backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by seamonkey79.. on Sep 4 at 9:08 AM

Carbon Sciences has come up with an intelligent solution for fixing the problem of carbon waste. Recycle carbon in CO2 gas into something useful -- calcium carbonate  (Source: Carbon Sciences)
Sequestration: out, transformation: in

Carbon waste is a worldwide concern.  With potentially millions to billions being spent to trap and store carbon, the economics and implementation of some measures become serious issues.  Various solutions have been proposed ranging from storage in the sea via sand to sinking it in wetlands has been proposed.  The Department of Energy even has awarded $126.6M USD in grants to evaluating the feasibility of geological sequestration -- storage underground.

California startup Carbon Sciences eschews standard thoughts on sequestration and is proposing a slightly more logical solution -- make something actually useful out of captured carbon emissions to justify the cost, thus making capture a matter of smart economics, rather than one of proving or disproving global warming.

The company feels an ideal candidate is calcium carbonate.  Calcium carbonate is an extremely useful compound used, among other things, in antacids, baby diapers, iron purification, as plastic filler, in concrete, and in makeup. 

Carbon Sciences has developed an efficient process to react carbon dioxide in the air to form calcium carbonate.  The process uses only waste rock -- so called "tailings", mineral mining leftovers -- for its calcium.  This rock waste is ground up into nanoparticles, a critical step.  The NanoRock, as the company calls the resulting mix, is highly reactive thanks to a large surface area to mass ratio.

What about existing carbon storage sites, such as those under development by the DOE?  Well, according to Carbon Sciences, these could now be harvested to form stable calcium carbonate, even yielding some nice profits.

In an interview with ecoblog CleanTechnica, Carbon Sciences CEO Derek McLeish warned that his process was the only safe way to capture carbon on land.  He said that storing carbon underground by current methods was foolish as an earthquake could easily release it, meaning all the money to trap it had been wasted.

Says Mr. McLeish, "There’s an infinite timeline when you bury CO2.  Transforming CO2 into a high value product is much more like recycling."

The company plans to move quickly to jump on this hot new market.  It says it will have a full pilot plan running within 2-3 years.  It says from there it will look to expand, with McLeish stating, "We’ll be developing relationships and business opportunities the second we get through the mini pilot plant phase."

While there are many lines of thinking about carbon sequestration, Carbon Sciences' premise seems far more logical than most -- take something that's waste (mining leftovers and carbon) and make something valuable (calcium carbonate).

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
One born every minute
By fishbits on 8/27/2008 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 1
Carbon and CO2 aren't the same thing, but then again this is a scheme to sell modern day indulgences to those too dim to know the Earth's climate has changed and will change for millions of years. "Praise us for saving you by turning your sin, err carbon, err CO2 into calcium carbonate!" At least it's possible to make money selling "carbon offsets" to people and companies to counter the amount of carbon they create in a year: None.

Was fun though reading that these knuckle-draggers have us expending energy and money burying a naturally occuring gas that gets reclaimed by the biosphere.




RE: One born every minute
By FoundationII on 8/27/2008 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
So O2 would be the waste product. That doesn't sound too bad to me since O2 was used to create the CO2 in the first place.


RE: One born every minute
By BadAcid on 8/27/2008 5:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think the O2 is going anywhere since calcium carbonate is CaCO3, which has 3 oxygen atoms in it. It's much easier to keep the CO2 together in a more complex molecule than to separate the O2 from it.


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 7:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, metamorphism of subducted carbonates is one of the major sources of non-anthropogenic CO2 -- a source far larger than mankind's contribution from the burning of fossil fuels.


RE: One born every minute
By foolsgambit11 on 8/28/2008 12:39:44 PM , Rating: 3
You've mentioned this fact before. By itself, it answers very little about the plausibility of anthropogenic climate change. Just because carbon dioxide occurs naturally in a certain amount doesn't mean that more of it won't be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. Your body can, for instance, handle a certain amount of alcohol introduced at a certain rate. It's entirely possible that increasing the rate of intake by as little as a few percent will, over a long binge, kill you.

It is up to both sides in the debate to demonstrate that the environment either can or can't handle the additional carbon dioxide released by human activity. I think the jury's still out on which way it goes; I just want to ensure the arguments for and against are cogent, well reasoned, and accurate.


