13 replies to this topic

[Clifford Greenblatt]

There has been much discussion about reducing CO2 emissions. Trees and other plants do an excellent job of using CO2 as a resource. Our problem is that we are drawing a lot of oil from the ground and then burning it. This adds CO2 to the atmosphere faster than trees or plants can recycle it. However, we may be able to supplement the recycling that trees and plants are doing. We could recycle atmospheric CO2 to make fuel and carbon based building materials, using desert sunlight as an energy source for powering the recycling process.

Instead of burdening industries with costly regulations, would it not make sense to fund programmes that develop ways to make massive recycling of atmospheric CO2 economically attractive? Funding programmes that make energy efficiency economical in the most energy consuming applications should also be a superior alternative to strangling industry with costly regulations. Many technological advances resulted from the space programme. It was not government regulations that made computers become more powerful whilst consuming less energy. Should not government tackle the problems of pollution and resource depletion by funding programmes that make the right thing economically attractive to industry, rather than by strangling industry with costly regulations?

[niner]

The thermodynamics of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere are really awful, so that's likely to be a very expensive way to deal with excess carbon. Exactly what "costly regulations" and "strangling/burdening" are you talking about? We have a lot of regulations to prevent the spewing of abject toxins into the air that you and I breathe. I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of those regulations. I want to be able to breathe clean air. The coal industry is at this point largely an anachronism, at least in America. Cheap natural gas from fracking is killing it, not regulation. Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. Coal is a toxic fuel that kills people by the thousands. It would be more accurate to say that the coal industry has been strangling everyone who lives downwind for the past couple centuries, and getting away with murder. Freedom is all about the difficult balancing of one parties rights against another, and that is done with rules and regulations. If an industry can only be profitable by dumping costs on others, then it doesn't deserve to exist. It should be "strangled".

[Mind]

Well unfortunately, the government and bureaucrats rarely ever think of win-win scenarios. It is always - they win (more power and money) and you lose (do what they say and pay the tax or go to jail - no matter how stupid or counterproductive the regulation might be). Instead of funneling tax/debt money to politically-connected (now bankrupt) companies (like Solyndra), Obama/Congress could have done what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, what you suggest, investment in the future (with little chance of political gain) is not on Obama's (or congress') radar.

CO2 is hard to get out of the air, but some people are on the case. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely ever to be profitable unless you can turn the carbon into a valuable product - like diamonds, carbon nanotubes, graphene, expensive organic liquids, etc...

The biosphere is very good at taking huge amounts of carbon out of the air. If it was needed at some point in the future, we could just leverage nature's ability a bit more. We could plant fast growing crops/trees, harvest them, and turn them into bio-char. Seems like a waste, and I would rather just keep focusing on technological progress/clean energy, but it is an option (if needed).

[mikeinnaples]

Co2 + waste/salt water + sunlight + genetically engineered cyanobacteria = low cost fuel, essentially carbon neutral fuel

Superior to the 'algae' fuel where the organism had to be destroyed because the cyanobacteria secretes it and it floats to the top where is can be extracted. Two major players in the mix right now with slightly different methods, but the same underlying tech. One recently entered a partnership with Audi to put a facility next to a plant to directly sequester C02. Both companies are increasing production and one of them is around 10,000 gallons / acre continuous yield. Estimates for final large scale production is 15k/acre yield and $50-60 / barrel ....

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Recycling CO2 from the atmosphere would be nowhere near a sufficient solution to the CO2 problem alone. Research on making big improvements in the way energy is consumed would be essential. However, trees and plants demonstrate that CO2 can be recycled quite effectively. There are numerous articles about microorganisms being successfully used to convert sunlight and CO2 to fuel, as mikeinnaples discussed above.
http://www.extremete...nto-liquid-fuel
http://www.gizmag.co...-biofuel/23880/
http://newsroom.ucla...ria-149726.aspx
http://www.rsc.org/c...er/15110901.asp
http://www.scientifi...e-fuel-from-co2

By "strangling", I refer to the problem of placing such heavy demands on industry that the cost of its products skyrocket or factories cannot afford to stay in business. The space program was government funded, but industry was then able to benefit from the knowledge gained to make great progress in computing. The alternative to overly burdensome government regulations would be to fund research that will eventually provide industry with an alternative to pollution that would be so economically attractive that it would not want to do things the bad way anymore.For example, an alternative to the catalytic converter would be an engine that converts fuel to useful energy at very high efficiency with no harmful emissions. Perhaps some burdensome regulations would be necessary as a stop-gap measure, but a far superior and more economical solution would need to be in the works.

[niner]

By "strangling", I refer to the problem of placing such heavy demands on industry that the cost of its products skyrocket or factories cannot afford to stay in business. The space program was government funded, but industry was then able to benefit from the knowledge gained to make great progress in computing. The alternative to overly burdensome government regulations would be to fund research that will eventually provide industry with an alternative to pollution that would be so economically attractive that it would not want to do things the bad way anymore.For example, an alternative to the catalytic converter would be an engine that converts fuel to useful energy at very high efficiency with no harmful emissions. Perhaps some burdensome regulations would be necessary as a stop-gap measure, but a far superior and more economical solution would need to be in the works.

Is it even possible for a regulation to exist without being "burdensome"? I'm just asking because you never mention the word "regulation" without adding such a qualifier. Do you think that companies are being driven out of business left and right because of "excessive" regulation? Frankly, I'm not seeing that. There have been a few companies that have gone out of business because they were unable to be profitable without poisoning people, but they don't deserve to be in business. Certainly there are regulations that might be called burdensome or even ridiculous- parts of the ADA come to mind, but we seem to be talking about emissions rules here.

