What to do with CO2

[Zachstar]

Now just about everyone knows what carbon dioxide is, But just in case you have been chillin with the cave men for the past few centuries here is a wiki for you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Now currently as seen with the changing climate patterns and loss of ice we have a problem with just how much of the stuff is in the atmosphere that should be sitting hundreds of feet underground where it is relatively safe.

Despite the greenwashing and the treehugging and all that. The vast majority of CO2 control comes from the ocean. The vast amounts of Algae in the ocean is what mostly gives us oxygen to take in. Therefore when thinking about a solution lets keep the romantic ideas out and focus on the goal shall we? A ton of new trees is great for wildlife. But not putting a dent in the CO2 problem.


Now in my view because of the urgency of the situation.. Passive means of removal simply will not work. The industry of earth is dependent on belching out the waste CO2 of a highly potent fuel FULL of carbon per gallon or barrel. So a passive solution would require many many times the investment and many times the land area and resource use as active means. Therefore I believe we must go active.

Active of course means that part of the intake and conversion is grid energy. Or if it grows many times in efficiency and cost effectiveness maybe solar and wind and tidal. So don't jump to the conclusion that I want to build a huge coal monster to remove CO2.

In my view I believe the best raw power source which is the main part of the solution equation is EMC2 fusion running on PB11 fuel http://www.emc2fusion.org/ as at this point the reactors will mean that world CO2 belching is dropping rapidly therefore makes it possible to reverse with the right tools.

Now the question is. What method do we want to use to remove the C02?

Please discuss your thoughts and ideas!

[Zachstar]

1. My view #1 Turn it into chalk like materials...

A company working on this is http://www.carbonsciences.com/ tho there are others.

Video here: http://builder-news.com.com/1606-2-6231130.html


I think this is a pretty good idea because instead of having to throw the product down a mineshaft you have the CO2 stored in a way that aint that easy to extract. Therefore safe to ship to places it is needed. And when you have a major process going to convert many tons of CO2. Well you get a TON TON TON! of Chalk! What you don't use for building material and sports chalk and all that I think it is a good idea to ship it to 3rd world countries. Pay a truck driver there to drive it to a storage area and invite the whole village to come and grab all the chalk they want. The ability to be used all over the place means it ought to improve living conditions by a small amount atleast.

[eppur_se_muova]

27. To make chalk from CO2, you need a calcium base, like lime ...

... and you make lime by heating calcium carbonate (limestone or chalk) to generate CO2:

CaCO3 + heat ---> CaO + CO2

Then when the CO2 is absorbed:

CaO + CO2 --> CaCO3 + heat

which is exactly the reverse of the first eq'n, so you have just gone in a circle.

To extract CO2 as carbonate of any kind you need a source of base (metal oxide or hydroxide) -- and all the viable sources of this are ones that make either CO2 or Cl2, and we don't have a way to dispose of the excess Cl2. There are millions of chemists in this world, and probably most of them have tried to solve this problem, and they will all end up stuck with the same conclusion. Carbonates will not work, because in the billions of years of Earth's existence, almost all the insoluble carbonates that can possibly form have formed, and there's no (sufficient ) source of base left to make more. In fact, Earth's crust continues to vent CO2 from deep sources.

We need more than acid-base chemistry here. So far, the best hope is what's worked in the past, and that's photosynthesis of biomass.

[Zachstar]

30. I tend to agree. Tho the company claims it has a solution so I wanted to post it. In case somthing

I do think storing the CO2 in Algae lipids and throwing the resulting mass down old mines is a better solution by far. But you need a good energy input to be efficient because you are racing against the clock. The sun alone is not enough.

[eppur_se_muova]

31. I would say carbonize it first -- strip out the hydrogen for fuel.

Then when there's little but carbon left, interr it.

That way you're recovering half the energy.

Problem is, I don't know an *efficient* means of doing that. Pyrolysis should be partly effective, but is always a messy process.

Actually, I have been thinking seriously about ways to accomplish this. There would be lots of ways to do it if limitless energy were available. The problem now is that we need to find energy alternatives to stop CO2 dumping *and* find enough energy to interr some carbon on top of that.

I agree with the idea that it's best to start now, but it's a tough nut. All the simple solutions (~equivalent to the unworkable ones) have already been aired. It seems likely that whatever works will be the result of some fairly sophisticated thinking and experimentation.