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 11:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with the "nature in delicate balance" idea is that nature has *never* been in a state of balance. CO2 levels and temperatures have been constantly changing since the planet first existed. Furthermore, the paleo record proves that temperature change has a dramatic effect on the carbon cycle -- rising temperatures will automatically increase CO2 levels, regardless of what we do. Conversely, falling temperatures will reduce CO2 levels.


RE: One born every minute
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 7:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the heat of formation of these compounds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_cha...

Water is -285.83 (i.e. if you convert 2 moles of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen into H2O, you get 286 kJ of energy.
CO2 is -393.509
CaCO3 is -1207.6

So on the face of it, it looks like the conversion of calcium, CO2, and atmospheric oxygen into CaCO3 will actually yield energy. On the order of as much energy as you obtained when creating the CO2 in the first place. i.e. You could "burn" calcium, CO2, and O2 to generate energy and CaCO3. Sounds pretty intriguing.


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 7:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
While Jason is trying to bill this as a technology able to stand on its own, the fact remains its target market is the sale of carbon credits, not calcium carbonate. From the market analysis on the company's own website:
quote:
the U.S. political climate has become more favorable for CABN and other companies that offer carbon mitigation solutions...While the large CO2 mitigation market is still in its infancy, we believe that active legislation limiting CO2 emissions will happen within the next several years. The passing of any form of legislation that would regulate CO2 emissions could instantly open up a massive market for CABN’s carbon transformation technology....
In short, this is a company poised to exploit AGW hysteria, not to actually make money selling product made from waste CO2.

http://www.carbonsciences.com/01/media/Beacon_CABN...


RE: One born every minute
By NEOCortex on 8/27/2008 8:04:43 PM , Rating: 3
Except that Calcium isn't found in its elemental form in nature. It's a fairly reactive metal, and is usually found as silicate, carbonate and sulfate minerals. These minerals are going to have a lower heat of formation then pure Calcium, and therefore the reaction probably won't be exothermic. Even if it still is exothermic, energy (ie heat) will be needed to overcome the energy barrier of the reaction.

This process is most assuredly going to need energy input to take place. I'd assume that specifically mining calcium carbonate minerals is far cheaper, since its a fairly abundant mineral.


RE: One born every minute
By Schrag4 on 8/27/2008 4:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
What's really sad is just how few people share your understanding of this so-called sinful gas. It's so simple yet so many people just don't get it.

All the carbon stored in all the oil buried underground was at one point in the atmosphere. How can releasing it again be a 'bad' thing? I'm all for energy conservation, but doing it in the name of preventing man-made global warming is just stupid. We have much, MUCH more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. If the earth warms, it will likely support more plant life. If it cools enough, we all starve to death.


RE: One born every minute
By DefyingxGravity on 8/27/2008 5:10:45 PM , Rating: 3
That might make sense, if you were an idiot. Yes, the CO2 that will be released from burning oil was once in the atmosphere, but there has always been a balance to how much is being stored and how much is actually in the atmosphere. Releasing what's stored messes up that balance.


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 7:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
What balance? Look at the history of the earth. You'll never see a single period where the temperature or the CO2 level was a straight line. It's *always* either rising or falling.


RE: One born every minute
By AnnihilatorX on 8/28/2008 4:35:39 AM , Rating: 3
Well but we weren't living in those periods either so that didn't affect us and hence irrelevant.


RE: One born every minute
By AnnihilatorX on 8/28/2008 4:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
ok I admit we can learn something about CO2 level and temperature from past records. However world temperature is not only dependent on 2 variables namely CO2 level and sun activity.

It also depends whether those said periods before or during CO2 level spike had significant ice cover, vegetation cover etc. Both of which will mitigate the increase of temperature.


RE: One born every minute
By goku on 8/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: One born every minute
By FoundationII on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: One born every minute
By maverick85wd on 8/27/2008 5:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it's only normal to focus on ways to prevent the earth from warming.


Like what, getting rid of the sun? Do you not realize that the Earth's atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to the output of the sun?

If you wanted to, say, focus on cutting back pollution, or hazardous waste, or even helping other countries set up waste control systems, I'd be with you. But global warming was invented to control people from different nations that had different religions and so could not be controlled with one government or as one religious body. I'm almost surprised Al Gore hasn't just started a religion and gone L. Ron Gore on us.


RE: One born every minute
By Mitch101 on 8/27/2008 5:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yup Al Gore the prophet what a pal.

Gores House uses 20 times the national average in electricity and 12 times the homes in his area.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.a...

