david george

junior engineer, KABSONS

This conversation is closed.

An idea to absorb the carbon dioxide in the air


  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: There is little question that many of the simplest ideas can have the greatest effect. We must begin efforts to reverse (desertification) through (industrial scale) efforts of (reforestation) in the desert regions of the world. We are missing a huge opportunity. In conjunction with other efforts to stop the production of CO2, we must focus an (internationally funded) project to systematically reclaim desert lands. Relying solely on the brave efforts of local farmers, is simply not enough. It requires pumps, (water treatment, purification), soil reclamation, propagation, planting, and biologists to preside over the appropriate species selection and other critical environmental factors. It requires the employment of local populations to give them a direct stake in saving the entire world, and yes they must be paid. Such an industrial scale effort would have enormous benefits for farming, grazing,water retention, CO2 removal . One need only spend a few days in the deserts of the Southwest US, to see the unbelievable regenerative power of (native desert species). Initially it requires more effort politically,and logistically,but in time (micro climates) develop which will cascade throughout the regions in question. The key is native vegetation, which attracts native pollinators, natural seed spreaders,natural pest control, wildlife diversity. We must treat the situation as if we were at war, because we are. The methods, and details must be developed (locally)though careful scientific consensus and sensitivity to the specific ecosytems. The positive spillover effects are vast, and attainable. It may sound crazy to some, but failure to recognize and correct the human caused problem will only lead to disaster, and worse yet a squandered opportunity.
  • Jul 29 2013: More plants esp. trees.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: sir we using this in between heavy traffick area , in my country there is a lot of problem with heavy traffic . so that i got this thought
  • thumb
    Aug 27 2013: Industries that use carbon dioxide eg. for dry ice, actually use fossil fuels to generate CO2. They should harvest it from air using membrane filters.
  • Aug 6 2013: or you could plant a tree?
  • Aug 4 2013: peter
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Can I ask you how much CO2 we will leave on the earth? What is the boundary separating "Enough amount of CO2" and "Too much CO2 which can pollute the earth?"
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: The amount of CO2 on the planet does't really change over time, it stays the same (more, or less). The real question is, where is it ? What form is it in? Billions of tons of CO2 are stored in the oceans, sea shells, and in ancient sea beds buried in the earth in the form of limestone deposits. When we harvest that limestone for the production of things like concrete such as for the (Three Gorges Dam) for instance, we release that CO2 into the atmosphere plus Internal combustion engines in cars, boats,planes,power plants that burn oil ,coal, or natural gas. CO2 is absorbed by the (giga-ton) by rain forests, and vegetation.When plants absorb it, it becomes part of the structure of the plant, and is stored there for long periods.That keeps it from floating around in the atmosphere where it becomes a (blanket of gas), (an insulation layer trapping heat).Think of a mathematical set of circumstances that allow human life to exist. Enough food, water, air to breath, a place to live etc. When your outside of that mathematical set of parameters life is no longer possible. The answer to your question is dependent on how much suffering we can endure as a species. The rich will survive, while the poor, and those displaced by desertification, and sea level rise suffer, and die, It's that simple. After measuring a thousand factors, and looking at the (ice cores) that show history of climate the answer is, (far far less than is in the air now). It's still being released faster than at any time in human history, in other words way to much. We need to cut the amount by about half, and fast. There are alternatives. The fossil fuel industry is suicidal, and is fighting to hide the truth, because they are getting rich off destroying the planet. Most of those oil executives will be dead in 40-50 years they don't care at all period! It's all about greed. You can't give exact amounts with such huge problem. It requires knowledge study, and (wisdom) something the US congress doesn't have.
  • Jul 31 2013: th problem with co2 is that it is causing gloal warming, which can be corrected easily and cheaply
    anchor barges over the deepest trenches of the oceans wih either solar or nucclear bpower generators on board. also on board a battery of air compressors that will pump air down 500-1000 feet and roil the surface water with cooler water from below. the deeper water will continue to cool the upper layers of water and air lower global temperatures easilyby 2 degrees or more can be easily regulated tomaintain a goal temperature and be relatively pollution free in operaton
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: You're a little off on your estimates Dave. The scale of warming caused by the CO2 blanket we've created over ourselves, is (many millions) of times more vast than the amount of energy it would take to circulate the deep ocean currents to correct it. The oceans do this on their own as dense salt water is naturally exchanged with fresh water from terrestrial sources. The dense salt water sinks, and the fresh water tends to stay at the surface. You have a nice idea, but the scale of the problem is huge, far beyond our capacity to generate the power for what you propose. Even if we had thousands of nuclear plants it wouldn't make a dent my friend. Think about what's happening.CO2 is hovering in the troposphere, the extremely thin layer of air, and all it's components hovering over us only few miles thick. Think of it like a thin onion skin of atmosphere around our little ball in space.Vast amounts of energy that strike us from the sun under the right circumstances are reflected back into the cold vacuum of space. Like pulling a blanket over us the CO2 acts as a barrier to the dissipation of that heat energy. The insulation effect is many orders of magnitude more powerful than it's thinness would suggest. That's why deserts get so cold at night, (radiational cooling) the heat absorbed by the earths mass is quickly dissipated into space after the sun sets because the air is devoid of water vapor. Unlike water vapor the CO2 doesn't go away, unless it's absorbed by plants. The best solution to that is to stop, and reverse the CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere. There is merit in your idea however. You might want to look on Google videos for lectures on (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Plants) They can be used to generate power through just the process you're describing. The value is not circulation but generation of electricity, and hydrogen for consumption instead of fossil fuels. We have no choice but to stop consuming fossil fuels. There's no easy out my friend
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: sorry, but this is an F in engineering.