[Zachstar]

33. If one has a fusion reactor powering it one can easily make hydrogen.

Any ways of recovering anything from the algae without getting a load of carbon with it is going to complicated and expensive.

The goal needs to be production and dumping as quickly and cheaply as possible so atleast each and every state can run one.

Granted even running full time its very unlikely they will remove enough to get it back to safe levels but they will turn it back somewhat and make up for the remaining industrial processes.

Sure in the future they will make transporter technology then you can say "Beam the carbon up Scotty!"

However, Until then we need to do something.

[keep_it_real]

2. Hemp trees suck up a lot of CO2 and put oxygen in the air

[Zachstar]

3. There isn't a shortage of Oxygen its the CO2 we are worried about.

Hey I love hemp as an industrial crop too but keep in mind we are not talking carbon neutral we are talking carbon negative.

I believe Hemp has enough positive qualities to be enacted into lawful production without talking about CO2 removal. We will need a serious replacement for cotton that can handle less fertile soils and more hostile environments.

Now it could work I guess if you grew it to throw the resulting product down a mineshaft. But algae which I'll discuss next works MUCH better in this regard and does not require the same amounts of stuff hemp needs in this regard.

[Howzit]

20. CO2 sequestration would lock up the oxygen along with the carbon

Won't that reduce breathable oxygen available in the air?

If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion, how come no-one is pointing to a corresponding drop in oxygen levels? Or is the bulk of "new" CO2 being released from the ocean as the water warms?

I ask because I am concerned that the solution may be worse than the problem.

[Zachstar]

23. Atleast for Algae, This is not storing CO2 its storing the carbon in CO2.

The lipids contain long carbon chains.

So what you get is net breathable air.

[eppur_se_muova]

28. No no no ... O2 is a glut on the market, so to speak.

Earth's atmosphere is 20%, or 200,000 ppm O2. CO2 is about 350 ppm. If every single molecule of CO2 were converted to O2, the conc'n of O2 would jump to 200,350 ppm -- not enough to make any kind of difference. Keep in mind that's the most extreme case, too.

[SergeyDovlatov]

15. Trees won't help. Unless we can bury the logs or throw them in space

Sure. When a tree grows it does sequester carbon from the atmosphere and uses it as a building block and releases oxygen. However, at some point tree dies off and decays releasing carbon back.

[Howzit]

21. Build a house out of the tree, extending its "life" n/t

[Zachstar]

25. Takes decades.

We need results SOON

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Nothing.

No, I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but that nothing will be done.

Progress on soft energy will limp along anemically for a few years until real problems start to occur. Then, faced with a choice between coal, nuclear, or a world-wide super-depression, we will turn to coal.

Not clean coal, not coal with carbon sequestration, not high-temperature "purox" combustion with next-generation gas and ash scrubbing, but the cheapest, most slapdash kind of combustion technology that can be made to work as fast as possible.

Nuclear energy will still be passionately opposed due to culture-war issues.

Soft energy will, by that time, be at 10% or less (probably less) but on a schedule to achieve market dominance by 2050 -- for real this time. Honest.

Fusion may even be made to work. As much as I'd like it to be ready to go tomorrow, there will still be a ten-year development cycle, and no matter what is said on the Internet, there will be a "spontaneous grassroots People's movement" mounted to stop it.

We will find that we really can't achieve 40% improvements in efficiency in the course of five years.

We will have nothing in reserve.

And we will be out of time.

--p!

[Zachstar]

9. Even tho solar and wind may work I am putting all bets on fusion.

Im looking at construction timelines and costs and frankly Solar and wind just arent cutting it even with thin film.

I want research to continue on them but I just can't imagine a future without fusion.

Because of super high oil prices and china growth we are already facing years of depression.

[slackmaster]

5. Use it to make wine spritzers

:toast:

[Zachstar]

6. My view #2 Algae and Old Mines

Ok just so you can get learned on what Algae is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-green_algae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel


Now before I start let me state that I am making a difference here between growing algae for Biofuel which is carbon neutral and throwing the algae and its lipids away which is carbon negative.

The method to do this in my view needs to be a modification of http://www.valcent.net/s/Home.asp Bioreactor system (Note they do not use Genetically Modified Algae) for a more active production.

