QUOTE (Article+)
Natural gas that is transported in pipelines can only contain 2 percent carbon dioxide, yet often comes out of the ground with higher levels of the gas, requiring this separation step.
This membrane has enormous potential to transform natural gas processing plants
I've seen articles elsewhere stating e.g. Indonesian natural gas typically comes out of the ground with a 50% CO2 co-product. How often is this co-produced CO2 which is simply discarded at the wellheads, counted when people declare N Gas fueled electrical generation to be "more environmentally friendly" than other systems of generation.
It's time to get busy producing electricity and space heating from solar-thermal. Time to disregard the big corporations / investors, just get together and DO it.
I doubt that most of the life forms on this planet would consider CO2 to be environmentally unfriendly.
Ridiculous. No relevance.
You now whenever i read stuff like that i sort of get transported to my youth and Jules Verne. It could be one of his books :) How we saved the world by creating those mountains of plastic that we then, in the end ingeniously transported into the Earth? Naae. I think Jules would have chosen the sun more likely :)
I haven't done any calculating but it would be interesting to know how much of this plastic would be needed for say, like a ten percent reduction of Co2 :) yearly, that is. And the work it would generate and the transportation that would be needed ::))
I haven't done any calculating but it would be interesting to know how much of this plastic would be needed for say, like a ten percent reduction of Co2 :) yearly, that is. And the work it would generate and the transportation that would be needed ::))
QUOTE (lengould+Oct 11 2007, 07:38 PM)
Time to disregard the big corporations / investors, just get together and DO it.
I'm sorry if I come across as a bit of an alarmist, but it's going to take monumental changes in world social structure, politics, economics, etc. for us to seriously curb our pollution and gas emissions. Maybe our best bet is to have a "regression" back towards our less harmful ways, give up our computers (and most techs, for that matter), and become a hunter/gatherer species again
. I realize how scoffable that is, and admittedly it will never work due to the major population increase since mankind lived that type of lifestyle.
Still, unless some miracle invention comes along, we're stuck plowing through pollutants and environmentally damaging lifestyles. Of course, it's always possible the technology exists and was deliberately repressed through political means. Politics IS money IS control of energy sources. Maybe that seems a bit radical and illogical to some, but to completely disregard the possibility of it, or skepticism of government in general would completely defeat one purpose of being alive. If we aren't contantly trying to improve things on a global scale anyways, aren't we wasting our time?
"If the world don't like us, she'll shake us just like we were a cold"
- Isaac Brock
I'm sorry if I come across as a bit of an alarmist, but it's going to take monumental changes in world social structure, politics, economics, etc. for us to seriously curb our pollution and gas emissions. Maybe our best bet is to have a "regression" back towards our less harmful ways, give up our computers (and most techs, for that matter), and become a hunter/gatherer species again
. I realize how scoffable that is, and admittedly it will never work due to the major population increase since mankind lived that type of lifestyle.Still, unless some miracle invention comes along, we're stuck plowing through pollutants and environmentally damaging lifestyles. Of course, it's always possible the technology exists and was deliberately repressed through political means. Politics IS money IS control of energy sources. Maybe that seems a bit radical and illogical to some, but to completely disregard the possibility of it, or skepticism of government in general would completely defeat one purpose of being alive. If we aren't contantly trying to improve things on a global scale anyways, aren't we wasting our time?
"If the world don't like us, she'll shake us just like we were a cold"
- Isaac Brock
yeah, i think it will come 'naturally' too :) But it's going to be a painful process. And i'm not worried about our high tech. That will survive as Internet will and a lot of other stuff. I'm more worried about ourself being forced to stare inequality in the eyes. In some case that has led to shameful consequences for both nations and humanity. We either share or we divide, and that choice will become clearer and closer.
But heck, we'll survive, as a spices that is, anyway. And we have short memory's too :)
But heck, we'll survive, as a spices that is, anyway. And we have short memory's too :)
The biggest problem with this topic is getting the politics out of the way of common sense and science. Without putting the egos and hate speech to the side, there is no discussion, no consensus, and no solutions to anything.
Let's ask:
1) Is the Earth really warming?
2) If so, why?
3) What natural forces may be at work?
4) What human contributions may there be? (YES, emphasis on MAY be, not ARE)
5) Should we do anything; if so, what?
6) If there is a problem, will we make the problem worse by trying to "fix" it?
In the 1950s we had bug-eyed monsters created by atomic radiation. The 1960s was full of pollution (which by the way is mostly cleaned up). Then came the population bomb, the ozone hole, awful diseases created by genetically modified foods, and now, global warming. Different decades, different crises.