    reason 1: what is the overall process? NaoH is made of salt and water. the result is NaOH, hydrogen and chlorine. if you combine it with CO2, it forms Na2CO3. the total process is then:

    H2O + NaCl + CO2 = Na2CO3 + Cl2 + H2

    you got rid of CO2, but now you have Na2CO3 and Cl2 to dispose. how? if you release Cl2 to the atmosphere, sooner or later it will be transformed into HCl, which is acidic. if it contacts carbonate minerals, it releases the same amount of CO2 as you started with. only you went through a lot of dangerous corrosive poisonous intermediate compounds.

    reason 2: why would we put such devices on cars? we can plant them anywhere, they can capture atmospheric CO2. it does not matter which CO2 you capture, only the total amount counts. it also solves the issue of combustion power plants, house heating and so on, in one go. we don't need millions of small devices, if we can have a few big ones.

    reason 3: it is not a chemical issue. the problem is economical in nature. we already have zero-carbon technologies, like electric cars, biofuel, hydrogen, etc. we don't use them because they are expensive, and also because the transition is expensive. so recommending another even more expensive solution helps not.
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: .

    .How much is the CO2 footprint for making caustic soda?
  • Jul 30 2013: The idea seems sound in theory, but fails the one test that truly matters.
    Cost per benefit, practicality of application, call it what you will but its probably the single biggest dividing line between science and engineering.

    Aside from whether global warming is man made or not (a debate for another time), the solution is simply too expensive to be feasible.
    Developed countries are too cheap, and the developing ones probably don't have that sort of cash to shell out even if they wanted to. Maintenance costs for the system alone are mind boggling, never mind raising the initial sum to get it built.

    It'll probably be more cost effective to spend all that money on nuclear power plants to replace the coal burning ones, to be honest. Its all about cost per effect.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: David, Mechanical engineering is a fine profession. Pursue these studies to reach the pinnacle of your position.
    I studied various engineering disciplines in my career so I have reviewed your idea with a practiced eye.
    However, the idea of using .NaOH in tubes on city streets to absorb CO2 is somewhat problematic.

    It is highly corrosive, so the distribution and containment system of tube and pipes would need to be of costly non reactive materials.

    In high density traffic, one must consider traffic accidents. Any accident damaging the tubes would cause the release of a very hazardous material in a public area.

    I could list other issues, but I think you see the problem. It would become a costly and dangerous project for benefits received.
    Sorry to be negative, but you need to think through all ideas to find the unintended consequences.
  • Jul 29 2013: well thats a kind of short sighted idea. I would go a little bit more into this direction: http://www.ted.com/talks/kamal_meattle_on_how_to_grow_your_own_fresh_air.html
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: thank u sir . my thoughts always thinking about new ideas . . thinking is my streanghth. its jesus gift for me
  • Jul 28 2013: carbon dioxide scrubbers have been used for years, dating back to the start of the 20th century. If you are interested you can check the history. It was used in submarines in world war I, II and for re-breathers that had no bubbles. It was also used on space craft, like the Apollo series.

    currently some power plants use scrubbers on the smoke stack but it costs 100 dollars per ton of captured carbon dioxide.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: we set up these equipement middle of the roads sir . its act like street lights also . as u said power plants and sub marines having these but peoples are going on the roads not to near power plant chimneys and near to sub marines . i got this thought to decrease the pollution in between the peoples sir
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2013: I'm sure you must mean carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide is what animals exhale and plants must have to live. Vehicles emit carbon monoxide.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: If the car's catalytic converter is working they should be emitting CO2. That is afterall the main reason they are fitted.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: CO2 is harmless to the environment, and is in fact necessary for plants. No scrubbing is required or desired. Carbon monoxide is a greenhouse gas.
        • Jul 29 2013: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes it is necessary, but just like salt, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. The chemistry of our atmosphere with regards to CO2 has changed dramatically in the last 150 years.
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: if co2 decrease plants facing problem ,,,,, but in the world how many cities we have how many rush traffic junctions we have ..compare .how many plants available on the roads ..nothing to compare sir
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Actually carbon monoxide is a poor greenhouse gas due to its linear shape. It's presence does prolong the life of methane but the effect is of little importance.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: u r correct sir but now we are facing the problem with CO2 thats the reason i got this thought