A new method to cleaner and more efficient CO2 capture

Jul 22, 2009
Molecular modeling of CO2 capture by an ionic liquid membrane. A typical fossil-fuel plant (top left) produces significant CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. A membrane based on ionic liquids may absorb such emissions.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Separating carbon dioxide from its polluting source, such as the flue gas from a coal-fired power plant, may soon become cleaner and more efficient.

A Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher has developed a screening method that would use - a special type of molten salt that becomes liquid under the boiling point of water (100 degrees Celsius) - to separate carbon dioxide from its source, making it a cleaner, more viable and stable method than what is currently available.

There are major efforts to reduce from burning fossil fuel, but before it can be sequestered, it must first be separated from its source, a step known as "capture." This new technique could significantly enhance the efficiency of the CO2 capture process.

Currently, the few with commercial CO2 capture capability all use processes based on chemical absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA), a general-purpose solvent developed by chemists some 75 years ago. Unfortunately, it is non-selective, corrosive, requires the use of large equipment, and effective only under low to moderate partial pressures of CO2.

But the new system overcomes many of these shortcomings. Chemists recently became interested in ionic liquids because they are solvents with almost no vapor pressure, and do not evaporate, even under high temperature conditions.

Using ionic liquids as a separation solvent has unique advantages over traditional solvents, according to LLNL scientist Amitesh Maiti, whose research appears as the cover article in a recent issue of ChemSusChem, a new journal focused on chemistry and sustainability.

Advantages include high chemical stability; low corrosion; almost zero vapor pressure; supportable on membranes; and a huge library of ion choices, which can be potentially optimized for CO2 solubility.

Maiti's work involved devising a computational strategy that can reliably screen any solvent, including an ionic liquid, for high CO2 capture efficiency.

"It's a great advantage to have a method that can quickly and accurately compute CO2 solubility in any solvent, especially under the range of pressures and temperatures as would be found in a coal-fired power plant," Maiti said. "With ionic liquids serving as the solvent, the process could be a lot cleaner and more accessible than what is used today."

Over the last few years several ionic liquids have been experimentally tested to be efficient solvents for CO2, providing data that could be useful in optimizing the choice of ionic liquids for CO2 capture.

"But each new experiment costs time and money and is often hindered because a specific ionic liquid may not be readily available," Maiti said. "By creating a computational tool that can decipher ahead of time which ionic liquids work best to separate CO2, it can be a much more efficient process when field tests are conducted."

Maiti developed a quantum-chemistry-based thermodynamic approach to compute the chemical potential of a solute (CO2 in this case) in any solvent at an arbitrary dilution. He found that this result coupled with an experimentally fitted equation-of-state data for CO2 can yield accurate solubility values in a large number of solvents, including ionic liquids. He confirmed this by directly comparing the computed solubility with experimental values that have been gradually accumulating over the last few years.

Next, he used this method to predict new classes that would possess CO2 solubility nearly two times as high as the most efficient solvents experimentally demonstrated.

"With the vast choices of ions, we have barely scratched the surface of possibilities," Maiti added.

His hope is that the accuracy of the computational method will allow scientists to see useful trends, which could potentially lead to the discovery of practical solvents with significantly higher CO2 capture efficiency.

Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Explore further: A step toward reduced nitrogen-oxide emissions in vehicles

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New Web database improves access to ionic liquid data

Aug 18, 2006

Chemical engineers and others designing "green" industrial processes using new ionic liquid solvents now have an important new resource, an on-line database of physical properties developed by the National Institute of Standards ...

Explosives go 'green'

Aug 28, 2008

(Physorg.com) -- Certain explosives may soon get a little greener and a little more precise. LLNL researchers added unique green solvents (ionic liquids) to an explosive called TATB (1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene) ...

Data Effort Improves Flow Toward 'Greener' Chemistry

Apr 21, 2005

Jeopardy answer: Death Valley and "ionic liquids." Correct question: Where does a little bit of water make a whole lot of difference? Scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) rep ...

Solar Cells Can Take the Heat

Jan 09, 2008

Solar cells have attracted global attention as one of the cornerstones of alternative energy. In theory, it seems to make abundant sense to tap into the energy of the sun to convert light to electricity with little or no ...

Coal-generated CO2 captured in Australia -- a first

Jul 09, 2008

In a first for Australia, carbon dioxide (CO2) has been captured from power station flue gases in a post-combustion-capture (PCC) pilot plant at Loy Yang Power Station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.

Recommended for you

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2009
PLANTS ALSO CAPTURE CO2

There is a natural cycle of carbon that involves both natural release and natural capture of CO2.

