Comments for Five Ways to turn CO2 into CASH at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 28 out of 20 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:39:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-30378 :o How have you not thought of it yet!!!!!! there are a few options: 1. We could in the mars mission take CO2 there to heat it up so that it could support plants to make oxygen ultimately meaning we could LIVE on mars!!!! 2. Sattileites could use it to boost them into final orbit 3. We could abandon it in space 4. We have space stations in space solely turning CO2 into O2 You make think these ideas will not do much, but if we use them all as well as other ideas and everyone saving power, a few hundred coal mines switch to eco, And it would really help if more people got solar panels which not only support the house but means the coal mines may have to close if to many people have them and they share execcs power. Lots of people are already planning on buying a electric or a hybrid when they get rid of theres. The Dealers could do there part by saying return your old non-eco car to us and we'll give you a discount on a new eco one! - Annynomus Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:44:02 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-25913 Isn't Jones the same guy that used his cell phone on a plane? - West Lake Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:42:52 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-25220 If the heavy CO2 gas can stay in the lower atmosphere for a many years, maybe we should look to balance the levels of the other gasses. The origin of life is plant based. It supplied us with enough oxygen to evolve. Is it possible to generate an equilibrium for the seas to sequestrate a maintainable and sustainable acidic level with the correct balance of gases in the atmosphere which allow us life? Or is this playing God? - Ric Ashton Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:20:01 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-19420 what would u do with it once you u turn it into something. and how much cash could u get from that - steven Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:26:56 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-18690 Sunlight can be converted to electrical energy. Electrical energy can convert water to oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide can be reacted to produce water and carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide and hydrogen (syngas) can be reacted to produce paraffin wax and water. Some of the syngas can be used to provide energy for the Fischer-Tropsch reactor. Paraffin wax can be stored as a carbon sink. Just throw it down the same hole as the crude oil came from. This would remove a bunch of carbon dioxide, and put it in the form of a carbon sink. Each step is technologically feasible, but there's no money in it. You'd be taking a valuable product and putting it back in the earth, so while it's a cool idea on paper, it will never happen. - David Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:46:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-18153 I know that this is the biggest thing in talks right now and probably the first to be tried however I just don't like the idea of it. There's the whole what-if scenario. What if- there is an Earth Quake that causes the Co2 to release, what kind of devastation would that bring to the people of that area? Even if there are no earth quakes in that area, other natural disasters and Geological events can occur to cause this type of event to happen. I don't think we should pump it back underground until we absolutely know what kind of effect it may have. - Marian Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:00:15 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12624 Can any of the five options make the initial carbon emission being sequestered for the next hundreds or thousands of years? Even after the in-between product has been (economically) used? If not it’s only a short in between solution and will not answer the problem. It will just postpone it a little. As far as I understand none of the options stated can contribute. Anyone Who Can Prove Me Wrong Here? Please do so! - frisbee Fri, 02 May 2008 02:44:47 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12514 Natural weathering of Mg- and Ca-silicates by CO2 and water has always been nature's solution to keep the CO2 of the Earth's atmosphere within reasonable limits. Weathering takes place at the surface of rocks, so if we want to use the same process to capture more CO2, we must provide more rock surface. This can be done by crushing the rocks, and spreading the powder over land, preferably in tro;ical countries where the reaction goed faster. The best rocks are dunites, which contain a high proportion of the mineral olivine. These rocks are abundantly available in many countries on each continent. Trees? Nice idea, but when I see those forest fires, I always think "was that the tree that you bought to offset your CO2-debt?" - Olaf Schuiling Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:57:35 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12509 Feed it to Algae: In fact it's using the Sun power as the energy of this chemical reaction. It's the only one that sounds reasonable to me. Turn it into Plastic: I don't know how much CO2 could a folk contain. who can tell me? Thanks. Make Sodium Bicarbonate: are these sodium hydroxide free of energy consumption? Calcium Carbonate: In my knowledge, most