backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 131 comment(s) - last by Injuneer.. on Nov 28 at 12:47 AM

Kurt Zenz House, in action, studying ways to take on global warming  (Source: Kurt House, Harvard University)
Exciting research from Harvard University looks to kill global warming with silica

More than two thirds, or about 71%, of the Earth's surface is covered by salty bodies of water.  These oceans are a rich reaction site for aqueous chemical reactions.  Researchers at Harvard seek to set these reaction to work in taming one of the most contentious and troublesome issues of our times -- global warming.

Kurt Zenz House is a doctoral candidate in Geosciences at Harvard University.  For several years House, with the help of some of the brightest minds at Harvard and partner universities, has researched novel solutions to the tricky problem of global warming.  His basic approach has been to store carbon dioxide in Earth's largest sector by surface area -- the oceans.  This is an intriguing idea, as the ocean already stores CO2 in sediments and in the water.  Ocean water stores CO2 in acidic form as carbonic acid, H2CO3.

House's initial work was performed with Harvard's Daniel P. Schrag Ph.D, MIT's Charles F. Harvey Ph.D, and Klaus S. Lackner Ph.D at Columbia University.  This work studied deep sea storage of CO2 in ocean sediments.  It illustrated how the high pressures and low temperatures of ocean depths would help dissolved CO2 deposits stay in place, even in the case of geomechanical perturbations including earthquakes and volcanoes. 

Furthermore the formation of hydrates offers even more security for this deep seas storage of carbon dioxide.  House estimated in his paper that the deep ocean area along a 200-mile stretch of U.S. commercial coastline could store thousands of years of current U.S. CO2 emissions.

Not satisfied with this solution, House continued his research into how to sink carbon dioxide into the ocean, shielding the Earth from any atmospheric effects, such as warming or weather changes.

Now House has released exciting new research with the help of his brother Christopher H. House at Penn State, Harvard's Daniel P. Schrag Ph.D, and Michael J. Aziz Ph.D (also from Harvard).  The new research studies how to increase the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, using everyday materials.

By exposing ocean water to silica rocks, hydrochloric acid will be removed from the ocean via electrochemical reactions and neutralized.  The silica rocks will be weathered into sand, giving the process its name -- "Engineered Weathering."  The ocean water, freed of hydrochloric acid, will shift towards alkalinity, causing it to compensate by absorbing more CO2 to form carbonic acid.  The effect would be exponential, as hydrochloric acid is far stronger and acid than carbonic acid.

The approach benefits from the fact that Silicon as crystalline silica is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust.

It is estimated in the study that it would take between 100-400 kJ/mol for one mol of CO2 to be captured and stored on relevant timescales.  While a significant energy expenditure, this might be considered acceptable to reduce global warming.

The method seems processing because it could be used across the world and in remote locations, with minimal impact to the environment, if executed properly.  The only environmental concerns would be to make the pH transition from the process slow enough that the HCl was replaced with sufficient carbonic acid before continuing the process.  Also, the effects of ocean chlorine ion concentration on sea life, including sea crops, would need to be examined.

Global warming is certainly a contentious issue.  At the heart of the debate is what kind of changes in the environment it will manifest and whether warming is anthropogenic (human-caused).  DailyTech blogger Michael Asher frequently points to incongruities in the data, for example in a recent blog he pointed to a study that indicated that global warming began 250 years ago.  On the same token other blogs at DailyTech point to information that indicates that global warming will have a very real effects on weather.

Al Gore, former Vice President, was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work regarding global warming awareness that culminated in his film An Inconvenient Truth.

Will this solution be enough to satisfy opinions as diverse as these?  No one can say for sure, but for now it certainly seems to be an intriguing step in the right direction.  In the meantime, Kurt House will be hard at work coming up with advanced fossil fuel and carbon storage solutions.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By michal1980 on 11/12/2007 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 5
there is no 'stable' earth temprature. It changes from colder to warmer all the time, and has for millions of years.

Who's to say what the 'right' temperature is, and why should we waste millions attempting to stop it from changing?

whats next. lets stop the tides?




By Parhel on 11/12/2007 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not a believer in global warming, but obviously according to global warming theory the 'right' temperature is whatever the temperature would be right now if humans hadn't upset the balance. It's not like were all quabbling over the thermostat being set at 70 versus 72.


By Ringold on 11/12/2007 4:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Have either of those been a problem in the US in the last couple decades?