Thus, the phrase "separating carbon dioxide from its polluting source" could be expressed with equal validity as "depriving plants of their source of gaseous food".

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
ELITY
not rated yet Jul 23, 2009
Can this new method of CO2 capture be used in conjunction with a bigger industrial process of CO2 purification?
JoshC
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2009
Mr Manuel surely we are releasing too much CO2 .By burning fossil fuels we are releasing carbon which is millions of years old, would preventing this ancient carbon being released into the atmosphere as CO2 really be removing needed CO2 from plants? Do we have enough available surface area on Earth to plant enough vegetation to remove that much CO2?
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment though.
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2009
ARE WE RELEASING TOO MUCH CO2?

Mr Manuel surely we are releasing too much CO2. By burning fossil fuels we are releasing carbon which is millions of years old, would preventing this ancient carbon being released into the atmosphere as CO2 really be removing needed CO2 from plants? Do we have enough available surface area on Earth to plant enough vegetation to remove that much CO2?
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment though.


PLANTS ALSO CAPTURE CO2

There is a natural cycle of carbon that involves both natural release and natural capture of CO2.

Thus, the phrase "separating carbon dioxide from its polluting source" could be expressed with equal validity as "depriving plants of their source of gaseous food".

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


Thanks, Josh, for your comments.

Are we releasing more CO2 than can be handled efficiently by the natural carbon cycle?

Each carbon is about five (5) billion years old.

Elements were made here just before the solar system formed [See: "The origin, composition, and energy source for the Sun", paper #1041, 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX, 12-16 March 2001] http://arxiv.org/...411255v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel


Damon_Hastings
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2009
Each carbon is about five (5) billion years old

The issue is not the age of individual atoms; what matters is that they've long been underground. Transferring underground carbon into the air causes a net increase in atmospheric carbon, which is why CO2 is now at its highest level in over 2 million years (see http://www.physor...13.html)

So, no, the plants won't starve. ;-)

Are we releasing more CO2 than can be handled efficiently by the natural carbon cycle?

Yes. Much. Hence the highest levels in 2 million years. And here's a recent historical curve, for context: http://en.wikiped..._dioxide
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2009
By burning fossil fuels we are releasing carbon which is millions of years old, would preventing this ancient carbon being released into the atmosphere as CO2 really be removing needed CO2 from plants?


The volume of CO2 released would never (EVER) be a problem for the planet, keep in mind that ALL of this FOSSIL FUEL we are burning WAS BIOTIC material a few hundred million years ago (or less or more), it WAS AT SOME POINT an ACTIVE part of the earths CARBON CHEMISTRY system. We are NEVER going to kill the planet with CO2. Not possible.

Do we have enough available surface area on Earth to plant enough vegetation to remove that much CO2?


Yes there is enough surface. And we don't even have to plant it. It will grow itself.

What humanity needs to focus on is what we will do to ensure we can adapt to whatever changes may occur in the future due to climate change and energy availability, and this solution will solve the "CO2 problem". We can't control the climate, it's ignorant and arrogant to believe we can. We are not going to kill the planet with CO2, we will only kill ourselves by not preparing for declining energy availability.

Sustainable development will solve just about any pollution problem and energy problem at the same time. This is where we need to focus NOW. Not trying to control the climate, which is effectively what we're trying to do. It's good to minimize pollutants and we already do that very successfully, these regulations should persist, CO2 ain't one of 'em.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 24, 2009
By burning fossil fuels we are releasing carbon which is millions of years old, would preventing this ancient carbon being released into the atmosphere as CO2 really be removing needed CO2 from plants?

The volume of CO2 released would never (EVER) be a problem for the planet

No one is arguing it would be a problem for the planet. It would be a problem for humans. I'm sure that increased CO2 would increase the amount of life on Earth (possibly at the cost of some biodiversity). But the impact on the global human economy could be extreme, what with so many of our cities being along the coasts. That and the droughts, floods, etc. I don't really care so much about the planet as I do about the global economy.

keep in mind that ALL of this FOSSIL FUEL we are burning WAS BIOTIC material a few hundred million years ago (or less or more)

Agreed. And those millions of years' worth of CO2 are now being released over a span of hundreds of years. Global CO2 is now at its highest point in 2 million years (see my previous post.) The problem is not that CO2 is growing too high; it's that it's growing too *fast*. The difference there is key.

Do we have enough available surface area on Earth to plant enough vegetation to remove that much CO2?

Yes there is enough surface. And we don't even have to plant it. It will grow itself.