of the Calcium on earth is already present in the form of Calcium Carbonate. Turn it into fuel: this will cost energy and if the energy is from coal power plants, it will produce more CO2 than it can reduced, because there will always be an efficiency less than 100%. - Stevegong Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:57:50 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12508 One of the best CO2 re-use options I have seen is the injection into subterannean oil / gas wells to help with the extraction of residual fuels that cannot be recovered using conventional pumping techniques. - Darrin Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:48:35 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12437 the said ideas are really encouraging , I do have a suggestion which could possibly also add to this list. How about using sprinklers in the air whcih would react with CO2 & possibly reduce CO2. How about desalinating the sea water ( this has a cost attached) and pumping across the arid lands across the globe . this would retake out the additional water from the sea ( sea level rising could be avioded/reduced). this also adds to the water level on the ground and ensures that these lands could be utilised for culitvation whcih would again reduce the CO2 plus address the food crisis. Dear learned professors/ scientists please share with me if this would work - Sridhar.Iyer Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:13:16 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12331 Jake3988, I meant "carbon dioxide is relatively inert" rather than "carbon is relatively inert"! :-) But yes, trees are the way to go, they've worked for centuries, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. - Alejandro Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:17:22 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12330 Check out what GreenShift is doing. GreenShift's CO2 Bioreactor reduces greenhouse gas emissions while creating an additional feedstock for renewable fuel production. Watch the video: http://www.greenshift.com/tech_desc.php?mode=3&media=true - Frebird Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:27:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12306 This is just a scheme for big coal to be able to hand down the carbon and not have to pay for the cost. Commentator Greg Hoke seems to be the only one who gets it. When taken from coal, CO2 is still FOSSIL carbon. We need to get away from that. CO2 has to be pulled out of the atmosphere and not out of the ground. Why is this not totally obvious ???? - TRaK Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:08:40 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12276 I like the idea. A lot of energy is focused on prevention, but simply taking CO2 out of the atmosphere may solve a lot of our problems while preserving our high quality of life. I agree with other posters that renewable energy should be our first priority. However, we are somewhat kidding ourselves if we think that this will solve our problems completely. All options need to be on the table to solve the global warming problem in the most economical and sustainable fashion. - Ken Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:49:26 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12272 How about we all start using green products! - Cris Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:51:31 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12266 Great post! Has anyone seen projections on how close these carbon sequestration techniques can get us to 350 ppm? Kent www.ecounit.com - Kent Ragen Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:02:58 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12252 Ahh, I forgot to address how this can generate cash. Black carbon (of an appropriate partical size) is an excellent soil ammendment. It weakly bonds with nutrients, preventing them from washing out with water but allowing crops to absorb them actively. Adding biochar can reduce the amount of fertilizer needed, reducing fertilizer runoff and farm costs. It could also improve water infiltration in clay soils, which would be very useful in flood control measures. Infiltration offsetting is already big money, and I anticipate the market will only increase with the emergence of more erratic weather patterns. - CMDC Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:48:21 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12251 Biochar is a modification of the tree option. Black carbon is in fact, fairly chemically inert. The resevoir time for biochar is on the order of thousands of years, as opposed to decades or possibly centuries for trees. Plus for biochar we can use faster growing crops to accumulate large amounts of immobile carbon quickly. Sources on the web are sadly lacking; I've learned about it primarily through research at my university. If there's any interest I'd be happy to provide more information. - CMDC Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:40:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1560#comment-12244 Polycarbonate leaks Bisphenol, a chemical that damages the endocrine system in humans (it's banned in Canada), PVC is the worst plastic on earth, and making more hydrocarbons creates the same fuels that create this whole mess,(octanol =gasoline=petrol). I thought that we we trying to eliminate fuels and go with renewables like wind, heat and sunlight. So we are left with baking soda and algae. - isaac Segura Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:41:07 +0100