Maybe there's hope after all... looks like the CO2 situation just got a bit brighter.

[gigantes]

since becoming 'green' is something that's taking the world a lot longer to accomplish than we actually have time for, carbon capture is the most realistic technology to bail us out IMO. maybe the only real one.

unfortunately development has not gone well. until...


According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. generated more than 3.18 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, of which two thirds was attributed to power plants alone. In general, about 20 to 30 percent of a power plant's energy is spent on capturing carbon dioxide emissions, at a cost of $70 per metric ton.

...

In a simulation study Khazeni conducted, the new ZIF structure (http://phys.org/news/2015-03-material-captures-carbon-dioxide-high.html) adsorbed more than 100 times more carbon dioxide than other similar structures. With negligible difference in adsorption of other gases like nitrogen and hydrogen, they can also separate carbon dioxide from gas mixtures more selectively.

now that he's gotten a patent, he has to figure out who wants to implement it. at the same time, the major nations led by the USA and china need to figure out how to make this happen quickly, cooperatively, smoothly.


still a lot of challenges going forward, but civilisation might just hang on a bit longer than i thought. there's now a decent chance that many people on ISH might get to live relatively normal lives, lifespans and all that stuff. :cheers:

[kNIOKAS]

Eh... I feel like the CO2 hysteria is really something for the public to be occupied with for a while.

Thank you for caring, gigantes, but the people that actually matter do not...

[gigantes]

well, the public in first world nations did not care enough about the issue to get things done in time... meaning changing their consumer habits and putting pressure on corporations and politicians. the public in other nations are generally underinformed or resentful of first world nations for creating most of the problem in the first place.

it's far too late to avoid catastrophe by preventative means... so AFAIK the only thing that's going to save our bacon is geo-engineering or the like.

now, i figure CO2 capture is *way* more appealing than trying to put particles in the air to deflect sunlight. i.e., so many ways for that one to go wrong. CO2 capture is also a way for the avg citizen to keep living their consumerist lives and economies to avoid disaster.

the difference this time around is that as global climate change gets worse and worse, people will be much more motivated to put pressure on govt and industry to implement this technology rapidly. because people hate giving things up or changing radically, but are always eager to blame someone else for their problems or demand govt fix their problems for them. so i see this situation as much more workable than the previous ones.

even if the west has to foot the entire bill themselves (i.e. no help from russia, china, india, brasil), it's still better than all of us going under, right?

[Nanners]

my understanding is that this technology is something you put in a power plants smoke stack to capture CO2 from concentrated emissions, not something that just pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. so while technology like this may help us slow down the rate of carbon emissions, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would still continue to increase.

[DeuceWallaces]

This shit has been around forever. They're expensive to implement so industries don't bother unless they're forced.

That being said, there is this crazy technology that can pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere. ****ing trees. They've been around for a long time.

[gigantes]

That being said, there is this crazy technology that can pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere. ****ing trees. They've been around for a long time.
great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.

[kNIOKAS]

well, the public in first world nations did not care enough about the issue to get things done in time... meaning changing their consumer habits and putting pressure on corporations and politicians. the public in other nations are generally underinformed or resentful of first world nations for creating most of the problem in the first place.

it's far too late to avoid catastrophe by preventative means... so AFAIK the only thing that's going to save our bacon is geo-engineering or the like.

now, i figure CO2 capture is *way* more appealing than trying to put particles in the air to deflect sunlight. i.e., so many ways for that one to go wrong. CO2 capture is also a way for the avg citizen to keep living their consumerist lives and economies to avoid disaster.

the difference this time around is that as global climate change gets worse and worse, people will be much more motivated to put pressure on govt and industry to implement this technology rapidly. because people hate giving things up or changing radically, but are always eager to blame someone else for their problems or demand govt fix their problems for them. so i see this situation as much more workable than the previous ones.

even if the west has to foot the entire bill themselves (i.e. no help from russia, china, india, brasil), it's still better than all of us going under, right?
All this might be very well true, but I generally disagree that it should be expected from the public to try to deal with the CO2 problem (if it really is what it is now said that it is).

Such decision is not to be made by public in any means. It should come with will from the top. Currently we simply do not have a system where such thing is realistically possible - the dominant market paradigm does not provide for individuals to make a choice of this scope.

Right now I see all this "humans hurting planet", "CO2 destroying nature" talks as just a cheap way to induce a guilt on consumers, and force them to consume something else - like buy "organic" food, pretend to be a douchebag environmentalist, yet not actually address and solve the real problem - for example, overproduction and overconsumption.

I would make a comparison between the global warming guilt nowdays and the sex taboo in the christianity - it's just a smokescreen, that's all it is.