Webster should have his picture next to the word Bigot.


RE: One born every minute
By SiN on 8/27/2008 7:36:31 PM , Rating: 4
yeah, but he's got the money so it dont matter.


RE: One born every minute
By foxtrot9 on 8/28/2008 10:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are saying and am as much of an AG hater as anyone else, but I hate when people throw things like this out there - same argument as Ahnold commuting on his private jet to work - the fact of the matter is that Global warming isn't going to be solved by AG using less energy - He has done more for the effort than against it. An idividual cutting his own usage vs. starting a large movement is insignificant


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 11:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing the issue here. If Al Gore truly believed his own propaganda, he wouldn't be generating as much CO2 as a small city and buying condos on the San Francisco waterfront, mere feet from where a rising ocean would obliterate them.

Yes he's "done a lot for the movement". He's also made some 100 million dollars off. Probably more than that now, actually...that figure is over a year old.


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 12:07:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If Al Gore truly believed his own propaganda, he wouldn't be generating as much CO2 as a small city and buying condos on the San Francisco waterfront, mere feet from where a rising ocean would obliterate them.


1/ as far as I know, without a quantum leap in medicine, Al probably won't be there anymore to see that, and
2/ maybe he believes in it, but he also believes strongly that the world has understood the issue, and will act appropriately.

You're not in Al Gore's head, so avoid to over interpret his action in terms of what he might or might not believe in ...


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 11:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "maybe he believes in it, but he also believes strongly that the world has understood the issue, and will act appropriately."

Oops! According to Gore, the planet already has a dangerously large amount of warming "built in" from current CO2 levels, even if we stopped emissions tomorrow...which certainly won't happen.

Furthermore, 10 years ago, Al said we "had 10 years to save the planet". Emissions today are higher than they were then, so according to Gore, it's already too late.


RE: One born every minute
By seamonkey79 on 8/29/2008 9:12:34 AM , Rating: 1
...and 30 years ago they said we had 20 years before the planet froze up in an ice age.


RE: One born every minute
By Suntan on 8/28/2008 2:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
So it would be ok if that fat, tubby guy in the commercials asking for your money to save children in the third world countries was a child molester? Because, on the whole, he does more for children than the normal person?

Don’t think so.

-Suntan


RE: One born every minute
By foxtrot9 on 8/28/2008 2:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
ok that's a bit different and you know it. Using electrisity on an individual level doesn't harm anyone. If Al Gore uses x amount of energy and through his actions saves 100x of energy then he is net positive.

I know I sound like I'm defending the guy, but I really don't like him so much. I'm just saying I don't think it's a fair point to make. I'm sure most $100 millionaires use a lot more energy than he does.


RE: One born every minute
By rcc on 8/28/2008 3:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, because it's always better/easier to get someone else to make the sacrifices than to do it yourself. : )


RE: One born every minute
By Schrag4 on 8/29/2008 10:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
This is quite possibly the dumbest post I've read in quite some time.

quote:
Using electricity on an individual level doesn't harm anyone.


So, let's ALL, individually, use more energy. That would make Al Gore happy, right? I mean, we're all just individuals, using lots of electricity. What can it hurt?

quote:
I'm sure most $100 millionaires use a lot more energy than he does.


If he truely believes that we should use less, then it DOESN'T MATTER IF HE'S FILTHY RICH! If he uses more than me, he's a hypocrite. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he probably uses 100 times as much energy as my family uses. We rarely travel, we live in a modest home, live close to work. How often does Al Gore fly a private jet? Can someone tell me how much jet fuel it takes to fly from where he lives to Europe and back?

Oh, and the obvious response to the second quote is "Bad behavior isn't justification for bad behavior." So other rich dudes use lots of energy. If Al Gore really believed what he preached, then that wouldn't factor in.

I'm really tired of this notion that if you're rich then you can just buy your way out of carbon-reduction responsibility. The whole carbon offset system is obviously a way to 1) make people who actually produce anything feel guilty, then 2) provide a means for them to buy their way out of their guilt. What a scam...


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/27/2008 5:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you not realize that the Earth's atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to the output of the sun?


What is directly proportional to the output of the Sun is the energy input of the Sun at a given inclination (i.e. latitude for given orbital parameters). The proportionality hold only for a constant distance Earth-Sun of course (your model already fails).