We haven't managed to destroy ourselves yet, so why is this crisis any different from the multitude of crises that preceded it? I'm not saying we should throw out all discussion on the topic, but I am sick of the hate speech that is vented on anyone who DARES to ask questions of the Global Warming Elites. Come on people,
THIS IS NOT A RELIGION!
If you want anyone to listen to what you have to say, STOP ATTACKING anyone who asks a question or who does not automatically accept every syllable that comes out of Al Gore's mouth. We have a right to free speech, AND THAT INCLUDES ASKING QUESTIONS.
Let's ask:
1) Is the Earth really warming?
2) If so, why?
3) What natural forces may be at work?
4) What human contributions may there be? (YES, emphasis on MAY be, not ARE)
5) Should we do anything; if so, what?
6) If there is a problem, will we make the problem worse by trying to "fix" it?
In the 1950s we had bug-eyed monsters created by atomic radiation. The 1960s was full of pollution (which by the way is mostly cleaned up). Then came the population bomb, the ozone hole, awful diseases created by genetically modified foods, and now, global warming. Different decades, different crises.
We haven't managed to destroy ourselves yet, so why is this crisis any different from the multitude of crises that preceded it? I'm not saying we should throw out all discussion on the topic, but I am sick of the hate speech that is vented on anyone who DARES to ask questions of the Global Warming Elites. Come on people,
THIS IS NOT A RELIGION!
If you want anyone to listen to what you have to say, STOP ATTACKING anyone who asks a question or who does not automatically accept every syllable that comes out of Al Gore's mouth. We have a right to free speech, AND THAT INCLUDES ASKING QUESTIONS.
QUOTE
4) What human contributions may there be? (YES, emphasis on MAY be, not ARE)
You have this a bit wrong. Its not "What contributions may there be", its "How do our contributions compare to any of the natural contributions?" We are putting a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since IR radiation doesn't pass through CO2, it definately has an effect. We have also put lots of soot and other particulates into the atmosphere. This will reflect some sunlight away from the earth. The particulate also effects cloud formation in ways that I don't know (someone may know, or it may not be well understood - I don't have the time to try and find out). There are also probably 10's or more factors by humans that impact the environment. The question is not IF we effect, because clearly our activities have some effect on the environment. They may cancel each other out. They probably don't exactly. So the question is to determine if its significant compared to anything that is happening naturally.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) What human contributions may there be? (YES, emphasis on MAY be, not ARE) |
You have this a bit wrong. Its not "What contributions may there be", its "How do our contributions compare to any of the natural contributions?" We are putting a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since IR radiation doesn't pass through CO2, it definately has an effect. We have also put lots of soot and other particulates into the atmosphere. This will reflect some sunlight away from the earth. The particulate also effects cloud formation in ways that I don't know (someone may know, or it may not be well understood - I don't have the time to try and find out). There are also probably 10's or more factors by humans that impact the environment. The question is not IF we effect, because clearly our activities have some effect on the environment. They may cancel each other out. They probably don't exactly. So the question is to determine if its significant compared to anything that is happening naturally.
We haven't managed to destroy ourselves yet, so why is this crisis any different from the multitude of crises that preceded it? I'm not saying we should throw out all discussion on the topic, but I am sick of the hate speech that is vented on anyone who DARES to ask questions of the Global Warming Elites. Come on people,
As a species I have no doubt we will survive, no matter how it turns out. As far as I can tell, the general concensus among scientists is that human activity is influencing global warming. Whether the models they use are very close to right, on the same order of magnitude, or way off, I don't know. But is survival of our species really good enough? We live in a civilized society. Civilized meaning if we can prevent deaths we should. Our modern medicine has removed a lot of the evolutionary pressures. Having children is no quite safe, with the majority of mothers and children surviving child birth. I think if there is a risk that global warming could result in lots of people dying it is crucial that we exhaust all possibilities to prevent it. At the end of the day, it would be better to try and fix things now, from our current level of understanding and fail, than ignore the problem and if its true, find out there was something we could do, but were to stubborn and cheap to do it.