If you're talking about China, that's one thing, but here in the US.. I'm glad you brought up acid rain, because I remember being told as a child it'd destroy all our forests, and yet we've got more forested land than before.

China will move up the economic ladder sooner or later, probably sooner, and start to be concerned less with absolute growth and more about the trappings of wealth (a corner office is so much nicer when you can see the building across the street) regardless of tech like this.

Next up for industrialization is Africa; the cycle will repeat as China kicks its polluting industries and low paying jobs there. By the time Africa is developed, may not be any such thing as a heavily polluting industrial center.


By TSS on 11/12/2007 5:41:19 PM , Rating: 5
when the oil runs out, we'll have solved alteast one source of CO2 emmission.

but seriously, your putting more CO2 into the ocean then it's handeling and there will be no affect on the marine life? i didn't catch much in science class but as far as i know molecules never dissapear (or atleast not that easy) so all where doing is moving the smog to the fish, and that can't be good.

but once we've fished the oceans dry we'll have solved that problem as well. heck the way where going why are we worrying?


By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 6:07:29 PM , Rating: 5
> " i didn't catch much in science class but as far as i know molecules never dissapear "

That's just the point. Where do you think that CO2 originally came from? All that carbon was originally in the ocean and atmosphere. At many points in the past, CO2 levels were up to ten times higher than they are today...some of these periods were the most fertile in all of history.

CO2 is the most important airbone plant nutrient, critical for all life on earth. Increased CO2 levels means higher plant growth and -- since all animals ultimately derive their food from that growth -- higher animal populations asw well. Indeed, from one point of view, increasing CO2 is simply helping restoring the earth to a more healthy state, repairing the damage done by countless centuries of unrestricted plant growth, which locked that essential nutrient away in fossil fuels.

By the way, to be precise it's atoms that never disappear, barring a few special events such as radioactive decay.


By Xenoterranos on 11/12/2007 6:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
That always confused me as a child. The whole greenhouse thing should be good for everyone right? Better food growth and all that. Then I learned that it's the ice-melting-and-a-bunch-of-people-drowning that was the problem. (Which confused me even more, since Captain Planet was against global warming, even though it would be healthier for the planet and kill a lot of the 'Baddies'. His psychiatrist must have owned beach-front property.)


By mcnabney on 11/13/2007 12:16:03 AM , Rating: 5
Wrong.

Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural. We do well in our niche based upon stability and predictability. The planet has been storing carbon for millions of years. The carbon comes from volcanic out gassing and the chemical breakdown of rocks. The atmosphere is the median location where it waits to be acted upon. There is an existing cycle of carbon between life-constructed organic material and the atmosphere. The oceans absorb some as dissolved gases or as solutes on the sea floor. Some organics get locked away in the form of what we call fossil fuels (petroleum, coal, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale...) These things take loads of time.
What we are doing now is releasing sequestered carbon from fossil fuels and clear cutting carbon heavy organics (like forests). That carbon goes into the atmosphere and waits to be used, but our speed of production is 100x the ability to re-fix the carbon and put it somewhere.
So what does it do? It absorbs a teeny bit more heat. So does water. So does methane. Water is self limiting and methane has a 10 year lifespan in the atmosphere (so ignore the hippies talking about cow farts and global climate change - the methane doesn't accumulate like carbon does). The problem is that the atmosphere is usually at balance. Things are predictable. This is because the systems are self regulating. They want to return to what we think of as normal patterns. They are not normal for the earth, but they have been normal for a long time. Introduce outside influences, like a major meteor collision, and it gets pushed out of balance. We are doing that in slow motion, but instead of reacting to the changes we continue to push. Once out of balance many of the controls work backwards and act to increase global climate change. Less polar ice absorbs more heat since the white ice isn't there to reflect. Tundra that has been frozen since before the last ice age will soften and allow the tremendous sink of frozen organic material to melt, rot, and return that carbon to the air. Larger and larger pools of water will begin to warm. As water warms, it loses the ability to carry dissolved carbon, so that releases yet even more and takes away a reservoir to hold it.
And it doesn't take many degrees of change to create startling changes in the environment. The ice ages didn't require that many degrees of cooling (those were not carbon unrelated - rather precision related). You have to understand that while humanity can surely survive severe global warming/climate change, it will lead to droughts, insect pandemics (since freezes aren't killing them), and warmer sea water that will gin-up storms.
It is something that we can minimize in the near term and avoid in the long term, but it is going to take effort.