Now how much a given solar radiative input will warm the atmosphere will depend on first approximation on what is the atmosphere made of and how dense it is. Simply, how does it absorb the downward radiation, how does it absorb the upward radiation after reflection at the Earth surface, how much was scattered/reflected back to space before even reaching the surface (i.e. how many clouds, at what latitude, what altitude, what size, what composition, what phase (vapor or ice), ...), what size and spatial./temporal/vertical distribution of aerosols... How does the atmospheric convection work to redistribute the heat vertically and geographically...

What kind of surfaces occur, where? How do these various surfaces (ice, water, snow, various type of soils at various moisture) absorb radiations, re-radiate, conduct (diffusion, convection?) heat into deeper layers.

So the Earth atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to the output of the Sun, really?


RE: One born every minute
By SiN on 8/27/2008 7:38:40 PM , Rating: 3
taking in everything you just mentioned. yes.


RE: One born every minute
By seamonkey79 on 8/29/2008 9:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
Um... according to you, most definitely. Since the sun's energy is at the core of everything, even reflectivity of atmosphere and surface... the amount it's outputting will increase or decrease the amount being reflected or absorbed far more than anything here will do.

I'm going to have to look up LA and see what the climate out there is nowadays. Back when I was a kid, we were taught that we were throwing so much bad stuff into the environment that we were working towards another ice age. One of the examples was LA. Full of smog from 'fossil' fuel burning vehicles and whatnot, there was so much CO2 in the air that it was blocking the sun's energy from reaching ground and they were, on average, 2-3 degrees cooler than they were two miles outside of downtown, which is opposite of what most cities are, such as Chicago, which tends to be 1-2 degrees warmer downtown than the same distance outside.

Quite frankly, I'd like all the environmentalists to get together and release a timeline of when they're going to be ranting about warming and when they'll be ranting about cooling so I can keep things straight in my head, because when I was a kid, all the CO2 emissions were going to freeze us out.


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/29/2008 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um... according to you, most definitely.


No. The point was: the Earth's atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to the output of the sun. It's, not period.

The fact that you even suggest that my description would fit the concept of direct proportionality between these two variables just illustrates most definitely that you don't understand what this simple concept means.

quote:
Since the sun's energy is at the core of everything , even reflectivity of atmosphere and surface


Well, if by "at the core" you mean that radiative properties of atmosphere and surface can be related to solar output only, that's just your opinion. I am sure it is very convenient for you to present it as a universally accepted fact, but it is all the opposite.

Many scientists believe (and support through peer review publications) that man-made change of GHG concentration changes the radiative properties of the atmosphere. But in addition, maybe less controversial for you, most scientists believe that man-made aerosols do change reflectivity/scattering properties of atmosphere and surfaces. So your statement is simply false, like the rest of your science.

Now if what you actually meant is that the properties of atmosphere and surfaces at a given time are in large part influenced by the history of climate, which is in large part driven by the history of solar output, then that would be correct. But again, that would not imply that the Earth's atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to the output of the sun. Even less if you'd acknowledge that other factors not directly proportional to the solar output can change the soils and atmosphere properties (but that condition is not necessary).

quote:
the amount it's outputting will increase or decrease the amount being reflected or absorbed [...]


Again, the fact that solar output variation influence the Earth's temperature does not imply direct proportionality. For that you would have to consider that a given solar output value/variation lead to a unique Earth atmospheric temperature value/variation. It's not the case.

A given value for solar output or a given variation of solar output will have different impacts depending on the history of solar output (has the output been rather constant for months, years, centuries ... is the output in a sustained increase or decrease, is it in a short spike ...?) but also the state of the climate system (are we in the middle of an ice age, at the end, ... are there many aerosols in the atmosphere, where are they located ... what are the concentration of GHG at that time etc ...). That's everything ... but direct proportionality.

quote:
[...] far more than anything here will do.


Again, a meaningless statement that just reflects your uneducated opinion. Some variations in solar output have relatively little impact. Variation in cloud cover or aerosols (I leave aside the impact of changes in GHG) can lead to larger radiative effects than some of the solar output variations.

The Earth's temperature is not linearly related to the Sun's output. Even if you would assume it is, it wouldn't be related through a constant.
So there is no direct proportionality , period.

Now to come back to what we are really discussing here, the complex relationship between solar output and Earth's tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures depends on parameters not directly proportional to the solar output. How large is the influence of aerosols, land usage, GHG, etc ..., that you can debate if you'd like ... but you can't dispute the fact that they impact the atmospheric and surface properties to some extent.


