Daily Kos

We're All Going To Die

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM PDT

I was so excited this morning when I got up. Yesterday, I thought I saw a light. Some may remember a not very happy post I did a while back called, Time to Tell the Truth About Global Warming. In it I explain how global warming is so much worse than most people realize because once CO2 gets into the atmosphere, it stays there, to varying degrees, for centuries at least. And I explained how even if we stopped the engine of the world tomorrow, and reduced CO2 emissions to exactly zero, it would not avert the climate catastrophe that has begun, and will continue to get much much worse over the next 40 years and beyond.

This is incredibly important because it means that the only way we can really avoid the climate catastrophe is to not only cut emissions, but to remove the CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere.

The reason I was so excited is because I now believe that that technology is both available, and feasible to actually do just that - remove the billions of tons of CO2 that is threatening our very survival. The reason why we're all going to die is because the people who run the world, and most importantly, our primary form of communication, television, are too stupid, greedy and corrupt to allow it to happen.

The only thing I'm going to say about Reverend Wright is this: Who gives a fuck.

If you combine a few of the most respected and prominent reports--many of which are ridiculously conservative and already obsolete in their optimism--what we are looking at over the next 50 or 70 years is apocalyptic - large continental areas turning to desert, billions forced to migrate seeking water and food, mass extinctions of species, disease and famine. Then the real fun begins as nations compete for diminishing water, food and energy, resulting in massive geopolitical instability and eventually war. It won't all happen at once. It will play out over decades and, in fact, it's already started. If I believed in such things I might be thinking, Cue horseman 1, horsemen 2-4 standby.

But about a year ago I heard about this guy who built a machine that could literally suck CO2 right from the air. His name is Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University. I didn't take Professor Lackner's machine too seriously at the time because his prototype is really small - it only captures about ten pounds a day.

But last night I saw an article in the LA Times about Lackner's little machine and they had some numbers: "sucking up the current stream of emissions would require about 67 million boxcar-sized filters at a cost of trillions of dollars a year."

Now, if you are like me, you're probably thinking, SIXTY SEVEN MILLION? Trillions of dollars a year? We're all going to die.

But I had a different take yesterday. Why? Because I had coincidentally been reading about how many automobiles are manufactured every year worldwide. And guess what, it's almost the same. In 2005, Earthlings manufactured 65,318,744 cars, trucks, and buses. If I believed in such things, I might think this coincidence was divinely provident.

We make every year about the same number of autos as we would have to make of Dr. Lackner's machines once, over say, ten years. That's actually doable. The other catch though is Dr. Lackner's CO2 removers are quite a bit more expensive than a Toyota Corolla.

According to the LA Times article:

Lackner calculated that sucking up all 28 billion tons of CO2 released worldwide each year would require spreading out his machines over a land area the size of Arizona.

That seems like a reasonable sacrifice to save civilization, until you consider the expense.

Experts estimate that it would cost up to $200 a ton to filter and store carbon dioxide from the air. That means the yearly vacuuming bill could reach $5.6 trillion.

Yes, by all means, let's save civilization. Unless it's going to be really expensive. Then let's just all die. It's cheaper.

Granted, 5.6 trillion a year is really expensive. That's almost 7 times our annual defense budget. But since this is a world issue, we should probably use a world scale. The CIA has the annual Gross World Product (GWP) at around 65 trillion. So while it ain't cheap, we can afford it.

Now, a quick reality check.

As you may have noticed though, even with all 67 million machines, we would only offset our current annual emissions. What about all that CO2 that's already up there. That's where reductions in emission comes in. It would only be through a combination of  some serious emission reductions and CO2 removal that we could start seeing a reversal. But with out a device like Dr. Lackner's machine, there will not be a solution to the climate catastrophe. Catastrophe will happen, even if we reduced emissions to zero.

There are, of course, other complications to implementing this technology. These devices require a lot of energy to work. And unless they are equipped with some kind of clean energy supply, they will just cancel themselves out. Again, from the LA Times:

The orchards of filters would have to be powered by complexes of new nuclear plants, dams, solar farms or other clean-energy sources to avoid adding more pollution to the atmosphere.

Notice the word "or". It's a small word wrapped around big words like nuclear and plants. I haven't found the specifics on how much energy these things require, but there's no reason to get the Nuclear Lobby all excited. There are ways to power these things without injecting uranium into the equation.