The algae grown needs to be one that grows the fastest and stores the most carbon atoms in its lipids. Remember the goal is not to produce fuel.

The reactor rooms need to be modified to not let the sun in and instead use sheets of multispectrial LEDs in between each reactor to provide the light needed at the rate the algae is more efficient at.

The algae water needs to not go to a refinery but simple devices to remove the water for reuse without damaging the cells that contain the lipids.

Then the damp algae is loaded into trucks to ship to the nearest .gov purchased or private operation useless mine. Long depleted mines are dangerous and useless. Finally a perfect use has been found.

To prevent the algae to finding its way to the market in some form (Where the CO2 can be let loose again. The damp algae is taken to the back of the mine and dumped. and dumped, and dumped, until many tons of algae (And Co2) fill the mine where the opening can be blown safely storing all that CO2

[cloudythescribbler]

18. I am confused here -- if CO2 is used to grow algae as fuel, couldn't that at least stave off ...

the problem until the planet gets to a point of not producing so much CO2. If CO2 is used to help produce a carbon-neutral fuel instead of a carbon-generating one, that is at least an interim step forward (I DO understand that we need to get to net NEGATIVE Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to LOWER the overall atmospheric levels -- and as soon as possible).

It would seem that developing huge algae farms could be a way to buy time as methods are developed to either use algae as fuel AND consume CO2 or to find something else that would consume the CO2 and/or the carbon dioxide -rich algae. (My main concern here is that rather than just burying the CO2, at least "temporarily", this process sounds like a double-method that is expensive and would encounter political resistance -- its job-creating capacity aside).

The alternative in post #7 in this thread, or some variant of it, sounds very enticing, even though I am also skeptical of playing around with genes in ways we REALLY don't understand, even if we THINK that we do. Interestingly, maybe there's some way to use CO2 that combines it w/other elements to generate methanol fuel AND some kind of Oxygen element and then sequestering any CO2 produced from these fuel cycles. (I know it's out of the blue, but I'm NOT a scientist at all).

Here's a c/c of the other post, which sounded VERY interesting:

Genome pioneer Craig Venter wants to make a bacterium that will eat CO2 and produce fuel.
Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:33 PM ET Jun 7, 2008

No one would accuse Craig Venter of harboring humble ambitions. In 2000 he decoded the human genome faster than anyone else—and he did it more cheaply than a well-funded government team. More recently he's set a new goal for himself: to replace the petrochemical industry. In a Maryland lab, he's manipulating chromosomes in the hopes of creating an energy bug—a bacterium that will ingest CO2, sunlight and water, and spew out liquid fuel that can be pumped into American SUVs. NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke to Venter about the brave new world of biologically based fuels. Excerpts:

Zakaria: How are you going to create the fuel of the future?
Venter: We think multiple fuels of the future are going to come out of biology, by manipulating the genetic code of simple organisms to convert things like sugar or sunlight or carbon dioxide into fuels that people are very familiar with, like diesel fuel and gasoline.

What would a "refinery" that uses microorganisms to create fuel look like?
They're just large, bacteria-processing fermenters. People are familiar with this: that's how wine and beer are made. We're using similar processes, but ones that are designed to produce much more complex molecules than ethanol, and therefore fuels that will be much higher in energy content, and will work well with the existing energy infrastructure.

Would you have the same problem we have with corn ethanol, which is that you use large amounts of cropland?
We consider ethanol the first-generation fuel. We have second- and third-generation fuels that are much more advanced fuels, but they also come from plant sugars. We (are working on) a fourth-generation fuel, where the starting material is not sugar, but carbon dioxide.

People want to bury that CO2 in the ground or pump it into oil wells or coal beds. We want to use that CO2 and the carbon in it to make new fuels.

How close are you to creating an organism that can produce fuels in this way?
We think the first fuels are maybe one to two years away. We're definitely thinking in terms of years, not decades.

more
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140066/output/print

[Zachstar]

24. There is no way in hell a country is going to devote all its algae farms to storing CO2.

At most it will be one per country or state depending on old mine space. This is because of space limitations and the fact that carbon credits arent worth THAT much.


And I do not agree with genetically modified bugs and that is carbon neutral anyway.