RE: One born every minute
By maverick85wd on 8/31/2008 5:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
or maybe by saying directly proportionate I meant that as one goes up so, so does the other - and the way I used the phrase suggests the variable I'm describing (the sun's output) is the primary factor (which doesn't mean others aren't present, it just means they don't matter enough to be included)

Like I've said before, I'm all for cleaning up the environment and becoming more energy efficient... but doing it to try and prevent global warming is idiotic.


RE: One born every minute
By seamonkey79 on 9/4/2008 9:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
What's happening on the planet doesn't mean squat if the sun isn't outputting energy. The more energy the sun is outputting, the more will be absorbed by the planet, regardless of any conditions on the planet, therefore, proportional.

Done, anything else you can try to add to that is just someone trying to make stuff up so they sound important.


RE: One born every minute
By Polynikes on 8/27/2008 7:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
His idea of controlling the climate can only be described as one thing:

Hubris.

I'm with you, maverick85wd. Let's reduce pollution, and reduce our independence on foreign oil. Those are noble goals. However, people have to wake up and realize that these goals will not be achieved overnight, nor will they have a serious impact on the global climate.


RE: One born every minute
By Nik00117 on 8/28/2008 3:31:06 AM , Rating: 1
The sun is heating earth? Got damn it we will all burn to death. Someone go blow the shit out of the sun!

See, humans are trying to play god. They aren't trying to fix something that isn't broken. You see Humans are going to get fucked up ass for this one.


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 6:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "However if the Earth warms "enough" it becomes like Venus, a giant greenhouse. Both incapable of sustaining life as we know it"

At one point during the Cryogenian, CO2 levels were over 3,000 ppm (they currently stand at a bit over 1/10 that). Yet the Earth was locked in the coldest ice age it has yet experienced.

At another point in the Earth's history, CO2 levels broke 6,000 ppm. And yet the planet was not only not "incapable of sustaining life", but the biosphere was in one of its richest and most diverse periods ever.

Even today, nature releases over 30 times as much CO2 each year as mankind does. The idea that our small contribution is leading to a catastrophe isn't borne out by science or history.


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/27/2008 7:49:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
At one point during the Cryogenian, CO2 levels were over 3,000 ppm (they currently stand at a bit over 1/10 that). Yet the Earth was locked in the coldest ice age it has yet experienced.


What was the Sun radiated power at that time?
How are determined the atmospheric CO2 concentration for that period?


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 10:33:13 PM , Rating: 3
If you're going to start questioning the Paleo CO2 record, the entire argument for AGW falls apart. But if you do want to go that route, there are plenty of scientists who *do* question the proxies.

According to people like Jaworowski, plant stomata proxies (which the IPCC refuses to use in favor of ice cores) reveal many instances of rapid spikes in the CO2 record. By his account, it's physically impossible to measure a rapid CO2 spike in an ice core, due to nature of ice-gas interactions which 'average out' any short-term trends.


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 12:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're going to start questioning the Paleo CO2 record, the entire argument for AGW falls apart. But if you do want to go that route, there are plenty of scientists who *do* question the proxies.


I am not questioning anything, I asked you a simple question. How were determined the global CO2 concentration at that period (> 600 millions years ago if I am correct)? At the same time, how were determined the global temperature and/or the global climate please?

You also forgot to address the second question: what was the solar radiated power, and what was the power incident on the Earth?


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/27/2008 8:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even today, nature releases over 30 times as much CO2 each year as mankind does. The idea that our small contribution is leading to a catastrophe isn't borne out by science or history.


I don't see what you budget purposely omitting major terms has to do with the consequence of increase in CO2 concentrations.
Are you suggesting that the increase in CO2 concentration for the last 100+ years is not due to human activity or are questioning the impact of this increase?


RE: One born every minute
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 10:27:06 PM , Rating: 5
Both, of course. The Paleoclimatic record proves without doubt that in periods in which the earth warmed, CO2 levels rose. This time is no different; quite obviously a warming planet will result in rising CO2 levels, with or without or fossil fuel consumption.

When one examines the CO2 record from Mauna Loa, this fact becomes even more evident. Fossil fuel emissions are more than twice what they were in 1960, and more than 10X higher than from 1900. Yet the rate of CO2 increase has barely budged. It rises slightly on a very hot year, and falls on a cold year.

