The Dirty Secret

Comments

• 	re the dirty secret Guest (vragain) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	isnt there ANYTHING that we can use carbon dioxide for ???? - maybe we should have a major project to find the answer to that - then the big boys would start using it up - or am I just TOO naive ?? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Yes, use CO2 to make fuel Guest (Bob Hargraves) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	Yes, use CO2 to make fuel, adding H2 from H2O fractured by high temperature gas nuclear power plants, like the pebble bed reactor. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	congrats Guest (busted4xs) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts: 1	Go Bob! Explain it to them...Oooops I called Bob "Bob"...here comes Jason the Slasher...now you see my post/now you won't...ssslaaaaaaaassssh!!!! Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	bigger question Guest (skeptic) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	the bigger question is why?  the article presupposes CO2 emissions as a) a threat, and b) a huge threat.  still no proof, folks. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	The No Global Warming Faith Guest (Vick Fisher) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts: 1	When a man says that hundreds of scientific studies and the thousands of climate scientists  are not convincing, he is saying that he has a great deal of faith in his own presuppositions and the pronouncements of the oil industry, and very little faith in science.  No amount of "proof" will ever convince a such a fanatic.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Ever read State of Fear? Guest (Dave) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM

        Posts: 1

        I know it is fiction but it opens the door for you to go and research yourself and see that there really is no such thing as 'Global Warming'.  Believe it or not, it is only those who look through the facts themselves that see how false a claim global warming really is...  If you think about it, most everything you know is based on second hand knowledge.  In the case of global warming, it is based on 3rd and 4rth hand knowledge with a media interpretation.  Do some research for yourself, you will see there is no such thing.  Many areas of the earth are actually getting colder?  Wow!! Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • 	State of confusion Guest (Richard Wesley) on 08/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts: 1	Then why don't you go an read some of the primary literature or <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74">talk</a> to the people doing the research? Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • 	State of Fear Guest (JimD) on 08/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts: 1	"most everything you know is based on second hand knowledge." And _your_ knowledge is based on what? A book, whose author's knowledge is based on other people's opinions, whose opinions are... Rate this comment: (Reply)

          • Re: State of Fear boustrephon on 11/04/2008 at 2:14 AM

            Posts: 8 Avg Rating:

            Yes, most of what we know comes from other people, and you are quite entitled to discount it based on what you have read. Please keep questioning, because we need skeptics and it is easy for movements to go overboard. However, in this case the credentials of those identifying human-induced global warming means that it is highly likely that this is a real effect. I think we are going to have to go with some sort of a democratic consensus on this. The next questions are whether the consequences are problematic, and if so, whether it is more urgent than other problems that face us, and finally, can we do anything about it? Since it is mostly the poorest that are negatively impacted by the consequences and it is the developed world that has generated the change, I would say it is time for us in the West to pay up. Yes... with freedom comes responsibilities... Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	CO2 for fuel Guest (John) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	Great! And what do you do with the radioactive waste, buildings, etc. Conservation and efficiency would go a long way to preventing CO2 in the first place. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Use for co2 Guest (C.N.Guerriere,M.D.) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	Plants use co2 and gie off o2;Maybe we can build several "megadome" greenhouses and contain the gas from adding to the so-called greenhouse effect and grow produce at the same time,but then again,I'm a physician so I'm probably naive as well;few ever listen to our ideas anyway. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	re use for c02 Guest (vcragain) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	you are on target - however once we have completely changed the planet's weather system by our stupidity it will probably cause the sahara to be green again and maybe that will emit enuf 02 to fix the problem - our sweet little planet will self-regulate I'm sure - of course that may not suit homo sapiens ! Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Use for co2 Guest (Paul712) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	While its true that plants use CO2 and give off O2, all animals also take in the O2 and give off CO2.  To implement Dr. Guerriere's idea would require many areas equal to the Amazon rain forest. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Use for CO2 Guest (Jim D) on 08/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	The Dutch do this already, piping CO2 from an industrial emitter to greenhouses, where it boosts crop yields.  Long term, though, we have no choice: we have to burn less stuff.  Nuclear is not a bad option, the waste might be a pain in the butt but at least it doesn't trash the entire planet. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	problem with CO2 to fuel Guest (Rob) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	Assuming for the sake of argument that removing CO2 from fossil fuel sources is vital to the environment, it would seem that making methanol from the CO2 from fossil fuel sources would be a bad thing.  The fuel will get burnt in cars and turn back into C02 and water.  The article states that it is very difficult to capture CO2 from vehicles. FWIW, Rob Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	[no subject] Guest (Richard) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	At least you are not drilling more oil to power the car. So the CO2 emmited by the power plant will be neutral. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	co2 to fuel Guest (peter) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts: 1	if the co2 comes from coal, it is not carbon neutral. there was a recent article no capturing c02 from smokestacks to grow algae - and make biodiesel but in the end the c02 is released when burning the biodiesel Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • [no subject] Guest (Sean) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM

        Posts: 1

        But the people burning the biodeisel are going to be burning it (or somethng like it) anyway; this at least lets the initial use be carbon-free. Like if I save you $20 on your groceries on the condition that you spend it at my supermarket, you're technically still spending the money, but you're still getting $20 worth of free groceries. (And biodeisel won't go moldy in your fridge.) Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • Sean Guest (JimD) on 08/16/2006 at 12:00 AM

          Posts: 1

          There's no free lunch - no matter how elaborate the scheme, oil or coal used as an energy source ends up as CO2.  The trick will be to do the combustion in big central facilities where the CO2 can be captured and sequestered (pumped deep underground or into the deep ocean).  You can then take the electricity and use it as you wish: make hydrogen from water, charge batteries, make methanol... the CO2 is no longer part of the equation, no matter what you do after the "big burn".  Technology that could efficiently capture CO2 from the atmosphere would be valuable; does anyone know if thermodynamics allows you to do it with useful efficiency? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	a wonder alternative Guest (david) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	see the article of "solar all-embracing alternative to fossil fuels" (http://www.inauka.ru/blogs/article65332.html - in English)  about a cheap production of methanol or methane from utilized CO2 in a help of solar energy Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Hmmm Guest (Carl) on 08/02/2006 at 12:00 AM

    Posts: 1

    "In English" is a bit of a stretch. His skill with the runon sentence is remarkable. His calculations and assumptions are highly suspect, though. For this proposal to have any merit, he needs to recognize the ludicrous physical size of the installations he is proposing, essentially relying on solar concentrators to provide electricity for municipal power and for chemical synthesis. No consideration of energy balances, process efficiency, etc. This idea is simplistic hogwash, I hate to say. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Sequestering CO2 -  BIG problem Guest (EAW) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	If the CO2 from burning coal in the US were liquified,  there'd be about 33 million barrels a day. For perspective, we use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Green House gases Guest (Scientist again) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	Mr. Talbot states "the chief greenhouse gas" is Carbon Dioxide. Water Vapor is by far the most prevalent green house gas.  On any clear winter night you can feel the radiantional cooling for yourself without the insulating blanket of water vapor clouds. Natural Water Vapor is above 90 percent of the green house gases.  CO2 is only a fraction of a percent.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	CO2 Capture via Oxy-Combustion? jmatlof on 09/19/2006 at 9:23 PM
  Posts: 1	David Talbot mentions in his article 'a few companies are planning 'oxyfuels' plants. Does anyone know of any commercial oxy-combustion technologies in the power generation domain?  I know of one firm called CES in Sacramento, CA, but no others.  Thoughts anyone?  Thanks. Jason Matlof Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Carbon sequestration hawkeye4 on 03/13/2007 at 9:21 AM

  Posts: 1

  In order to eliminate pollution from  transportation div ,we need to remove the hydrogen from the hydrocarbon and use it to fuel our cars, and turn the carbon into carbon fiber to create physical  things as it is stronger than steel , like steel beam,bullet proof vest,plates ect.even in medical div nanotubes to protect cells from HIV attacks. That would be the best solution. Rate this comment: (Reply)