ok, you have me going from thread, to another thread thathas the actual link, then whenI click the actuallink in the second thread, it takes me toNewsScientist, THEN I have to register to even read it.

EDIT-
NM...
The link works now...
For some reason, it sent me to the "register with news scienist" page the first time, andhe second time, but then I refreshedit for the third time and now the article pops up..
I will let you know my opinion when I am done reading.
(still need to fix the thread situation though)

EDIT- OH I SEE WHAT YOU DID. You started TWO threads, why? So nobody else could hijack the other one?
You are runnin a monopoly on ATS! Ilove it.
Sorry, I will be back with my comments.

EDIT TO ADD-
This has some potential! Im no expert by any means in the science industry, but even a guy like me can see that this has WAY MORE positives then negatives. Actually theres only one negative that I see so far, this part....
" The energy provided by the sunlight transformed the carbon dioxide and water vapour into methane and related organic compounds, such as ethane and propane, at rates as high as 160 microlitres an hour per gram of nanotubes. This is 20 times higher than published results achieved using any previous method, but still too low to be immediately practical."
So it wont be efffective immediately from my understanding because they havent gotten it JUST right yet. There are smarter people than me working on it though; thank God. So it should only be a matter of time.

BEST PART IS....
"If the reaction is halted early the device produces a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas, which can be converted into diesel."

A fuel that swings both ways.

You are Right, the Left will LOVE this!

(Sorry, I had to be the first to say it)



[edit on 14-3-2010 by Common Good]

you know what, maybe one day it might be all thats needed if enough people have this kind of system and that all those systems can match the Co2 rates that are being added at the time.
there still are easier ways in getting fuel from other sources than just the 160 microlitres an hour that this system produces, how many hours would that be for a full tank of gas. too many.

any idea just how much energy is needed to produce platinum?
i can tell you know, it takes 6 months from mining to becmoing ingots for platinum, (saw it on discovert channel:lol, it takes vast amounts to refine the stuff to the grade needed for this, id guess the same purity as cat converters.
and, as it is a catalyst, doesnt that mean it will get 'used up' meaning, short term use only?
looks good on paper, but im willing to bet its of interest in a lab and not actually viable for mass market
S&F for the thread tho, i find all these things interesting

If I'm a trillionare and I buy [from someone - I'll get to that] $1,000,000,000,000 dollars in carbon credits right now, will that make the carbon dioxide levels lower today? OK how about tomorrow, or better yet in a year, or to be fair the next century?

No? But I spent a trillion dollars! Why didn't the carbon dioxide go down?
Who took my money? I want it back. This smells like a scam to me.
(Get it folks?)

What I want to know is, why is all this fraudulent stupidity focused on carbon DIOXIDE? A completely natural element. YOU ARE ALL PRODUCING IT BY BREATHING RIGHT NOW. All animals breathe it OUT. All plants breathe it IN. It's kind of a necessity of life, much like oxygen. Carbon MONOXIDE is the poison coming out of your tailpipe, not carbon DIOXIDE.

Why is everything so focused on carbon DIOXIDE instead of MONOXIDE? Can anyone explain this for me?