The largest increase in CO2 (2.93ppm) measured was in 1998 -- the hottest year on record. Yet the following year (1999), a year that was very cold by comparison, the increase was only 1/3 as much...despite the fact that human emissions were higher. Explain that.

As much CO2 is in the air, there is a thousand times as much in the ocean, and 100,000 as much stored in carbonates. A small change in world temperatures means a large change in the natural processes that regulate the carbon cycle. Is man's CO2 in that process as well? Of course...but the fact remains that CO2 will rise on a warming planet, even were our emissions zero. And CO2 levels will fall on a cooling planet, no matter how much we're emitting.


RE: One born every minute
By AnnihilatorX on 8/28/2008 4:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Any period in historical record where both sun activity and CO2 level rises?


RE: One born every minute
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 11:50:17 AM , Rating: 3
When you make a budget (here a CO2 budget), you should also count for what goes out of the system ... So comparing human emission of CO2 to natural emission of CO2, without ever mentioning how much is absorbed through natural processes like you have done numerous times does not make much sense ... or in your case, because you probably know what you're talking about, it is just a silly spin. It makes a very nice skeptic point saying that "Nature" pumps 30 times more CO2 than humans into the atmosphere, but scientifically it means squat if you don't quantify also how much CO2 natural processes take out of the atmosphere. But I guess that's good enough for your audience.

As for your analysis of the atmosphere dynamic and CO2 concentration variations, it is obvious that you (decide to) ignore dynamical constants (both horizontal and vertical) and the various exchanges with the surface (oceans and biosphere for eg.) when it serves your purpose, and then recall them when you need to (i.e. again, when natural release of CO2 from the surface suits your point).

As for your analysis of the temperatures and CO2 around the year 1998, the large and fast T fluctuations around that year are dominated by natural processes, like all short term/large amplitude fluctuations are, for that matters. Most part of these fluctuations is not attributed to a change in CO2 concentration. Just do the math: the AGW is estimated to be of ~0.015 degC per year, for an average increase of ~1.5 ppm per year. The increase in CO2 you've mentioned (2.93 ppm) would be expected to increase the temperatures at most by 0.03 degC. And this is without mentioning that a large part of the increase in temperature do not directly results from the concentration of CO2 at a given time, but it also results from feedbacks that can take years and decades to establish. So yeah, temperature fluctuation around 1998 did not closely follow CO2 ones, and actually they never do at these time scale ... and the AGW science never stated the contrary. Actually, as far as GW is concerned, the large increase and subsequent decrease in T around 1998 are mostly irrelevant. So what's your point??

As for the CO2 concentration variation around that year, again, the natural processes do not only pump CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also pump some out. Like with the temperatures, there's nothing suspicious with CO2 concentration not following exactly human emission at short time scales, as natural process also induce variation in CO2.

Actually the largest variation of CO2 concentration at short time scales is totally natural and its driven by seasonal cycles (of NH). That alone induces seasonal variation of ~ 4 ppm that are significantly larger than the yearly growth trend in CO2.


RE: One born every minute
By clovell on 8/28/2008 3:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
Great points, but from a modeling standpoint, I would think there would be further study done on the nature of this delayed feedback cycle - 'years and decades' is a bit vague. Do you know of any research on this? It would be interesting to know. Also, how much CO2 is absorbed by natural processes?

@ Michael, could you explain how a negative feedback mechanism affects the idea of a delayed feedback cycle?


What does that mean?
By jbartabas on 8/27/2008 4:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's my English but
quote:
thus making capture a matter of smart economics, rather than one of proving or disproving global warming.


Are you suggesting that carbon sequestration's objective is to prove or disprove global warming? And what about adding the term "anthropogenic"?




RE: What does that mean?
By Keeir on 8/27/2008 4:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's trying to say that the reason for carbon capture could change from preventing antropogenic global warming (the merit of which is under dispute) to just plain being more profitable.

However, I believe your interpretation of the sentence is correct by the standard American English grammer rules.

On the actual process, I wonder how water efficient the process is and what kinds of water would be required. I realize that the suggested process may displace other uses of water currently in the production of the end products. Currently, many parts of the world that are significant producers of C02 have water supply/quality issues.


RE: What does that mean?
By jbartabas on 8/27/2008 5:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think he's trying to say that the reason for carbon capture could change from preventing antropogenic global warming (the merit of which is under dispute) to just plain being more profitable. However, I believe your interpretation of the sentence is correct by the standard American English grammar rules.