By Ringold on 11/13/2007 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural.


Gather round, children, and let us disect core left wing fundamental beliefs from an unguarded moment of honesty from a fine specimen!

The Logic Gravy Train: Civilization and agriculture is unnatural; perhaps the brain and the fruit of its intellectual powers is an evolutionary mistake, or meant to do nothing beyond imagine various sexual fantasies all day. Either way, since civilization is 'unnatural', and various other species such as fungus and mussels are of equivalent value to human life*, we should seek to minimize the impact of our somehow unnatural existence. Therefore, we should stop having children, consume minimal resources** and live monk-like existances until, finally, in a moment of glory, the last human finally dies, allowing pond algae around the earth to rejoice at being free of human tryanny*** and deer to frolick on the highways free of SUV collisions.

* I refer to the Florida endangered mussels siphoning water away from Georgia's primary resevoir during a critical shortage.

** Except for when viewing Inconvenient Truth DVD's, at which point turning on even a plasma TV may be morally acceptable

*** I refer to the algae which home owners associations try to keep from covering their nice rentention ponds.


By crfog on 11/13/2007 6:33:11 PM , Rating: 4
I've never been involved in the comments here on Dailytech before as I either have nothing I feel adds to the discussion (which should centre around the news item) or I have no time to truly compose my thoughts. In this case, I feel something needed to be said, however.

*Prepare for rant*

Ringold, I find your attack on Mcnabney inappropriate and childish (yes, it was an attack). Mcnabney contributed one of the clearest (if somewhat simplified), most relevant posts in this thread. He explained some scientific/geologic processes in a way that everyone should be able to understand. He provided some evidence and background to explain why the idea of greenhouse gases being good for plant growth and the environment as a whole is wrong. You chose the least important sentence in his entire post (or one of them) and attacked him for it.

Mcnabney stated "Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural". Yes, this is a bold statement and is not properly explained or even referenced further in his post, but maybe he forgot to address that quick thought that passed through his mind as he formulated his post. Is this improperly explained/elaborated sentence grounds for an attack and to label him a fine specimen of core left wing fundamentalism? Not even close.

Ringold, you took a simple sentence which contained very little meaning as it was not explained and extracted a universe of meaning from it. Where did Mcnabney talk about fungus or mussels? Where di he say we should stop having children? I still can't find anything in his post about humans dying off (can you maybe underline it for me?). I admit the deer would probably be happier without fear of SUVs bringing tragedy to their leisurely family strolls, but Mcnabney didn't talk about that!

Since Mcnabney didn't explain himself properly, let me try my hand at deciphering what his sentence was supposed to mean. This is what I get from it (nothing about the brain being an evolutionary mistake or meant to imagine sexual fantasies all day, I assure you)...

Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural. That is, certain agricultural techniques and "civilized" practices go against nature. Nature is composed of geosystems and ecosystems at the macro scale. Both of these are designed to sustain themselves and to remain balanced. When they become unbalanced the result can be catastrophic for ALL participants in these systems and therefore it is in the best interest of those intertwined in these systems to maintain a balance (within an acceptable range or deviation). Certain agricultural techniques, such as burning/clear cutting forests in tropical regions to make way for farm space are not sustainable. Typically, these large scale farms will be created, will consume nutrients from the fertile soil until there is nothing left and then will be shut down and moved as it is cheaper and more profitable to clear new land than to try and maintain a single crop. This is an unsustainable practice for a few reasons. First, the soil takes a very long time to become useful again. In many cases, it will not become fertile again and will instead turn into a dusty, desert sort of terrain as the trees and vegetation have been removed, allowing the soil to be blown freely and for the sun to penetrate to the ground. In tropical regions, the canopy of the forest is important to maintain life as the plant and animal life is protected from the harsh sun. Without this canopy, the original tropical life-forms will not populate the area again. In effect, a new geosystem is created and an ecosystem is slowly destroyed through this method of farming. Civilization has a lot to do with this as our international relationships and laws (or lack thereof) allow (and in a way encourage) large corporations to exploit these locations for their resources. Cheap labour, high profits through this farming model and lack of interference from less organized foreign governments are all reasons to pursue this type of business model.

That is what popped into my head as I read Mcnabney's sentence. Not quite the same as your interpretation (and a little less hostile, I think).