The bottom line

Dr. Lackner's machine is a prototype. It works, but there can be no doubt the technology will improve dramatically, making them more efficient, and reducing costs. Other brands will come on the market. Competition will ensue. But we need to start building these things immediately. If something better comes along, we'll switch to it. Lackner's little startup company, Global Research Technologies, LLC needs to be bankrolled like they invented the fountain of youth.

And more than anything, especially as it applies here in the netroots, people need to be informed that the climate change we are experiencing now is not just the result of CO2 that was put into the atmosphere this year, or the last, but 100 years ago. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands of years.

Cutting emissions will not save us. We MUST remove the CO2 that's already there AND cut emissions. CO2 vacuum farms like Dr. Lackner envisions are our lifeline. This is a global problem that requires a massive global solution. That is hard enough.

But this problem also requires something else, something that may be even harder. Harder because, in spite of the challenges that we face in trying to develop and implement CO2 sequestration technology on a global scale, I sincerely believe that our time is optimum for taking on this kind of challenge. People can do incredible things, and we actually have the technological and communication infrastructure to pull it off - something we didn't have 50 years ago.

But our biggest challenge is not the task. It is installing leaders who can actually call us to action. The United States has allowed itself to become subjugated to a small, corrupt, and frankly, stupid cabal of individuals. The "global elite" and their fawns in the media. We are witnessing it daily in the coverage of news and the election of 2008. We witness it in the response by the barons of industry who not only fail to act, but actually deliberately prevent us from acting, with their lobbying and PR campaigns to deceive the public about global warming.

The fight to retake our media, our democracy, and our country is no longer just about progress. It is about survival. We simply cannot afford to continue allowing the frivolous, the inane, the self-interested to manipulate our national conversation and our democracy. "Not this time" is not just about getting a good guy elected for a change. It is about our very survival.

Television is the most powerful political tool ever invented. And we have handed it over to people who use it for their own gain, at the expense of the public. They have lied about, distorted and filtered the information essential to a functioning democracy - all in the interests of protecting their interests. Quite simply, they have used our publicly owned airwaves against us. The responsibility to the Common Good for the use of those airwaves was the deal we made. They have abused it.

After watching yet another American election packed into banality by the corporate media, I am convinced more than ever that if we don't retake the national conversation, through the democratic instruments of power, namely our government and the FCC, our nation and our world will see only darkness to come. We will never solve the problems we face. And we, or our children, may very well perish for it.

Tags: climate change, corporate media, Traditional Media, death, global warming, environment, technology, recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 435 comments

  •  Preach. And never stop. (22+ / 0-)

    You are right, it's already started, and yet people are just assuming that somehow, someone is going to fix it.  Al Gore will fix it, after he fixes our primary.

    •  Good diary, however.... (14+ / 0-)

      Lackner's machine is not the only and probably is not even the best way  to get rid of excess CO2.

      Linky.

      •  Come to think of it... (2+ / 0-)

        it might even be more feasible to directly control the insolation, should things start getting too hot. One way would be to make orbital particle clouds...

        •  Re Geoengineering ... (5+ / 0-)

          You might be interested in Geoengineering: Some Basic Principles.  To me, there are many win-win-win approaches prior to taking on 'orbital particle clouds' and such.

        •  Fooling with Mother Nature (12+ / 0-)

          is exceptionally dangerous.  Massive projects to re-engineer our incredibly complex AND BALANCED ecosystem is almost guaranteed to result in unintended consequences.  By far the safer and better approach is to remove the excessive CO2, which we've introduced, directly and simply, as the good professor's prototype device will do.

          Given that it's an early prototype, I fully expect that much greater efficiencies and much lower costs will be realized if we, as a society, get serious.  As for sacrificing a state, it's unnecessary.  To be efficient and effective, such devices would need to be built all over the world.  There is no reason that farms of CO2 scrubbers couldn't be built on relatively unused land in every country, by every country.  Each one could be powered by wind and solar energy and they should be running for decades at relatively low maintenance costs.  The product, carbon can be a valuable resource, especially given that carbon nano-tubes are a possible breakthrough technology in battery technology and in manufacturing all kinds of new, nano-tech products.

          This is good news and the only safe approach to undoing the damage we've created in our ignorance.  I have little doubt that the cost will not be as prohibitive as predicted.  In any case, it's certainly cheaper the doing nothing.

          •  Um .... (2+ / 0-)

            So you don't want to mess with our balanced ecosystem and the answer is to use artificial means to fix man-made problems because it's the most safe solution.

            'scuse my plants, I'll immediately kill them to avoid the global disaster they are creating.

            "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

            by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:04:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The machine didnt look that big (0+ / 0-)

            have the govt subsidize some of the cost and put one on every new house built, then they are spread out, you don't have to worry too much about localization problems and you in essence tax "out of control" building.  People would have an economic incentive to rehab existing structures which would save some CO2 also.

            This is of course, simplified, because energy costs couldn't be required of the homeowners probably, but it could be made workable.

            F#$< 'em if they can't take a joke. If they can, well, f#$< them too -Dale Slusher

            by jaslusher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:29:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But only in areas. . . (0+ / 0-)

              . . . that aren't powered by coal plants.

              If I had one of these things, it'd be cool, since 90%+ of our power comes from hydro. But if you had it on somebody's house out East, it might be a net negative.

              I think this is only one part of a larger solution set. And the best place for these might be in desert areas, where solar is readily-available. It'd be interesting to see the footprint and cost of a unit that combines the necessary solar-power generation with the CO2 scrubber.

              "Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful." -William Morris

              by Robespierrette on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:47:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Finding new sources of energy here on the East (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                koNko

                Coast is another piece of the puzzle.  Cobbling together energy from several sources to reduce the dependence on any one is a start.  You could partially power it with solar.  I think that every new house should have at least one solar panel on the roof, it doesn't solve every problem in one fell swoop, but it does reduce the magnitude.  If you could take away the equivalent of one light bulb per house in America, you've saved a bunch.

                I think On Demand Water Heating systems should be code now too.

                F#$< 'em if they can't take a joke. If they can, well, f#$< them too -Dale Slusher

                by jaslusher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:58:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  but that means that new sorbent has to shipped (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              koNko

              to everyone's house and then shipped back when it's full to have the CO2 stripped and stored...

          •  The ecosytem is more of a balancing act (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            side pocket, koNko, BYw

            that drives evolution. Short of great global catastrophes such as a huge asteroid collision, the imbalances have mostly occurred over geologically long time scales, an example being the long-period orbital variations of the Earth that are believed to have helped trigger the recurring Ice Ages in the relatively "recent" past.

            The massive human population explosion has thrown the ecosystem out of balance on such a brief timescale that evolutionary processes can no longer compensate to avoid mass extinction. This has lead to what the famous paleontologist Richard Leakey termed "The Sixth Extinction", the sixth of a series of great reductions in biodiversity that have been identified in the history of life on the Earth. While the first five extinctions were triggered by natural causes, it is the existence of humankind, and more specifically the carelessness and ignorance of humankind, that has triggered this latest great catastrophe.

            The Sixth Extinction was the title of a book written by Ricard Leakey, published in 1995. Highly ecommended reading for those who may have missed it.

            The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. -FZ

            by lightfoot on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:30:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But nature is highly addaptable and resiliant (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              side pocket, bfitzinAR

              On a local scale.

              And these become the "bricks" to build global solutions.

              There is no single solution, nstural or synthetic that can restore the natural balance (or shall we say the naturally dynamic balance) that has been upset in the past 150 years.

              However, we can see that improving the natural environment in local areas can improve them in relatively short periods and the cumulative effect of this can result in a reversal of trends.

              Two examples:

              Intensive planting in local areas near or in urban areas can lower average surface temperatures and measurably improve air quality; subtracting sources, we compund the effect. Instead of armies CO2 converters, municipal mass transit, greening of urban areas and restoration of forest or agricultural habitat can be accomplished on a time-scale of 10-20 years with a more productive return and provides immediate benifits as it progresses and leaves money to correct root problems like energy generation, transporation, etc.

              Severly polluted lands can be restored to sustainable habiat on a time scale of 5-210 years using the right techniques, which increasingly employ biological species to digest pollutants.