Then I guess we do agree on both your points : 1/ it is probably what he meant and 2/ that's not what he wrote.

I would just comment on part of your first point, where you say 'he's trying to say that the reason for carbon capture could change from preventing anthropogenic global warming '. Carbon capture is seen as a way to mitigate, or limit the future warming, not to prevent it (for various reasons). Although you could argue that mitigating the warming would result in preventing part of the warming of course :) , I think it's worth clarifying the purpose here.


RE: What does that mean?
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 4:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well the idea of carbon sequestration has come about due to fears of manmade global warming. So the idea of it isn't directly saying it exists, but using it suggests that it does.


RE: What does that mean?
By Mitch101 on 8/27/2008 5:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Lot of businesses out there that are based solely upon fears.

For instance child abduction occurs in 1 in 1,500,000 children of that something like 85% are due to a relative not an actual stranger. Yet lately I am being bombarded by commercials selling devices to track your kid and the commercials portray the fear of child abduction when in reality the odds are incredibly slim. As a parent I am concerned however the revenue stream is based upon fear. How many millions will be spent on this fear?

How about identity theft? Sure every other day we read about some moron who lost a laptop containing our personal lives un-encrypted on it for some reason or some place that has been collecting information for months. Should we buy into some protection or hold the irresponsible companies liable for the damages? You guessed it we should start a company and sell people identity protection.

I wonder how many people buy insurance because of the fear and what the actual odds are that something bad will happen to them?

So is this the first money pit on Global warming scare tactics? I'm not saying global warming isn't occurring but expect a bunch of businesses to spring up claiming they are helping save the world when they are only preventing the inevitable. The sales tactic is simply what if you don't do this. Governments local and national will throw money at this because it will get them votes and people will eat it up saying they are good people saving the planet. lets call it the green vote cash cow.

The best part about it is how do you prove they are doing any good? I would love to have a company like this that doesn't have to prove a thing and every year can come back asking for more and more money because its not doing enough. Oh were just not getting the job done with our budget we need more as they cry while sticking their hands out and when we all switch to some other form of alternative fuels that doesn't create so much CO2 these companies will come out preaching how what they did was the reason for it all while raking in tons of money.

My take is like George Carlins. The world isn't going anywhere we are.


Makes sense
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 4:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
As long as the energy requirements are low. Because otherwise you're using even more energy to get rid of the emissions.

I do agree that trapping CO2 underground doesn't make a lot of sense though.




RE: Makes sense
By Suntan on 8/28/2008 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but there’s the deal. You get a bunch of suckers to pay you more for the service than it costs you in electricity to do it.

-Suntan


Do we need more carbonate?
By menace on 8/27/2008 5:43:19 PM , Rating: 1
Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate: CaCO3).

Why go through a complex process to make something when you can just pull all of it you need right out of the ground?




By foolsgambit11 on 8/28/2008 12:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
And what's more, how much calcium carbonate do we consume, versus how much could we produce with this method? Can this process utilize all of our carbon dioxide production, or would we then end up with ridiculous amounts of calcium carbonate on the market, wondering what to do with it?


Brilliant!
By TheDoc9 on 8/27/2008 5:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not touching the stuff.




Sick of Nano
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 8/27/2008 5:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Anything small is marketed as 'nano' now. its worse than when everything was called 'space age'




By chrisld on 8/27/2008 10:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is firstly not new, it has been proposed hundreds of times. It makes sense to the layperson but in reality this does not fly. I hope they don't sucker investors or the government into financing this.

How do you make calcium carbonate?
Answer, from calcium hydroxide
How do they make the calcium hydroxide?
Answer, by heating calcium carbonate.

So, this doesn't work because you need to expend huge amounts of energy to make the calcium hydroxide in order to then sequester CO2. The net effect is using more CO2 and energy. Ask any decent chemist.

"Calcium oxide: Carbon Dioxide reacts with quicklime (calcium oxide), to form limestone (calcium carbonate)."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicklime

From Wikipedia "Calcium oxide is usually made by the thermal decomposition of materials such as limestone, that contain calcium carbonate (CaCO3; mineral name: calcite) in a lime kiln"

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicklime




the natural way?
By vapore0n on 8/28/2008 8:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
So if we want to get rid of CO2, why no reduce emissions/pollution and plant more trees? Why go through all of this (waste more energy, produce a different waste) when nature can take care of its own?

ibtreehugger




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki