Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Seany on 27/06/2007 22:09:19
-
Well. If anyone has a great idea, poke me or nudge me and tell me! I will be happy to publish the idea, internationally, and become a millionaire.
Just make sure you haven't patented it!
-
Seriously though...
Anyone got any ideas? Even if they aren't just able to do it, because of lack of knowledge or technology!
-
NO Ideas here .. perhaps we can grow wings and fly.. LOL or some such other silly thing!LOL
-
Algae do a good job of removing C02 and S02 from the atmosphere. But you wouldn't want to increase the number of algae in the world's natural waters, because too much algae can be bad for other organisms.
-
One (rather simplistically explained) method is to get out there and plant some trees! Then when they've grown, use the timber in a form that doesn't release the carbon. Make sure that the forest you've planted is sustainable. You can even burn the timber if the growth rate of the forest is greater than or equal to the amount being removed. (I would be very happy to expand on this if required). But, you'll never be a millionaire I'm afraid! For this you'll probably have to devise some cunning nanotechnology.
-
i'm still sticking to my theory that, while we'd all be happy if seany were rich.. well if we knew how to be, we probably wouldn't just give him our ideas... unless we could have half...
-
You could use the trees for making paper, except that these days using trees for making paper (or even furniture) is frowned upon as not being environmentally friendly (hence we recycle old paper, and stop growing so many trees for paper).
That having been said, grass is faster growing than trees, so one would expect would be better at absorbing CO2; but we've largely stopped using hay for very much either.
-
Seany - what i would recomend is to read a copy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) report on mitigation of climate change. In there, you will find a series of recommendations about how to go about reducing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as other greenhouse gasses (GHG's).
Here's a link to the IPCC site and the 3rd report.
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html
Also, here is a link to the IPCC document on capture and storage of CO2.
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm
I don't think that making money out of technologies to mitigate climate change is a bad thing. Just because it's doing a good thing doesn't necessarily mean that it has to take an altruistic approach.
Happy reading!
-
I read or heard somewhere that aquatic plants absorb far more CO2 than terrestrial plants. Is this correct?
-
Algae do a good job of removing C02 and S02 from the atmosphere. But you wouldn't want to increase the number of algae in the world's natural waters, because too much algae can be bad for other organisms.
was there not talk of intruducing some form of algae, in the waters at one of the poles?
-
All O2 in the atmosphere originated as CO2, and was converted to O2 by photosynthesis.
If we become too good at removing CO2 from the atmosphere, could we not actually risk undermining the natural photosynthetic processes that provide us with O2.
I understand that at present we do not extract any significant quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere, so the problems of what happens when we start doing it very efficiently and on a large scale may seem far away; but most perceived environmental problems tend to start by something some seemed like a good idea on a small scale, but became a disaster when scaled up.
-
All O2 in the atmosphere originated as CO2, and was converted to O2 by photosynthesis.
If we become too good at removing CO2 from the atmosphere, could we not actually risk undermining the natural photosynthetic processes that provide us with O2.
I understand that at present we do not extract any significant quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere, so the problems of what happens when we start doing it very efficiently and on a large scale may seem far away; but most perceived environmental problems tend to start by something some seemed like a good idea on a small scale, but became a disaster when scaled up.
NOT TRUE - Oxygen in the atmosphere was originally supplied by volcanic degassing and electrical discharge: 2H2O + energy → 4H + O2. Bacteria then took over the major role, THEN photosynthesis. The process of photosynthesis did not become a factor until less than 3 billion years ago. We are in the third atmosphere of earth.
-
Oxygen in the atmosphere was originally supplied by volcanic degassing and electrical discharge: 2H2O + energy → 4H + O2. Bacteria then took over the major role, THEN photosynthesis. The process of photosynthesis did not become a factor until less than 3 billion years ago. We are in the third atmosphere of earth.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/origin.html
Two models are most favored for the origin of the atmosphere: outgassing or accretion. Outgassing is related to the differentiation of the Earth and the release of gases by volcanoes. Assuming that the gases we presently observe were also released by early volcanoes the atmosphere would be made of water vapor (H2O), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), nitrogen (N2), & sulfur gases. The atmosphere was reducing (no free oxygen).
The present-day atmosphere is quite different:
- 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide plus small amounts of water vapor
Early in Earth history, water vapor formed clouds, rain, and ultimately all of the surface water (oceans, ground water, lakes, rivers, glaciers). The presence of the ancient oceans and lakes is recorded by different types of sedimentary rocks.
Perhaps the best geologic evidence for the composition of the early atmosphere is the presence and abundance of Banded Iron Formations. These rocks are made of layers of sulfide minerals (evidence for a reducing environment) and chert or fine-grained quartz. These rocks are not present in rocks younger than 1.8 - 2.5 billions of years ago, when oxygen starting becoming more abundant.
The amount of carbon dioxide was reduced by chemical weathering of minerals at the surface:
- CaSiO3 + CO2 <-> CaCO3 + SiO2.
The amount of oxygen increased due to early life forms, like the algae in stromatolites.
The introduction of red beds, sedimentary rocks with ferric oxide (hematite) cement, to the rock record indicates the addition of free oxygen to the atmosphere.
The Atmosphere (& Hydrosphere) by Rick Behl has more information.
If you are saying that in the absence of all life, the Earth's atmosphere (contrary to the above article, or anything I had heard before) would have been an originating rather than a reducing atmosphere, then should we not be making very different models of gas cycles, taking into account the greater impact of bacteria on modern gas balances in the atmosphere?
-
i'm still sticking to my theory that, while we'd all be happy if seany were rich.. well if we knew how to be, we probably wouldn't just give him our ideas... unless we could have half...
Heehee.. *Winks* [;)]