[dweller]

7. A Bug to Save the Planet

Genome pioneer Craig Venter wants to make a bacterium that will eat CO2 and produce fuel.
Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:33 PM ET Jun 7, 2008

No one would accuse Craig Venter of harboring humble ambitions. In 2000 he decoded the human genome faster than anyone else—and he did it more cheaply than a well-funded government team. More recently he's set a new goal for himself: to replace the petrochemical industry. In a Maryland lab, he's manipulating chromosomes in the hopes of creating an energy bug—a bacterium that will ingest CO2, sunlight and water, and spew out liquid fuel that can be pumped into American SUVs. NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke to Venter about the brave new world of biologically based fuels. Excerpts:

Zakaria: How are you going to create the fuel of the future?
Venter: We think multiple fuels of the future are going to come out of biology, by manipulating the genetic code of simple organisms to convert things like sugar or sunlight or carbon dioxide into fuels that people are very familiar with, like diesel fuel and gasoline.

What would a "refinery" that uses microorganisms to create fuel look like?
They're just large, bacteria-processing fermenters. People are familiar with this: that's how wine and beer are made. We're using similar processes, but ones that are designed to produce much more complex molecules than ethanol, and therefore fuels that will be much higher in energy content, and will work well with the existing energy infrastructure.

Would you have the same problem we have with corn ethanol, which is that you use large amounts of cropland?
We consider ethanol the first-generation fuel. We have second- and third-generation fuels that are much more advanced fuels, but they also come from plant sugars. We (are working on) a fourth-generation fuel, where the starting material is not sugar, but carbon dioxide.

People want to bury that CO2 in the ground or pump it into oil wells or coal beds. We want to use that CO2 and the carbon in it to make new fuels.

How close are you to creating an organism that can produce fuels in this way?
We think the first fuels are maybe one to two years away. We're definitely thinking in terms of years, not decades.

more
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140066/output/print

dp

[Zachstar]

8. Yikes: Modified life and Carbon Neutral

We are looking at carbon negative.

And I am strongly opposed to the modification of DNA like that.

[tinrobot]

10. What about seeding the oceans with iron?

If it comes down to desperate measures, using iron to foster plankton growth could be an option.

Planktos was attempting to do an experiment last year, but was shut down by environmentalists.

[Zachstar]

11. If the situation got desperate maybe, But the unknowns are many.

I'd like to keep it as a last resort. And besides there is lots of chalk to be made and plenty of old mines to stuff with algae.

[tinrobot]

13. True, but we need to define "desperate"

Right now, we're at 385ppm, which is above the "safe upper limit" of 350ppm advocated by James Hansen. You could argue the current situation is desperate. Others would argue it's not.

At what point does it become a desperate situation? 400ppm? 450ppm? When the ice caps melt?

I think it's an important question.

[Zachstar]

14. If we cant arrest the growth at 400 I would call that desperate.

[eppur_se_muova]

29. Sure, the ocean is just a big test tube, what could go wrong?

There's good reason for the moratorium.

http://planktonforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6788

[Nihil]

32. Why not just sink the oil & gas tankers?

That way the iron gets into the ocean (as you want) but it achieves
a much better reduction in CO2 generation by removing the means of
transporting fossil fuels around the world (as I want).

> Planktos was attempting to do an experiment last year, but
> was shut down by environmentalists.

And thank f*ck for that!

In the scale of dumb pseudo-scientific suicide plans, that probably
rates as the highest after "shoot radioactive waste into space" ...
:eyes:

If you are concerned about "when we get to desperate measures", maybe
the approach should be to shut down all industrial plants that produce
CO2? It will suck for sure but there is absolutely no point in going
for dumb-ass gambles like "iron seeding" when the answer is to stop
producing the shit.
:shrug:

[Zachstar]

34. Because the area they will pollute will be disasterous?

Don't forget the oil they use to power the boilers for the transatlantic or transpacific run.

[Nihil]

36. Hey, you said "desperate"?!

OK, I was largely being flippant in response to the "let's pollute the
oceans with iron filings" posts. I would much rather the tankers were
simply kept in dock (rather than sunk amidst the pollution you noted)
but, being cynical about the willpower of mankind, I can't see it happening.