Agreed. And it would only take a few thousand years for the plants to catch up to our rate of emissions growth.

What humanity needs to focus on is what we will do to ensure we can adapt

That's a bit defeatist. We are perfectly capable of reducing our CO2 emissions before it reaches that point. We also have CO2 sequestration technologies coming out which can suck CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The sequesters probably won't be timely enough or massive enough by themselves, but every little bit helps.

We can't control the climate, it's ignorant and arrogant to believe we can.

It is perhaps arrogant to believe we can make the climate do what we want; but there is ample evidence that we are succeeding in making it do what we *don't* want.

Sustainable development will solve just about any pollution problem and energy problem at the same time.

Sounds great to me! And perfectly compatible with CO2 emissions control strategies that are already underway. In fact, your idea would make a great contributor.
Damon_Hastings
5 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2009
Do we have enough available surface area on Earth to plant enough vegetation to remove that much CO2?

Yes there is enough surface. And we don't even have to plant it. It will grow itself.

Actually, CO2 levels were ten times higher than today's levels when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. And there were plenty of plants back then.
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2009
the problem is not that CO2 is growing too high; it's that it's growing too *fast*. The difference there is key.

I almost mentioned this myself, you are 100% correct that if there is a problem in how we are affecting the climate, it is the rate. I didn't say that as it would have distracted slightly from the thrust of my statement... thanks for keeping me honest. :)

HOWEVER:

I don't really care so much about the planet as I do about the global economy.
...
It is ... arrogant to believe we can make the climate do what we want

So, we've established you are trying to save humanity, and that we cannot control the weather. Well the two main threats to our world society is availability of food and water (climate) and energy supply. So weather is out.

Then if weather is out, you must demonstrate then that CO2 is an independent threat to our economy and world society. Here's a hint, CO2 is no threat at all (remember we can't control the climate, and despite what you want to believe, we haven't proven we're 100% or even 10% causing the change in climate).

The threat then is obviously where we get our energy from. Focus on fixing where we get our energy from, i.e. get out of fossil fuels. Consequently you would also fix CO2 emissions, but again, we've established this isn't the threat.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 24, 2009
I don't really care so much about the planet as I do about the global economy.
...
It is ... arrogant to believe we can make the climate do what we want

So, we've established you are trying to save humanity, and that we cannot control the weather.

Heh... you replaced my "perhaps" with "...". Tricky. ;-) And you left off the part where I said that we're causing the climate to do what we *don't* want. You wouldn't happen to be a reporter for Fox News, would you? ;-)

Anyway, the evidence that CO2 affects climate is pretty overwhelming at this point. Furthermore, the current sustained *rate of change* of global temperature (0.4 deg F per decade) is unprecedented in any temperature record capable of resolving one decade from the next. Virtually all scientists in the field have accepted that what is happening is not natural. There are only a few holdouts left, and the world is thankfully moving on without them.
defunctdiety
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2009
Heh... you replaced my "perhaps" with "...". Tricky. ;-) And you left off the part where I said that we're causing the climate to do what we *don't* want.

I summarized. So you do infact believe we can control the climate?

The thought that we are wholly causing climate to change is just as ridiculous as the belief that we can control the climate to take any given path we want. Infact they're the same. You cannot believe that we caused the climate to go in a "bad" direction if you do not believe we can control the climate into a "good direction".

the evidence that CO2 affects climate is pretty overwhelming at this point. Furthermore, the current sustained *rate of change* of global temperature (0.4 deg F per decade) is unprecedented in any temperature record capable of resolving one decade from the next

1st - What's obvious through science is that the greatest determiners of the climate is the sun (duh), followed by the geologic earth (erosion, volcanoes, geothermic activity), followed by the hydrolic earth (ocean, currents), followed by the winds and the atmosphere. The shifting of dirt on a hillside, volcanoes, geysers and fumeroles of the world emit more water vapor and CO2 (AGW demonized greenhouse gases) in a day than all of man made industry in a year.

2nd - Rates of change, change themselves. There are asymptotic limits that make projecting rates of change into the future as absolutes, as useful as projecting daily temperatures into the future. It's not informative.

The scientific community is not even close to 50% behind "unnatural change". At least 50% are honest enough to say "we don't really know". The other 50% are divided between yes and no. And the yes crowd is behind it because it gets them grants.

All of that aside. Can you agree that focusing on sustainable development, getting off of fossil fuels, will at the same time fix the unnatural rate of CO2 release? And if so, then you should see the sense in abandoning the AGW argument and just heading straight for renewable energy.