[DeuceWallaces]

There are more trees in the western world than 100 years ago. Also the validity of this statement is questionable in the first place.

:lol

So much fail.

[DeuceWallaces]

great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.

It's an environmental-industrial engineering question. I don't really concern myself with those questions. That being said, it's probably a much more efficient, and likely expensive, version of what we've had around since the early 90s. Industry will only do it if forced.

[Akrazotile]

The most direct and effective way to begin "saving the planet" is to reduce global population size. It's as simple that.

Nothing else is even worth talking about if we wont/cant do that.

Deuce why dont you help us out and kick things off.

[Jailblazers7]

great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.

I think it is just a new technological improvement to be implemented at power plants. My dad works for a large energy company and it's basically a "carbon scrubber" which captures the CO2 created by the plants so that it can be physically stored instead of being dispersed into the atmosphere. The EPA (or some government law or institution) has emission standards for plants which really impact coal burning plants because it's a much dirtier process than natural gas.

I think this tech could have an impact if it is cheap enough compared to other alternatives and energy companies expect further regulation that enforces stricter standards but otherwise the move to natural gas will probably have a much larger impact on CO2 emissions than any new tech (other than solar improving or getting cheaper). Maybe it can have a big impact in China tho.

[Trollsmasher]

Caring about CO2 when 20 times more GW potent arctic methane is getting released with an ever increasing speed:lol

[DeuceWallaces]

Caring about CO2 when 20 times more GW potent arctic methane is getting released with an ever increasing speed:lol

Hey genius, what do you think is causing the release of arctic gasses trapped in glaciers?

[gigantes]

All this might be very well true, but I generally disagree that it should be expected from the public to try to deal with the CO2 problem (if it really is what it is now said that it is).

Such decision is not to be made by public in any means. It should come with will from the top. Currently we simply do not have a system where such thing is realistically possible - the dominant market paradigm does not provide for individuals to make a choice of this scope.
the public created this problem with the cooperation of industry and govt. it's a three-way partnership so to speak and it -IS- "the top" as you say.

the fact that people expect the other two partners to take care of this mess is why the world failed to get things done in time. so pointing fingers is meaningless to me at this point. all that matters now is finding a workable way to solve the problem.

if you don't believe GCC is happening and is trending worse with each year, i understand. there are tonnes of threads on that non-scientific debate.

...

anyway it sounds to me like the solution, if it's to be found, will involve somehow scrubbing mass quantities of air of carbon content. converting factories to zero-carbon output will be a heroic advance, but far too late to correct the atmospheric imbalance we already have.

[kNIOKAS]

the public created this problem with the cooperation of industry and govt. it's a three-way partnership so to speak and it -IS- "the top" as you say.
It wasn't really public - it was individuals. That's what I'm saying... There is barely a body what one could call "public" in the contemporary system - it's merely a sum of individuals.


the fact that people expect the other two partners to take care of this mess is why the world failed to get things done in time. so pointing fingers is meaningless to me at this point. all that matters now is finding a workable way to solve the problem.
Well the mechanism should be self-evident by now. Have you heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Diffused responsibility is one of the main principles that applies... So it does here.


if you don't believe GCC is happening and is trending worse with each year, i understand. there are tonnes of threads on that non-scientific debate.
I'm not inclined to believe in something. I just think that climate is a complex phenomenon and the narrative which sounds something like "Humans producing CO2>CO2 causing higher temperature>Humans are at fault for higher temperature>Humans must try to stop CO2" is not scientific. It's a slogan and a headline, but not a correct or productive way to see things if anything.


anyway it sounds to me like the solution, if it's to be found, will involve somehow scrubbing mass quantities of air of carbon content. converting factories to zero-carbon output will be a heroic advance, but far too late to correct the atmospheric imbalance we already have.
You are thinking in terms of solutions already, and that's what I meant. A quick fix with a pill is what you're after? It's good for short term, but it's not a systemic solution to the problem (which I think is not understood enough).

[gigantes]

the public is the sum of individuals and their behavior, yes. that's my point.

"tragedy of the commons" is exactly how we got here. well said.

you can think whatever you want about climate science. that's fine. sorry no offense... but nobody cares what you think and nobody is counting on you to learn the science and change your life in any particular way. it's far too late and it doesn't matter either way at this point.

there -is- no organic, systemic solution when you travel down the road we're on. at this point we're completely built on growth and almost totally reliant on it for the healthy function of our system. if you study nature in almost any form, you will see this pattern over and over again.

i.e., systems tend to grow unsustainable, then collapse. actually i don't think there's any other end to the story... just that i'd prefer not to see it happen in my lifetime!