The real solution is as I noted earlier, shut down the polluters (rather
than keep refueling them and looking for somewhere to dump the output)
but I'm not hopeful about that either.

:shrug:

[madokie]

12. I'm not really sure that fusion is something I want to hitch my wagon too as it seems to be

a long time away. We need solutions to this co2 problem today. just saying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

For the generation of electrical power by fusion, see Fusion power. For military applications of fusion, see Teller-Ulam design.
In physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple atomic particles join together to form a heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy. Iron and nickel nuclei have the largest binding energies per nucleon of all nuclei. The fusion of two nuclei lighter than iron generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy; vice-versa for the reverse process, nuclear fission.

Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in stars. Artificial fusion in human enterprises has also been achieved, although not yet completely controlled. Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments of Ernest Rutherford done a few years earlier, fusion of light nuclei (hydrogen isotopes) was first observed by Mark Oliphant in 1932, and the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were subsequently worked out by Hans Bethe throughout the remainder of that decade. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s, as part of the Manhattan Project, but was not successful until 1952. Research into controlled fusion for civilian purposes began in the 1950s, and continues to this day.

------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Fusion power refers to power generated by nuclear fusion reactions. In this kind of reaction, two light atomic nuclei fuse together to form a heavier nucleus and in doing so, release energy. In a more general sense, the term can also refer to the production of net usable power from a fusion source, similar to the usage of the term "steam power." Most design studies for fusion power plants involve using the fusion reactions to create heat, which is then used to operate a steam turbine, similar to most coal-fired power stations as well as fission-driven nuclear power stations.

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus . In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER.

[Zachstar]

16. Keep in mind there is more than one way of doing fusion.

Phase 1 is almost complete.

http://www.emc2fusion.org/

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1136887.aspx

[madokie]

17. but wouldn't you say that it is still a long ways out in producing any power

electrical power fed into our national grid that is. Everything I've read, and I'll admit I don't spend a lot of time reading about fusion, but its all led me to think it is still way into our future before it will be a viable source of energy.

[Zachstar]

22. If you are going with ITER it will be 2030 with the BEST of luck and likely alot longer.

This is NOT ITER. This is a project based on decades of research leading to fast progress. Right now fusion has been recorded but for those demanding peer review they are building WB-7

Afterwards, Its about about production of a 100MW reactor. Not some BS midterm way or political scams. Within 5-10 years we will be seeing it feeding power to the grid.

[kristopher]

19. I disagree with your premise

"Now in my view because of the urgency of the situation.. Passive means of removal simply will not work. The industry of earth is dependent on belching out the waste CO2 of a highly potent fuel FULL of carbon per gallon or barrel. So a passive solution would require many many times the investment and many times the land area and resource use as active means. Therefore I believe we must go active."


An active system of CO2 removal and sequestration is going to require an infrastructure at least equivalent to the infrastructure that extracted it and released it into the atmosphere in the first place. Rather than build the complex system you are proposing, it is better to switch to renewables as quickly as possible. Since either infrastructure investment is huge, it makes sense to choose the option with the most long term benefit.

I also dispute your characterization of solar and wind. The efficiency level is adequate to the task; and cost effectiveness is a direct function of the amount of infrastucture devoted to building the components of the systems. Improvements in the price are no more complicated to achieve than was lowering the price of HD flat panel tvs - all it requires is a guaranteed demand. A guaranteed demand in bringing forth a new energy infrastructure is the result of government policies designed to ensure industry that coal (and fossil fuels in general) are history.

80% renewables by 2050 is absolutely possible with a government dedicated to making it happen. Although you haven't mentioned it, electric vehicles for the personal transportation sector are an important first step and will result in large reductions of CO2 and NOX very quickly.

I would do one thing for coal. Once it has been phased out of the grid, I would allow its use for one purpose only - the active capture and sequestration of greenhouse gases. They created the problem to make a profit; if they want to continue to make a profit, it should ONLY be allowed under strict guidelines as part of the solution.

[Zachstar]

26. Another possibility. Crash multiple markets with the Solvay process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_process

Now it is a joke of course but the use of this process could mean a good amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. And of course Soda Ash Baking Soda and all that are all very widely used.

[poopfuel]

35. a good piece with lots of links

http://biopact.com/2008/06/carbon-negative-bioenergy-making.html