And if you can agree to all that, then you have already come to the conclusion that carbon offseting does nothing for sustainability, it only enables us to continue staying hooked to fossils and towards applying bandaids instead of administering cures.

WAKE UP Damon Hastings! You've been duped by pseudo-environmentalism. Examine my argument and it's principles, then think deeply and honestly about the truth. Forget AGW it's a distraction, forget greenhouse emissions, even eliminating those 100% will not provide us indefinite widely available energy supply. Start moving for MEANINGFUL social and political and economic change. Attain sustainable development and we will fix sooooo many other problems.
Damon_Hastings
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2009
Heh... you replaced my "perhaps" with "...". Tricky. ;-) And you left off the part where I said that we're causing the climate to do what we *don't* want.

I summarized. So you do infact believe we can control the climate?

You cannot believe that we caused the climate to go in a "bad" direction if you do not believe we can control the climate into a "good direction".


I think the best we can do is to stop taking actions which we know to cause the "bad direction", and then hope for the best. The climate might recover on its own, or it might not. I don't know that we could "control" it -- i.e. force it to recover. But we can at least give it the opportunity.

1st - What's obvious through science is that the greatest determiners of the climate is the sun (duh), followed by the geologic earth (erosion, volcanoes, geothermic activity), followed by...

Yes, the geologic record does show that those have been the dominant factors in the past. However, that does not mean they can dominate over human contributions today. There is nothing in the geologic record to predict the impact of humans. For that, you have to use computer models. You might sneer at the computer models, but they're all we've got, and they're actually getting pretty good at matching up with past climate records. But if you wait for them to be perfect, you'll be waiting literally forever. At some point you have to make policy decisions based on incomplete data, because the data is *always* incomplete. When is it complete enough? Hard to say. But asking the scientists who work with it might be a good starting point.

The shifting of dirt on a hillside, volcanoes, geysers and fumeroles of the world emit more water vapor and CO2 in a day than all of man made industry in a year.

I'm sorry, but that's patently untrue. Volcanic contribution (and solar radiative forcing for that matter) have both been measured, and are much smaller than human contributions. The Wikipedia article on global warming is a good starting point, with many links to studies demonstrating this.

2nd - Rates of change, change themselves. There are asymptotic limits that make projecting rates of change into the future as absolutes, as useful as projecting daily temperatures into the future. It's not informative.

I agree. The current rate of change (0.4 degrees increase per decade) is nothing compared to what it could be in coming decades. And it's not just the current rate of change which is high; it's also the rate change of the rate of change, etc.

The scientific community is not even close to 50% behind "unnatural change".

Oh, ho! I gotta see a reference for *that*. ;-)

And the yes crowd is behind it because it gets them grants.

And finally we come to the meat of it. The denialist movement seems to be made up largely of conspiracy theorists claiming that thousands of scientists across multiple disciplines spanning the globe are involved in a vast conspiracy. Dude, scientists couldn't conspire if their lives depended on it. They're such a fractious bunch that they couldn't even agree on what to have for breakfast. There are, what, a hundred different intepretations of Quantum Mechanics? Even an 80% agreement between scientists is almost unknown for theories as new as AGW. That so many agree so soon is a testament to both the strength and urgency of the evidence (and it helps that so many people are working on it). Exxon has publicly admitted to offering a $10,000 bounty to any scientist willing to rebut global warming -- and they got very few takers. So don't tell me the scientists are doing it for money. The cheapest way for a climate scientist to make a quick buck these days is to get into bed with the multi-billion dollar industrial interests which are keen to dispel global warming.

All of that aside. Can you agree that focusing on sustainable development, getting off of fossil fuels, will at the same time fix the unnatural rate of CO2 release?

Sure, those all sound great. I agree that renewable energy is the only viable long-term solution. But we need a stop-gap measure in the meantime.
Damon_Hastings
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2009
The shifting of dirt on a hillside, volcanoes, geysers and fumeroles of the world emit more water vapor and CO2 in a day than all of man made industry in a year.

I'm sorry, but that's patently untrue.

Sorry, let me clarify here. The total CO2 output of volcanoes is large, but what matters, again, is the *rate of change* of volcanic outgassing. Volcanoes are doing what they've been doing for millions of years, and the system has been more or less in balance. That balance is now rapidly changing, and volcanoes, as measured, aren't changing quickly enough to explain it. Only humans are.
Soylent
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
Sorry, let me clarify here. The total CO2 output of volcanoes is large, but what matters, again, is the *rate of change* of volcanic outgassing.


Volcanic CO2 emissions are tiny. They're less than 1% of the emissions from burning fossil fuels.

CO2 emissions from respiration of vegetation and decomposing vegetation on the other hand is huge but as long as there's no net change in the amount of vegetation that just get soaked up again.

I agree, global warming isn't the problem, it's the rate of warming that's going to suck.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2009
PURE CO2 COMES FROM THE EARTH'S UPPER MANTLE I

Those worrying about the influence of CO2 on Earth's climate seem to have little or no appreciation for CO2 locked in this planet.

High purity CO2 has been locked inside planet Earth since it formed 4-5 billion years ago (Gyr) from fresh supernova debris.

CO2 is sometimes released explosively to the atmosphere.

When the Earth formed, iodine-129 [half-life = 0.016 Gyr] and plutonium-244 [half-life = 0.082 Gyr] were still alive and decaying to xenon-129 and xenon-(131-136).

These decay products were first found in CO2 gas wells used to manufacture "Dry Ice" in northern New Mexico [M. S. Boulos and O. K. Manuel, "The xenon record of extinct radioactivities in the Earth," Science 174, 1334-1336 (1971); E. W. Hennecke and O. K. Manuel, "Noble gases in CO2 well gas, Harding County, New Mexico", Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 27, 346-355 (1975).]

Subsequent analysis showed that decay products of of these same extinct elements are in bubbles of fluid CO2 trapped in massive olivine xenoliths that were carried to Earth's surface in an Hawaiian volcanic eruption [E. W. Hennecke and O. K. Manuel, "Noble gases Hawaian xenolith", Nature 257, 778-780 (1975)].

However, the decay products of extinct iodine-129 and plutonium-244 are not in volcanic lava from the area of Northern New Mexico [E. W. Hennecke and O. K. Manuel, "Noble gases in lava rock from Mount Capulin, New Mexico", Nature 256, 284-287 (1975)].

Anyone who seriously wants to understand the influence of CO2 on Earth's climate will appreciate the extensive studies on climatology by Dr. Timo Niroma of Helsinki, Finland.

http://www.kolumb...sala.htm

With kind regards
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
omatumr: I read your post carefully, but I can't seem to find the point you're trying to make. Are you arguing that the recent and sudden jump in CO2 to levels not seen in over 2 million years is due to some recent volcanic event? If so, then what once-per-2-million-years event do you believe has just occurred?
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2009
Damon,

I am trying to point out that:

1. There are many terrestrial sources of CO2 that have not been considered in this latest rush to attribute global warming to anthropological CO2.

2. One cannot possibly understand Earth's climate while ignoring Earth's heat source - the Sun.

Here are a couple of web sites from my favorite climatologist, Timo Niroma of Helsinki, Finland. They show the historical record of Earth's climate and solar activity.

http://tinyurl.com/lgq4bn

http://tinyurl.com/m9yhkx

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
There are many terrestrial sources of CO2 that have not been considered in this latest rush to attribute global warming to anthropological CO2.

And which of these sources has recently experienced a once-per-2-million-year event? The fact that CO2 has very recently and very suddenly jumped up to the highest level in over 2 million years is very difficult to explain. Unless you consider human activity. Historically, natural jumps of such magnitude have always been associated with catastrophic events (supervolcanoes, meteor strikes, etc.)

2. One cannot possibly understand Earth's climate while ignoring Earth's heat source - the Sun.

I've read enough of your posts to know you're not just talking about solar radiation here (which has been thoroughly covered by the IPCC.) You're referring to more esoteric theories of Earth-Sun interaction based in part upon your belief that the Sun is powered not by nuclear fusion but by radioactive decay, yes?
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2009
Damon,

If you want to learn, just read the reports by Timo Niroma of Helsinki, Finland and see if the historical record of Earth's climate and solar activity fits your ideas.

http://tinyurl.com/lgq4bn

http://tinyurl.com/m9yhkx

Best wishes,
Oliver K. Manuel
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
Well, this is just the old solar radiation argument, right? That more solar radiation heats up the Earth? Makes sense, except that the trend lines diverged around 1970 or so. There has been no increase in solar radiation since the 70's: http://en.wikiped...data.png

So unless solar radiation somehow has a 30-year delayed effect, I don't see how it could have caused any of the warming since 1975 (which has been the most extreme warming we've ever seen.)
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
Well, this is just the old solar radiation argument, right? That more solar radiation heats up the Earth? Makes sense, except that the trend lines diverged around 1970 or so. There has been no increase in solar radiation since the 70's: http://en.wikiped...data.png



So unless solar radiation somehow has a 30-year delayed effect, I don't see how it could have caused any of the warming since 1975 (which has been the most extreme warming we've ever seen.)