              In contrast, if we apply an expensive technological soliution to simulate natural processes we simply apply a bandaid without medicine. Can we afford ALL of the technologies available to solve these problems? Or do we need to choose wisely by selecting those withc address root cause problems while using less expensive and renuable natural solutions?

              Changing building codes and municipal planning to require higher efficiency systems reducing consuption or canging to clean generation while using nature to repair itself may be a more viable solution.

              Something to think about.

              "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

              by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:42:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  A nice big elm tree takes more CO2 out than one (8+ / 0-)

        of those machines.  Besides, what about the CO2 involved in manufacture?  None for elms.

        Reforest the temperate zones.  Problem solved - well, a big part of it.

        •  Not even close (12+ / 0-)

          Reforesting the entire planet wouldn't do it. And also, trees take a long time to mature. As much a 100 years for an elm. We don't have 100 years.

          But we should still reforest the planet. Every bit helps.

          •  Trees offset as they grow. No waiting (6+ / 0-)

            No emissions during manufacturing.  No emissions during transportation.  Very low cost to make a tree - way less than that machine.

            Carbon offset is a real alternative.  Think about it.  

            •  Al Gore and Virgin Airline dude have a contest (12+ / 0-)

              $30 million bucks to whoever develops an efficient way to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. I was thinking we should give it to Lackner for his prototype. But now I realize we should give it to you. Plant trees. Who knew? :P

              •  each vehicle has its own scrubber? (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                koNko

                and the additional power to run it is payed by the user in the extra gas to power the scrubber (as an emission credit? - no scrubber, buy them as a tax) worked for lead - catalytic convertors. Obviously if it was that simple someone would have thought of it already, but even if it cut the mileage in half to power the scrubber at least it's offset.  

                •  Questions (0+ / 0-)

                  How large and heavy is a generator of sufficient capacity to scrub the CO2 generated by the car?

                  How much aditional power will be required to run it?

                  How much aditional power will be required to transport the weight of it plus the additional fuel to power it?

                  How much will the additional fuel cost (and keep in mind you only pay $0.18 per gallon in fuel ax verses $3.xx in basic fuel)?

                  Where is all tht additional fuel required going to come from?

                  I can't really answer your question but I suppose these things are big and heavy and not designed to be on-board systems.

                  Catalytic converters work by initiating a self-sustaining chemical reaction by using Pd to catalyze the conversion process. These extraction converters use electrolytic energy to sustain the reaction and store the extracted carbon.

                  "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

                  by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:22:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Roof top gardens in cities, expanding parks (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Tracker, koNko, sweeper, bfitzinAR

            and greenbelts. Every citizen should plant at least one tree and there are plenty of fast growing trees, it doesn't take 100 years. Farmers should be encouraged to replant shelter belts and acreage in soil bank should in some cases be replanted in trees permanently. We also need to stop burning wood for heat. I have thought for a while on demand hydrogen would be the perfect replacement for heating oil and gas.

          •  How many acres of plants (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            bfitzinAR, Sedi

            Can be planted for the cost of one reactor, and what additional benifits can be realized that cannot with one reactor?

            Please, serious answer.

            With all due respect to your good intentions, our faith in technological silver bullets at the negelect of nature is illogical and insane.

            I'm involved professionally in the development of power conservation technology and well versed in gas-gas conversion reactors/generators, and as much as I support the use of such technology where it makes sense, you seriously underestimate the difficulty and cost of taking such an approach and the merit/efficiency/importiance of Mother Nature.

            Investing huge amounts of money in technological solutions to reverse the effects of the degradation of nature by simulating natural processes as an end in itself is not terribly sensible.

            What makes more sense is immediately working on the repair of degradation of the ecosystem, power conservation and clean power generation.

            If I may, allow me to reframe the picture by defining the problem as more than CO2 levels:

            Increasing CO2
            Increasing deforistation
            Increasing soil errosion
            Decreasing ariable land
            Decreasing fresh water supplies/water table
            Increasing sea salinity
            Decreasing food supplies/increasing population
            Increasing power demand

            How many reactors at what cost and what other benifits besides CO2 conversion does this offer?

            I absolutely support scientific research to develop whatever solutions possible, but I honestly do not see reactors as The solution or even much of a contributor when the economic resources can be put to better use and faster returns with existing technology (including nature) and by developing solutions to reduce source generation. As long as CO2 emissions continute to rise at source and accumulate (you correctly elaborate the latter) gas converters are an endless investment in maintaining the status quo.

            Again - how many reactors would be required just to establish equilibrium?

            Suggest we think a little deeper and agrue the merits of our alternatives.

            The order is:

            Reduce
            Reuse
            Recycle

            Regenerators and plants are the third, but plants deliver a more complete solution and the technology is very well proven by at least hundreds of millions of years.

            Blind faith in technology created this mess and won't get us out of it.

            "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

            by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:56:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you need to work on (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              kate mckinnon, LucyMO, Spekkio, BYw

              ...is your knowledge of carbon sequestration. Plants are like lungs, they absorb, then they exhale. Trees do too. The bottom line is there is no natural way to get CO2 levels back down to stable. It will help, and we need to do everything you said. But it won't solve the problem of resident CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

              I should have written a diary about why plant sequestration won't work. I can't believe so many uninformed people. Fact: We could reforest the entire planet and it wouldn't be enough.

              We have to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere manually.

              •  Show me your numbers (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Morlock

                I'd like to understand your assumptions about the inputs and outputs of each element in the system, or at least what those variable factors would be.

                Suggest you go up (or down) thread to another of my posts directed to you questioning the energy balance and how that would translate into the effecency of such systems.

                You are making some pretty broad and unqualified statements about how this technology would work and I'm questioning the basis.

                I'm actually quite familliar with the kinetics of gas-gas conversion and the mass balances involved, and even a relatively simple and efficient conversion process such as nitrogen generation from atmospheric air has a pretty high energy demand.

                As long as you present this in broad strokes without stating your assumptions, how can we have anything but a general discussion? If you want to challange the knowledge or reasoning of people posting here, hadn't you better define your terms first? If we are stumbling in the dark please turn on the light.

                One hypothetical I put to you elsewhere is the merrit of applying clean power technology directly to basic power generation needs verses applying it to this extraction (assuming the input of CO2 from basic generation is constant).

                If we were to first apply the clean generation to replacing dirty generation in order to accomplish input source reduction, would that be more effective than using the same power to extract the carbon while continuing to serve basic needs with a CO2 generating process?

                Is this technology really so efficient?  Even without having data, I can logically question if this is putting the cart before the horse.

                I think you, yourself have stated some of the problems. My fundamenal question about this would be how much power is required per mole of carbon extracted?

                If we haven't got that number, at least let's explain the general conditions.

                What is the relationship of variables in the system such as the CO2 inputs, accumulation, extraction outputs, factors affecting dynamic balance, etc. if such technology is to be successfully employed?

                I've made some pretty broad statements too, but at least I state the logical assumptions, for example, if we increase geening and reforestation, the surface temperature will decrease, average humidity will increase (and hence thermal conductivity of the atmosphere), etc.  You are certianly welcome to argue these points because they are stated.

                To understand my basic reasoning, if we prioritize source reduction by replacing CO2 generating processes with clean (or cleaner) processes, we effect source reduction as rapidly as possible, mitigating the problem in the first stage and enabling other methods of reduction and systematic balance to be more effective (whether thay are the natural processes I prefer or the synthetic process you do). If my reasoning is mistaken, buy all means elaborate.

                If, on the other hand, we apply this technology without first making substantial reduction in CO2 generation, then I don't see the possiblity of this being effective at all - you are just throwing more power consumption at the problem.

                I'm genuinely interested in your resoning. As I've stated previously, I'm not against such technology but I'm very skeptical about it's effectiveness because of the power consumption and cost. Some natural solutions not only work but have other benifits and might be more productive (or practical).

                I think it's reasonable to raise these questions, and I'm open to your explanation.

                BTW, I've been involved in development of DC power regulation, specifically, sensing and regulation of charge-discharge processes, so I consider the practical problems and limitations of current clean power technologies and how that could relate to such systems reqiring diffuse geographical distribution or in situ application, another set of hypothetical problems I put to you and others elsewhere in the form of questions. If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't argue these points.

                Thanks for your reply and excuse my poor English. I apologise if I'm being too harsh, but I'm equally so with my collegues and self because we must seek truth from facts.

                "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

                by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:18:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Some work for you. (0+ / 0-)

                You need to work on the process plants use to convert CO2 as they breathe.

