Andy Lee Robinson
19th February 2007 - 04:14 AM
QUOTE (MDT+Feb 8 2007, 11:37 PM)
A much simpler approach is to scrub the CO2 with ocean water. The CO2 dissolves in water to form the low vapor pressure carbonic acid. The ocean water is basic, this converts the carbonic acid in carbonates and bicarbonates, which the sea critters use to make shells and coral.
Nature already does this. Rain is the best scrubber of CO2. The counter current flow toward the earth, is the basis of how CO2 scrubbers work in smoke stacks. The rain water flows into rivers and then into the ocean. The rain is cheap, renewable and keeps the air clean.
There are problems with this... acidic rain dissolves carbonates in the rocks. Also oil also produces sulphur dioxide and makes the rain even more acidic, though moves are being taken to try to scrub the sulphur from emissions. (There is another problem with this too in that the sulphate particles reflect more radiation from the sun, so the global warming effect has been suppressed somewhat - once we take the sulphur away, then the real situation emerges.)
The ocean has been absorbing the excess CO2 that we've been pumping out over the last couple of hundred years and its capacity to absorb more is diminishing. It is a system that has been in equilibrium for millennia, but that equilibrium can shift and is vulnerable to positive feedback as temperature rises.
So, as less CO2 is being absorbed more accumulates in the atmosphere, as observed over the last few decades, and accelerating.
As the CO2 concentration increases then so does the average temperature of the Earth, including the oceans. As a result, water's ability to hold dissolved gases decreases, so it becomes less efficient as a sink. Therefore there is a danger that the oceans will not be able to absorb any more CO2. If temperatures rise even further, perhaps the oceans could even release the CO2 back to the atmosphere.
Also, this is bad news for the critters that fix the dissolved CO2 and make carbonates. As sea water becomes more acidic the reaction becomes more difficult. You all know what happens when you add tartaric acid to bicarbonate of soda... Carbonates do not like acidity.
Of course, the variations in pH are tiny, but significant to the creatures that depend on a stable environment. Temperatures are much more significant, however.
We can cope with 60 degree or more temperature differences by sweating, adjusting thickness of clothes, using air conditioning and burning fuel, but creatures in the ocean are extremely dependent on temperatures. Their enzymes, life and genetic processes are finely tuned to operate at certain temperatures, and this range is narrow. They have to live in the range of temperatures that they have evolved to cope with, or die, and this can affect the whole food chain with big implications for our food supply.
We may not think of a 1C or 4C increase in temperature as such a big deal, but if our body core temperature changes by a couple of degrees we don't feel well at all. A 4C rise is a medical emergency and 6C rise almost certainly fatal.
Thus it seems appropriate to think of our planet "having a temperature", but how do we cure it? It isn't as easy as taking an aspirin or a cold bath, but it will hurt more in the future if too little is done now.
Andy.
glenby
27th February 2007 - 11:22 PM
up to the initial posts - why not heat the CO2 in a normal power station.
that way you are generating normal electricity (in a polluting way) and
offsetting it with O2 creation - the heat from producing electricity could also
be used in water purification so a 3 way tie in would possibly work.
if you really think this idea would work - solar power for heat (not electricity)
and break the CO2 down this way - parabola's and mirrors can do more
than heat salt water and light cigarettes.
If the idea first posited is workable - submit it to virgin boss - richard branson.
they are offering million dollar prizes if it would work.
finally - trials have been done on sea water (using iron I think) where
they seed an area and have proven that the sea will absorb up to 10 times
more CO2 than normal
Guest_Mike
24th April 2007 - 01:56 AM
Temperatures rose first via increased solar activity. Our global heat sink the oceans rose in temp, then the oceans ability to retain dissolved co2 was diminished. look at the ice core records, the fact is, temps rise first, then co2 levels! I am afraid to say that the scientific community has been brain washed over the last few decades. in that "man" is evil and all we do is bad for the environment. hence it is always our fault. what ever happened to the scientific method? it seems to me that all of this is the political correct way to be, sad really.
Kev D
5th August 2007 - 08:45 AM
I have a solution for existing CO2 in the atmosphere. using an array of approx 10,000 hot air balloons you lift up 10,000 controlled Hydrogen Air Fuel Bombs Millitary Grade to the altitude and location where majority of the CO2 is gathering which if I am correct is over the Poles. each controlled air bomb has to be half a mile appart. creating a grid 50 miles by 50 miles or 2500 square miles. then when they reach there destination you detonate them. I think you would have to do this once every two weeks for about 20 Years to solve the problem of existing CO2 but we would also have to deal with problem of continual release of CO2 in energy production.
Joe Blow
8th June 2009 - 11:04 PM
What happened to this guy's website? I guess he gave up trying to raise (scam) people out of money? 175,000 is what he needed. Mortgage pay off perhaps? Create blue prints and a working prototype on your own, then people might invest you genius. Pie in the sky thinking.
JNK
14th December 2009 - 07:59 PM

Ther are a few guys in the colorado desert who have invented a solar oven which can be used to heat air to over 3000 deg celsius. Among other things they plan to use it to break down CO2 releasing just oxygen and separating the carbon. I have seen the Oven in action on TV and they demonstarted by using the sun to burn a hole into a 4 Inch Plate.
So it sounds as if this has already been done.
lexlibris1299
15th December 2009 - 05:04 AM
So many scientist were mocked by their idea but they never stopped until they got it and today everybody is using it. I really don't know how you would separate the elements in CO2 like the process of photosynthesis.. or etc. But I do know that it's possible. Just make sure you will not add up to the problems of global warning. It's like curing the bone cancer but killing the other organs, so that's useless. I mean, solving the global warming and recycling the CO2 into a reusable oxygen again and at the same time the process of recycling the CO2 can be also be used to produce energy. You know what I mean, hitting 3 birds with one throw of rock.
light in the tunnel
15th December 2009 - 05:31 AM
So basically you want to convert CO2 into fuel synthetically using heat energy? Where do you want to get the heat, geothermal? You want to build CO2 separation plants on top of the worlds' volcanoes? Then ship the extracted carbon fuel in oil-tanker ships?
harsh abrol
19th January 2010 - 07:54 AM
co2 can be absorb in sea water and power can be generated on the bank of sea by using wind energy
sea water can be used as medium to absorb co2 and by products sod carbonate and hcl can be produced.
this process cam minimize our mining of calcium and coal.and save electricity and oil too
and reduce emission by the industries making sod carbonate and hydrochloric acid
harsh abrol
00919815747403
i have several idea but i like to have my identity not money is my preference.
Guest
2nd May 2011 - 06:30 PM
Why not pump the carbon from a hot air balloon into volcano lava and filter it like a catalytic converter ?
JMC187
20th June 2011 - 05:15 PM
QUOTE
co2 can be absorb in sea water
The absorbing of CO2 into the oceans is becoming a growing concern. It produces carbonic acid which is damaging to the oceanic ecosystems.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| co2 can be absorb in sea water |
The absorbing of CO2 into the oceans is becoming a growing concern. It produces carbonic acid which is damaging to the oceanic ecosystems.
Why not pump the carbon from a hot air balloon into volcano lava and filter it like a catalytic converter ?
By carbon I assume you mean carbon dioxide.
Well, because.....
QUOTE
Inside a catalytic converter, a catalyst stimulates a chemical reaction in which noxious byproducts of combustion carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen are converted to less-toxic or inert substances such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
I'm doubtful that a volcano could act as a converter, co2 is a product of a converter, and volcanoes are known to spew out noxious substances.
Capracus
31st October 2011 - 06:04 AM
Capracus
1st November 2011 - 06:48 AM
Edit.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.