Well here's the problem.

You deny a 30 year lag but enforce a 600 year lag.
If CO2 takes hundreds of years to leave the atmosphere, and you pass legislation on the subject now, that means, even if everyone you're listening to is wrong and CO2 means nothing, you won't have anyone to blame for the misery and misused resources for over 600 years.

You want to pay an unknown price with no measured benefit and hope that it comes true in 600 years while dooming millions and possibly billions of people to premature death due to lack of energy?

I'll pass. Do more research first, then offer an alternative when the "settled science" is mature and understood.
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
I think the best we can do is to stop taking actions which we know to cause the "bad direction", and then hope for the best.


The funny thing is Damon Hastings, is that you and I are on the same side. I work in an industry that is existent today almost solely because of AGW fears.

The difference is, you are focusing on an argument that will only delay the ultimate outcome we must arrive at. Which is reliable, renewable energy. The AGW debate DOES NOT MATTER.

Like you said, we can only stop doing "bad things" and hope for the best. We have stopped doing the top 95% of "bad things" in industrial emissions. We control pollution to such an efficient degree these days, that any further regulation is restrictive and unnecessary.

CO2 is no demon, carbon offsetting is a joke. We're going to use fossil fuels until they are gone. There's no two ways about that, we're not gonna make attaining renewable energy any easier on ourselves by super-tight CO2 regulation, indeed that kind of regulation and short sighted pseudo-environmentalism like carbon offsetting only sets progress back.
Damon_Hastings
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
You deny a 30 year lag but enforce a 600 year lag.

If CO2 takes hundreds of years to leave the atmosphere, and you pass legislation on the subject now, that means, even if everyone you're listening to is wrong and CO2 means nothing, you won't have anyone to blame for the misery and misused resources for over 600 years.

Well, I don't want to get into a broader debate over the economic costs/benefits of investment in renewable energy, but I'm not sure I understand your point about the 600 year lag. Are you saying that you object to CO2 reduction because you won't have anyone to blame in your lifetime if you're right? But if global temps were to fall back to normal tomorrow, then why would you have to wait 600 years before casting blame? You could easily cast blame within your own lifetime.

Or are you saying that none of our CO2 reduction efforts will bear fruit for 600 years? The point of current efforts is to stop CO2 levels from rising *further*. I don't see why it would take 600 years to achieve that.

Also, the atmospheric half-life of CO2 is under 100 years according to every estimate I've seen. Are you claiming that it's 600 years? It wasn't clear exactly what you were saying takes 600 years.

Moreover, I don't see what any of this has to do with my original point that solar radiation can't explain the warming since 1970 (because the trend lines diverged at that point.)
Damon_Hastings
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
I work in an industry that is existent today almost solely because of AGW fears.

The difference is, you are focusing on an argument that will only delay the ultimate outcome we must arrive at. Which is reliable, renewable energy. The AGW debate DOES NOT MATTER.

These two statements appear to contradict. First you say that your industry (presumably renewable energy) exists solely because of AGW fears. And then you say that AGW fears are slowing down that industry.
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
These two statements appear to contradict. First you say that your industry (presumably renewable energy) exists solely because of AGW fears. And then you say that AGW fears are slowing down that industry.

I work in industrial emissions monitoring. I said the AGW debate is slowing down achieving renewable energy, as it gives deniers something to deny. So I try to go at everyone with something that is undeniable, that we need to develop sustainable ways of life, that sustainable development if done correctly will fix the worlds water, food and energy problems.

My interest in sustainable development is purely as a conservationist. As in, I want there to be a world for my children to enjoy.

And oh yea. The renewable energy industry exists because there will be global catastrophe if we cannot figure out how to operate our global-society/economy without fossils before we run out of them.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009

Well, I don't want to get into a broader debate over the economic costs/benefits of investment in renewable energy, but I'm not sure I understand your point about the 600 year lag. Are you saying that you object to CO2 reduction because you won't have anyone to blame in your lifetime if you're right? But if global temps were to fall back to normal tomorrow, then why would you have to wait 600 years before casting blame? You could easily cast blame within your own lifetime.



Or are you saying that none of our CO2 reduction efforts will bear fruit for 600 years? The point of current efforts is to stop CO2 levels from rising *further*. I don't see why it would take 600 years to achieve that.



Also, the atmospheric half-life of CO2 is under 100 years according to every estimate I've seen. Are you claiming that it's 600 years? It wasn't clear exactly what you were saying takes 600 years.



Moreover, I don't see what any of this has to do with my original point that solar radiation can't explain the warming since 1970 (because the trend lines diverged at that point.)

My statement is this:

Why are you trusting people who stand to gain an incredible amount of money if you support them, while requiring no proof of concept?

Effectively you're donating to the church, which is fine, but don't make me do it if I don't want to.

The AGW movement and most "environmental" movements are garbage. They talk a lot, do nothing for the environment, or go off half cocked with cooked figures provided by, guess who, the fossil fuels industry.

In the meantime they defiule nuclear, silence science, and push a shadow agenda.

Defunct is on the right track, no one cares about AGW. We all care about cheap/free energy that we don't have to fight people for or cause any sort of environmental contention. You really want to fix the world's energy problems? Look into transmission and forget generation. If I can power the world with half of what we're using simply because I'm not wasting 50% or more in transmission, then I perform a greater good than any solar panel/wind turbine/ or climate model ever will.

Solve transmission and generation becomes far easier.
Damon_Hastings
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
I said the AGW debate is slowing down achieving renewable energy, as it gives deniers something to deny.

And by "slowing down", are you referring to the fact that renewable energy research now gets 10 times the funding that it got before AGW became a campaign issue?

Dude, the deniers have already lost -- don't worry about them. There are maybe 5 or 6 really vocal deniers on this board which give the illusion of an active debate. But that's what this board is for -- everyone coming out of the woodwork to debate whether black holes exist, whether the universe is alive, and whether little green pixies are stealing my socks. But make no mistake: two-thirds of Americans these days believe humans are a significant contributor to global warming (according to Fox News' polls!) Most Republican politicians have conceded the same -- and even Exxon itself publicly stated that global warming is an urgent problem. Congress recently dumped $100 BILLION into renewable energy, effectively creating a new industry overnight. (There was renewable research before, of course, but not much.) This is why I thought you were talking about renewables when you referred to an industry that was effectively created by AGW fears.
Damon_Hastings
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
Velanarris: I would prefer not to get dragged (further) into the debate over whether AGW is a "church" or whether there's a worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of scientists. We could debate that for the rest of our lives and not get anywhere! The original topic was over whether the recent rise in CO2 to the highest level in 2 million years is a natural phenomenon. And omatumr brought up a side topic about solar radiative contribution to global warming (I think), to which I pointed out that solar radiation has actually decreased since 1970.
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
Perhaps I shouldn't have said slowing down. The AGW Debate greatly distracts from the real problem facing the future (how to best provide reliable food, water and energy for the world), which pretty much boils down to energy.

"Fighting AGW" gives people the illusion that they're doing something productive and positive for the environment and humanity by "shuffling carbon" and trying to control the climate, it's complete BS and pseudo-environmentalism. It only ends up costing the individual. Because of those two aspects, I see the "AGW Debate" as a control mechanism imposed on the individual.

The people are so distracted by trying to stop the world from turning into an oven, they are completely forgetting the end goal, SELF-SUFFICIENCY (water,food and energy independence) on a vastly reduced population scale (and who would not want you to be self-sufficient? see term: government). Even you, DH, cannot see the forest for the trees.
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
It's infuriating to me as a conservationist and environmentalist. People love to hear that they can plant a tree or that the companies they frequent are green, because they sell their "unused" carbon credits [puke] (which they were allotted more than they'd ever "use" in the first place) to bigger polluters, or that they can buy a more fuel efficient car and that's basically all they have to do to save the world, to save humanity. But that's all so much bullshit.

The basics should be plant a garden, grow C4 grasses or xeri-scape your lawn where appropriate, turn off your lights/TV when you leave the room, run that AC at 74 degrees instead of 68, walk or pedal your ass to work/store/etc. if at all possible, don't drive over 70-75 when you're on interstate, get off this 1950's ideal of conspicuous consumption, that's the first steps our nation truly needs to take if they gave a damn.

And I'm not saying it should be required that people do these things, I'm nothing if not an advocate of individual freedoms, but it's stupid crap like AGW and other attempts to veil the true problems that prevent more people from choosing to do these basic things. It's so much easier to plant a tree, yea?
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
So... you're an environmentalist who's against action on global warming because you think it distracts from the movement toward sustainable living?
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
So... you're an environmentalist who's against action on global warming because you think it distracts from the movement toward sustainable living?


It's like talking to a wall.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
I think it's kind of funny. :-) I don't really think of myself as an environmentalist (my concern is future economic impact)... So here we have a non-environmentalist trying to convince the environmentalist that global warming is a real problem demanding urgent action.