                We want them to exhale as long as possible, and then to capture enough of the stored energy and matter they contain for a useful purposes to create a more favorable balance over the total lifecycle. You can do that with plants, but not with machines.

                The reason I question the factors and figures used for these projections is to understand the inputs, which must be reduced to balance the system. If the forecasts are based on extrapolation of current, accelerating trends of CO2 generation (I believe they should be) then what are the sources and how do we reduce those? Solve the root problem first.

                Fundamentally, the problem (as I understand it) is increasing population and increasing power consumption from sources generating CO2 at a higher rate than can be digested by the ecosystem at this point.

                For sequestering to work, the balance of CO2 produced over the lifecycle of the system (including manufacture, operation including transportation of sorbant and recycling/disposal at end of life) has to be significantly less than the CO2 extracted by it or you haven't accomplished much.

                So my assumption is that, to be effective, the majority of energy consumed by the system must be clean and the question that follows is, would this clean energy be more effectively used to displace capacity presently generating CO2?

                We have no data so I'm not going to argue it further, but you might ask that question yourself. Several other people here besides me are asking it.

                I seriously doubt the efficency of these filters results in a significant overall gain unless the power supplied is clean.

                Putting clean power to work directly to reduce the atmospheric input of CO2 is likely to be a far more effective strategy than using it for an inefficient extraction process.

                Let's not put the cart before the horse.

                I'm glad you've discovered CO2 residance time. The residance time of ODS is even greater by up to a factor of appoximately 20 since these compounds are so inert they are nearly impossible to destroy by natural processes. However, despite that fact, a dramatic reduction of ODS manufacturing and use over the past 20 years has resulted in measureable improvements greater than expected (probably due to errors in forecast input data), but significant progress nevertheless.

                It illustrates the effect of source reduction.

                Reducing CO2 generation first should be the best strategy.

                "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

                by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Plant Bamboo (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            bfitzinAR

            Instant forest.

            In fact, re-greening the planet and reducing source generation should be the most viable solution.

            Let's consider how we could effeciently use these sysems to extract CO2.

            First, I think you have already stated one of the inherent problems; they use a great deal of power. To be effective, it follows that the power source must be as clean as possible or it reduces efficency. The solution to that is clean energy, which can be equally applied to replace dirty power that causes the problem. Would it be more efective to concenrate that clean power investment to reduce the source problem as quickly as possible? I'd like to see that math.

            Second, how would such CO2 extraction converter be deployed? As concentrated farms? I think that has another systematic problem; as the local air becomes cleaner, the efficiency of the systems would decline unless you have the means to deliver an adequate balance of CO2 to the farm to sustain the conversion process. I doubt that can be done so logically the more rational system would be to diffuse the systems globally and/or concentrate them close to the source of CO2. (Keep in mind the generation is close to the ground where CO2 is not diffuse verses the atmosphere where it collects in a more uniform equilibrium.)

            So wouldn't it be more logical and effective to concentrate resources on maximizing the direct use of clean power and reducing sources of CO2 as quickly as possible without the addditional power generation burden of the extraction generators themselves?

            And how about investment in conservation of power which tends to have a more immediate return ecologically and economically?

            I like your statement that we have an equal investment in automobiles and extraction generators. I can't think of a stronger arguement for my case.

            "The half-baked ideas of people are better than the ideas of half-baked people" - Jack Kilby

            by koNko on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:10:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Well said !!!! (25+ / 0-)

    The fight to retake our media, our democracy, and our country is no longer just about progress. It is about survival. We simply cannot afford to continue allowing the frivolous, the inane, the self-interested to manipulate our national conversation and our democracy. "Not this time" is not just about getting a good guy elected for a change. It is about our very survival.

    Thank you!

    Join us at Bookflurries: Bookchat on Wednesday nights 8:00 PM EST

    by cfk on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:32:45 PM PDT

  •  I think I may have heard about this. (17+ / 0-)

    Is this invention also referred to as an artificial tree?  I think I've heard of some device called an artificial tree that could take 7 times as much carbon out of the atmosphere as a real tree...but that might have been a sci-fi story.  I forget.

    But I can't help but wonder where that carbon goes, and what's to keep people from just reburning it?

    Also, does this really require an artificial solution?  can there not be any natural solution?