The kind of research you're proposing costs money. Many countries invest in clean energy in order to build such industries within their borders. Obama has attempted to do this in America, and one of the companies that received a grant went belly-up. Naturally, the Right uses the name of this firm, Solyndra, as a club every chance they get. Politically, it is difficult to do anything that threatens the status quo, and the status quo is fossil fuels.

[capob]

Well unfortunately, the government and bureaucrats rarely ever think of win-win scenarios. It is always - they win (more power and money) and you lose (do what they say and pay the tax or go to jail - no matter how stupid or counterproductive the regulation might be). Instead of funneling tax/debt money to politically-connected (now bankrupt) companies (like Solyndra), Obama/Congress could have done what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, what you suggest, investment in the future (with little chance of political gain) is not on Obama's (or congress') radar.

CO2 is hard to get out of the air, but some people are on the case. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely ever to be profitable unless you can turn the carbon into a valuable product - like diamonds, carbon nanotubes, graphene, expensive organic liquids, etc...

The biosphere is very good at taking huge amounts of carbon out of the air. If it was needed at some point in the future, we could just leverage nature's ability a bit more. We could plant fast growing crops/trees, harvest them, and turn them into bio-char. Seems like a waste, and I would rather just keep focusing on technological progress/clean energy, but it is an option (if needed).

Unfortunately, it is worse than just a bunch of dull bureaucratts. CO2 regulation, popularly arising from the spurious global warming claims, regulates something industry produces and something that humans and land animals exhale. From my memory, it was planned for a long time to tax this, and it was planned for a long time to claim global warming (go see club of rome history). The idea being It is a convenient national and international tax allowing both the shutdown of industry (so as to selectively shutdown industry in selective countries by making production prohibitively expensive) and the taxing of people and poeple with farm animals for their existence. The preplanning of this excludes the true reason being the nominal reasons given by reactionaries who support it. Sure, governments have done a part it restricting harmful output by companies (and this is part of their ideal job), but to say that they are promoting this to allow us to have "breathable" air is rather ludicrous. If gov. cared so much, why are they using DU rounds (which have a myriad of health consequenes), why are they putting a broad slew of chemicals classified under "sodium fluoride" in the water (and, please, hold your ignorance: dental benefits were studied using calcium fluoride and even with that, those benefits were discounted decades ago)? Why then do you have events like the BP oil spill going largely unpunished. There are more cases than I would have enough time to go into. And yet, useful dupes and cloaked serpents still argue in most contradictory ways.

[niner]

Yeah, the melting polar ice caps are all a part of the New World Order conspiracy. Good lord, talk about your useful dupes.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

All regulations put a burden on someone, but the some burdens go beyond what is necessary or useful. Along with regulations that significantly raise the cost of producing a product, there needs to be research on how to accomplish the purpose of the regulation in a superior and economical way. Such research may begin as a big burden, but could pay back many times its cost later on.

Catalytic converters are a significant added cost to cars. The burden presented by the catalytic converter requirement is mostly on the consumer, because no new fuel powered cars can be bought in the USA without it. A better and more economical answer to the emissions problem would require much more advanced technology. Research does cost money, and some research ends up being a waste of money. However, investment in the US space programme proved to be full of benefits, as it boosted much technological development. The US government's investment in a failed solar cell business was a waste of money, but there are plenty of projects that have paid off well. Care needs to be taken when funding research and development to put it in the hands of the most suitable and competent researchers and developers.

[capob]

Yeah, the melting polar ice caps are all a part of the New World Order conspiracy. Good lord, talk about your useful dupes.

And here we have niner both implying that global warming is caused by CO2 (man made), that, thusly, CO2 is causing polar ice caps to melt, and that I am I dupe. Well niner, I won't give you an award for logic or science, but I will present this expression to you: "correlation does not mean causation"; and, additionally, provide you with a few graphs.








I happen to have followed the global warming stuff for a long time. I happen to also have been following the raw data and all the BS surrounding global warming (fake photos, climategate, etc). You'll notice, global warming advocates like to cut their graphs off at the year 2000. You'll also notice, polar ice size graphcs start in the 70's. Well, it happens that the earth has been in a warm period, and earth has had many warm periods, and it is known that polar caps melt. But, Here are some more graphs for you:


Here we see the northern ice cap shrinking since 1979. Again, if we have data from the other warm periods about the size of the cap, it would likely show the same trend. But, what's this:





It seems the northern cap has actually slightly risen in size! This, of course, can mean a lot of things, but I won't get into any of them here. So, please clarify with data:
How am I a dupe and you are not one of the two things I mentioned?

Edited by capob, 20 March 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[niner]

capob, I'm pretty sure that each and every one of your graphs is fully debunkable, but I'm not going to spend an hour on every one of them. I'm not going to convince you of anything- that's like arguing with a religious extremist who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old.

[towelterror]

capob, I'm pretty sure that each and every one of your graphs is fully debunkable, but I'm not going to spend an hour on every one of them. I'm not going to convince you of anything- that's like arguing with a religious extremist who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old.

yep. except not like that at all

[YOLF]

From what I was reading, plants grow faster and consume more in carbon rich environments. So if C02 was 3000PPM+ and we're at 300-400 now with up to 150 years of carbon resources, the real question is how will we sustain C02 at just under 3000PPM where human breathing becomes hampered? When do we have too many plastic wares not turning into C02? Want less C02? Plant more maple trees!

Worried about sea levels rising? No problem, fill the deserts and plant more trees. In China they pump enough salt water into some or another salt flat region and it boosts rain output during the rainy season in where they grow crops.

Desalinization is the real challenge, but we can do that just fine given enough infrastructure.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 22 March 2013 - 12:39 AM.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

I found a new article about research at Purdue University claiming 60% efficiency in converting solar to chemical energy using spinach. http://semiengineeri...-bits-august-5/