I have definately shifted my views from a year or so ago, but I think its immoral to not try and do something, even if in the end it turns out that the models were wrong. Less pollution is something we need anyways, and it certainly beats the alternative of not doing anything and having the science right.
http://sun.library.msstate.edu/ETD-db/thes..._Thesis(R2).pdf
[page 123/149]: {{Gas Hydrates to Capture and Sequester CO2 By Tao Ding,
Mississippi State, 2004, Master Thesis }} ***
{{CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
In this study, a systematic investigation of utilizing gas hydrates to mitigate the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere was conducted. Especially, the possibility of using surfactant to catalyze CO2 hydrate formation was investigated as a new process to capture industrial CO2. A surfactant-catalyzed CO2 hydrate process was studied for three possible applications in controlling a societal problem of excessive carbon dioxide production. The three applications would be capturing CO2 from a syngas, separating CO2 from flue gas, and sequestering CO2 in ocean floor sediments by displacing methane from in situ hydrates. A main goal of the thesis was to investigate whether surfactants could be effective in these potential processes and to find an effective CO2-philic surfactant suitable for such a process. }}
[comments: The last, sequestering CO2 in ocean floor sediments, the master thesis suggests, would yield. Maybe with the increased pressure and temperature of subterrian cavities, CO2 with H2O could produce CH4. Will return if I find more. Best, rmuldavin ]
[page 123/149]: {{Gas Hydrates to Capture and Sequester CO2 By Tao Ding,
Mississippi State, 2004, Master Thesis }} ***
{{CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
In this study, a systematic investigation of utilizing gas hydrates to mitigate the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere was conducted. Especially, the possibility of using surfactant to catalyze CO2 hydrate formation was investigated as a new process to capture industrial CO2. A surfactant-catalyzed CO2 hydrate process was studied for three possible applications in controlling a societal problem of excessive carbon dioxide production. The three applications would be capturing CO2 from a syngas, separating CO2 from flue gas, and sequestering CO2 in ocean floor sediments by displacing methane from in situ hydrates. A main goal of the thesis was to investigate whether surfactants could be effective in these potential processes and to find an effective CO2-philic surfactant suitable for such a process. }}
[comments: The last, sequestering CO2 in ocean floor sediments, the master thesis suggests, would yield. Maybe with the increased pressure and temperature of subterrian cavities, CO2 with H2O could produce CH4. Will return if I find more. Best, rmuldavin ]
[comments: numeral 6 states the CO2 to displace CH4 hydrates was not promising.
I'll check on what the lab chemistry gives. Best rmuldavin]
CO2 Displacing Potential in CH4 Hydrate in Sediments
1) In the presence of Ottawa sand, Emulsan exhibited the most catalytic effect, increasing the hydrate formation rate by 106.9% compared with the base case. Sand/bentonite showed a retarding effect on CO2 hydrate formation. Both sand/illite and sand/nontronite showed promising
111
catalysis on formation rate with Rhamnolipid and Emulsan used separately.
2) With Rhamnolipid present, sand/illite has the highest formation rate of CO2 hydrates at 415 mmole/hr, and sand/nontronite was second with a formation rate of 268 mmole/hr. The formation rates in sand and sand/kaolin are much lower.
3) With Emulsan involved, the sediment’s effect on CO2 hydrate formation showed that sand/nontronite has the highest formation rate of 358 mmole/hr, and sand/illite was second with a formation rate of 201 mmole/hr.
4) Biosurfactants were found to absorb on the sediments with different affinities. Bentonite showed a greater adsorptive property than the others. However, sand/bentonite restrained the CO2 hydrate formation seriously. The orientation of biosurfactants adsorbed on the clay influences the CO2 hydrate formation.
6) Under the experimental conditions, CH4 displacement from hydrates by injecting CO2 gas was ineffective. The data indicates that this process is not promising.
I'll check on what the lab chemistry gives. Best rmuldavin]
CO2 Displacing Potential in CH4 Hydrate in Sediments
1) In the presence of Ottawa sand, Emulsan exhibited the most catalytic effect, increasing the hydrate formation rate by 106.9% compared with the base case. Sand/bentonite showed a retarding effect on CO2 hydrate formation. Both sand/illite and sand/nontronite showed promising
111
catalysis on formation rate with Rhamnolipid and Emulsan used separately.
2) With Rhamnolipid present, sand/illite has the highest formation rate of CO2 hydrates at 415 mmole/hr, and sand/nontronite was second with a formation rate of 268 mmole/hr. The formation rates in sand and sand/kaolin are much lower.
3) With Emulsan involved, the sediment’s effect on CO2 hydrate formation showed that sand/nontronite has the highest formation rate of 358 mmole/hr, and sand/illite was second with a formation rate of 201 mmole/hr.
4) Biosurfactants were found to absorb on the sediments with different affinities. Bentonite showed a greater adsorptive property than the others. However, sand/bentonite restrained the CO2 hydrate formation seriously. The orientation of biosurfactants adsorbed on the clay influences the CO2 hydrate formation.
6) Under the experimental conditions, CH4 displacement from hydrates by injecting CO2 gas was ineffective. The data indicates that this process is not promising.
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.