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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!
Don't believe everything you read. Sea level rate of rise has not changed for 160 years.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
title should read.

Machine designed to choke plant life to death unleashed on the world!



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

From a article I read. It mainly said they are still confused on a few things. It was mainly about some plants barely making the exchange and other more so. I will see if I can find it. Like I said I could be wrong. Happy for someone to correct me.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Does the Paris Accord have any "restrictions" on this device ?

This could be a big interference with the "Agenda".



If they give this to China. They'll finance it right away just like the Smog tower.

www.chinadialogue.net...

1. Now we just need radiation removal tower close to those fking nuclear power plants. Too much Fukushima means instant death.

2. Then we need better chemical waste plants than can totally convert chemicals back the way they were because we are creating too much junk chemicals all over the world poisoning our water.
edit on 14-6-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23

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

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


your welcome skunkape....



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I'm going to start farting into balloons.
Saving the planet and all.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: scubagravy

originally posted by: skunkape23

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

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


your welcome skunkape....
You're. Gather your # soldier.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Sorry, was a phone reply, not my forte.

You're a # soldier.

WTH




posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pteridine

If you're suggesting storing carbon dioxide somewhere... forget it. Not even remotely feasible. The only solution is to convert it to something useful. Plants do that using only solar energy... so we can't figure out a way?

TheRedneck


If you're suggesting converting CO2 to something, forget it. There isn't enough "other" to react it with or enough money to do it. The most efficient thing is to stop burning carbonaceous fuels. That won't happen, so the only other option is to store it. Deep ocean injection is far too dangerous to world weather, so the only places safe enough to store it that might not leak are called deep brine aquifers; unusable for consumption and more than a mile down. These aren't underground lakes but rather wet sands and they could hold a great deal of CO2 from concentrated sources, like power plants. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere has too many problems so capturing it before it gets there makes more sense. Technically, this can be done. Laws would have to change to permit it. Why? Because compressing CO2 to inject it converts it to a supercritical fluid at anything above 30.5*C and fluid injection is subject to RCRA laws. Other than that, one cannot readily determine a boundary for migration in the aquifer so injecting things on plot "A" might have them end up under plot "B" whose owner can sue the injector for contaminating his unusable brine. The lawyers are salivating over this prospect.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join