[kNIOKAS]

you can think whatever you want about climate science. that's fine. sorry no offense... but nobody cares what you think and nobody is counting on you to learn the science and change your life in any particular way. it's far too late and it doesn't matter either way at this point.

That's my point also - I think I am more learned on science that the average individual and... Well, nobody cares? But they should. Saying it's too late is crazy - one must constantly check and reevaluate what he knows and what he's or is not doing.

Again, I'm saying it's too much of narrative to talk about CO2 and how much it should be stopped. The world is not as simple as that, and it doesn't boil down to one sentence and one way of dealing with it. Thinking in this closed box completely overlooks the big picture - other factors effecting the climate, the essential questions of whether should it even be tried to stop and re-influence the climate, as well as what comes after that.

Your position seems a bit fatalistic and contradictionary - solve the current symptom yet do not even attempt to analyze and tackle the system that lead to it.

[sundizz]

Hopefully (hate to say this as an American), China sets the standard. They have the sort of government that allows changes to happen quickly. If they force their people/companies to become environmentally sound etc it will go a long way toward the world following suit. Democracy fails in this sort of situation - people as a whole are too short-sighted to see what is in the best interest of humanity.

[fiddy]

Hey genius, what do you think is causing the release of arctic gasses trapped in glaciers?
Sun cycles, solar minimum incoming soon

[gigantes]

That's my point also - I think I am more learned on science that the average individual and... Well, nobody cares? But they should. Saying it's too late is crazy - one must constantly check and reevaluate what he knows and what he's or is not doing.

Again, I'm saying it's too much of narrative to talk about CO2 and how much it should be stopped. The world is not as simple as that, and it doesn't boil down to one sentence and one way of dealing with it. Thinking in this closed box completely overlooks the big picture - other factors effecting the climate, the essential questions of whether should it even be tried to stop and re-influence the climate, as well as what comes after that.

Your position seems a bit fatalistic and contradictionary - solve the current symptom yet do not even attempt to analyze and tackle the system that lead to it.
you misunderstand me.

i did not begin trying to grasp this meta-issue with any particular belief or agenda. i always try to begin with zero knowledge and zero opinion, for i believe it leads to greater insight... even though it's harder that way, more confusing along the path, and takes longer.

it has taken me years to form a working grasp of how we got here, why we got here, what our precise situation is right now, what the future is likely to be if we continue as we do, and what it might take to help ourselves out in future. this thread is not an attempt to explain every little aspect of that. it is about a current news item, and at best an attempt to address the matter in a short practical way without having to write a book or ask anyone to read a book.

you can say "you disagree with me on this" or "you think i'm being naive or contradictory on that" but feel free to ask me a question about any aspect of this situation or anything that i've said here. i'm not a scientist of course, but i think i can handle it.

poke a hole in my reasoning if you can. that is how theories get corrected and improved, of course.

[gigantes]

Hopefully (hate to say this as an American), China sets the standard. They have the sort of government that allows changes to happen quickly. If they force their people/companies to become environmentally sound etc it will go a long way toward the world following suit. Democracy fails in this sort of situation - people as a whole are too short-sighted to see what is in the best interest of humanity.
china is in major trouble from what i understand. a couple decades ago, when they began their big push to become a superpower through manufacturing, they pretty much skipped the step of creating an EPA and environmental protection legislation.

now they have modernisation, high technologies, a large middle class, a leading economy... but the air is borderline unbreathable in many of the largest cities... heavy metal poisoning (mainly from the air) is turning whole towns sick... land and waterways have become dumping grounds for chemical byproducts and whatever else... and the economy has little room as i understand it to be flexible, respond to the whole situation.

the typical chinese attitude seems to be one of high competitiveness but very little altruism or regard for their environment. a lot of this prolly goes back to how mao shaped the nation decades ago. they're still turning a blind eye to much of what's going on in their own country and in regard to GCC overall.

point is... i don't know what to expect from china at this point. if anything, their leadership seem to believe that in the future they will be the sole world's superpower and can pretty much make their own rules.

[shlver]

great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.
You would need an impractical amount of the material with massive surface area to pull even an insignificant amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount currently being released would make any man made method to scrub the atmosphere completely unfeasible. Like others have said, maximizing surface area contact ie implementation in smokestacks is where this kind of technology will be most efficient.

[gigantes]

You would need an impractical amount of the material with massive surface area to pull even an insignificant amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount currently being released would make any man made method to scrub the atmosphere completely unfeasible. Like others have said, maximizing surface area contact ie implementation in smokestacks is where this kind of technology will be most efficient.
damn... okay, thank you.

i guess that means the next invention needs to be combining adsorption technology with 'mass-scrubbing' technology.

not a lot of time for this to work out... hopefully it works out. :S