In closing, I'd like to ask or maybe even challenge those who post on Dailytech to write informative, relevant information in the comments. Too often have I come across personal attacks and blanket statements. You cannot label someone a commie or a left wing fundamentalist or a right winger etc. from a single opinion/piece of information they present. Sadly, it seems that anytime someone posts a comment which has an antiwar sentiment or a pro-environmental message, an inappropriate comment is made about An Inconvenient Truth or Al Gore or some such nonsense. Similarly, I'm sick of hearing references of hate toward George Bush etc. any time an argument for war or conservatism is made. I urge the *intelligent* group here on Dailytech (because I believe almost everyone here is just that) to compose posts which are informative, relevant and free of hate/exaggeration. Lately I have been reading the comments less and less as I ALWAYS come across something disrespectful and cannot force myself to read anything more out of anger/annoyance.

I meant to point this out before, but Ringold's post was a perfect example for me to base my feelings on. I don't mean to offend you in any way Ringold, but I do believe you took this too far. Please, if there's something you do not agree with/understand, then ask for an explanation or give your own views. No matter what your views are in political/environmental/scientific/world issues, respect for all human beings, no matter how different they may be is essential to make any kind of real progress.

Thanks,

Ryan


By Plazmid19 on 11/13/2007 7:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I second crfog's request.

I think Ringold has been battling the Ultra-Greenies too long, so his first thoughts upon the sight of a trigger phrase "Modern civilization and agriculture are unnatural" immediately evoked the need to issue a counter argument against all the ridiculous arguments that have been made by the "save nature, kill the humans" bunch. For that I think we can give Ringold some credit.

Ringold, not all of us with an environmental bent are in league with the radical mob, from either side. In my mind, humans are as natural as anything else in this world. The major difference is that humans have the capacity and the will to both analyze and radically manipulate the environment in which we live. Perhaps humans are not the only species that have that capacity, but certainly humans have been the only ones to act on it, so far and recognizably.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 8:52:12 PM , Rating: 4
> "...to explain why the idea of greenhouse gases being good for plant growth and the environment as a whole is wrong"

Not only did he provide no evidence of this, but the idea itself isn't wrong. Higher atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth; this is an indispustable result, confirmed by countless thousands of experiments.

Here's a link to a summary paper of research on the environmental effects we're already seeing from increased atmospheric CO2. Pages 8-9 detail effects on plant growth, and the bibliography cites over 100 peer-reviewed research papers:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

To say whether increased CO2 "good for the environment" is a different question, and requires one to define exactly what one means by those terms. But a substantial body of evidence exists to confirm that increased CO2 will benefit mankind. There is contradictory research...but even that doesn't suggest that the effects will be in any way, shape, or form "catastrophic".


By Plazmid19 on 11/14/2007 2:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
I can live with thought-out responses. I think this was crfog's request.

Lively, well thought-out debate is good for the mind and shaping opinions!

I usually find that a good debate often changes my point of view a bit when good arguments are made and presented. Learning, I think it is called.

The more we learn, the more we begin to understand how very little we really know.


By A5un on 11/13/2007 12:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly, I think what global warming is all about is the relatively strong bond in the CO2 molecule that can "take in" large amount of heat per bond and still remain as a CO2 molecule. This means that the vibration between C and O atoms will increase, which produce an increase in the molecular kinetic energy. Increased kinetic energy means shorter mean free path, high rate of collision, which translates into higher temperature. Temperature is the result of molecular collisions and vibrations.

So, while plants do certainly need CO2, it isn't as simple as just plants taking in CO2 and gets eaten by animals...etc. With that said, there must be an explanation to why global temperatures hasn't risen when CO2 concentration was high. There must be a trade-off reaction happening somewhere that we aren't aware of, because from first principle, CO2 WILL bring about an increase in temperature because of their ability to store energy.

Also, even in radioactive decay, atoms (or should I say the nucleus composed of nucleons) do not disappear. A proton may gets ejected in beta(-) decay or a combination of 2 protons and 2 neutrons may be ejected in the form of alpha particles in alpha decay...What do disappear is when you have a reaction combining positron and electrons (both are particles WITH rest-mass). Such reactions translates the particles' kinetic and rest-mass energy into, well, just energy in the form of photons (no rest-mass)!

Okay! Time to end Nerd Talk. Thanks for reading another educational programme. We'll see you same time tomorrow!