Come on, admit it... it's a little funny. ;-)
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
my concern is economic impact

So, considering that any and all regulations on emissions will manifest only in costs being handed down to consumers, how can you advocate tighter CO2 regs and carbon sequestration?
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
my concern is economic impact


So, considering that any and all regulations on emissions will manifest only in costs being handed down to consumers, how can you advocate tighter CO2 regs and carbon sequestration?

Exactly my point.

Damon, you spout copious amounts of bullshit that's being used to facilitate a "feel-good" agenda.

It's trendy to be an environmentalist, try being a conservationist. You know, someone who actually does something to conserve our landscapes.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
So, considering that any and all regulations on emissions will manifest only in costs being handed down to consumers, how can you advocate tighter CO2 regs and carbon sequestration?

It's an investment. Or you might think of it as insurance. We put maybe 1% of the GDP toward heading off a potential global depression triggered by the loss of port cities, crop failures, etc. You insure against the possibility of disaster -- not the certainty.

Come on, you're not admitting that it's funny. ;-)
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
It's an investment. Or you might think of it as insurance. We put maybe 1% of the GDP toward heading off a potential global depression triggered by the loss of port cities, crop failures, etc. You insure against the possibility of disaster -- not the certainty.

The only thing you're heading off is something that may not even matter, you admitted yourself that the science (models) it's based on are speculative at best.

It's not funny, it's tragic. It really is tragic, you won't even contemplate an alternative point of view, even when you can't refute it, you just outright dismiss anything that isn't what you want to hear. Tragic. I'm just glad that more and more people are seeing through the psuedo-environmentalism all the time.

If you can illustrate how regulating and sequestering CO2 is positively correlated to the global economic crisis, without relating it to the "potential" effect on the climate, then you have a valid argument, if you can't you have to see you are barking up the wrong tree. And if you can't see that, then you need to study the problem more.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
I never said the models are "speculative at best". I may have said they're imperfect -- as scientific models always are.

I don't dismiss the view that AGW is bunk. It's entirely possible that it is. But you have to do a risk analysis, weighing the consequences of inaction (times their probability) against the consequences of action. I feel that the preponderance of scientific evidence at this point strongly suggests that the cost of action is outweighed by the likely cost of inaction. And, fortunately, most politicians in developed nations across the globe now agree. One-third of the American population may still think AGW is bunk (and that number is quickly shrinking), but the rest of us are moving on without you. We can't wait forever.

If you can illustrate how regulating and sequestering CO2 is positively correlated to the global economic crisis, without relating it to the "potential" effect on the climate, then you have a valid argument

If you automatically dismiss all "potential" effects as invalid, then you render planning impossible. All planning is based on "potential effects" -- their probabilities, and their consequences. Nothing is ever known for certain.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
If you automatically dismiss all "potential" effects as invalid, then you render planning impossible. All planning is based on "potential effects" -- their probabilities, and their consequences. Nothing is ever known for certain.

All "potential" effects are a matter of probability.


A sea level rise of 1 meter over a century will do nothing to us. That sea level rise is so gradual as to be accounted for in simple Urban planning.

Hell, shoreline erosion occurs at a far faster rate and we're not seeing port cities fall off the map.

The human race adapts extraordinarily well, hence how we got to the point we're at in the first place. Award innovation, not steady state mechanics.
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
you have to do a risk analysis, weighing the consequences of inaction (times their probability) against the consequences of action


The probability (risk) of the climate changing is 100%. Even if spending 1% of the GDP (!!) would somehow miraculously protect us from Global Warming, the climate is going to change anyway, undoubtedly in a fashion that is inconsistent with the way we've come to depend on the climate being in the past 50 years.

You are insuring against nothing. Or rather, you can't insure against climate change, the climate will always change and it is an impossibility to keep it "just right". The only way to insure against any sort of climate change, warming cooling, whatever, is to be sure we can adapt to whatever change may come, which the only way to do that is renewable energy and sustainable development. What you want to see is nothing more than a waste of money and a control mechanism.

I would be interested in knowing, what is your "discipline" DH, what is your academic interest/training? Have you done any looking into these topics on your own or do you just repeat what you are told? You seem to love backing up your statements with "everybody else thinks this, it must be right", but you are not able to provide any real backing to especially your principles, how exactly is controlling CO2 going to save us? Lay it out for us.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
Yes, the climate is always changing. It has always changed and always will -- but again, the question here is *rate of change*. The rate of temperature increase today (0.4 deg F per decade) is unprecedented in any temperature record capable of resolving one decade from the next. Would you argue that this is natural? Or what about the sudden jump in CO2 to the highest level in 2 million years? Was that natural?
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
The rate of temperature increase today (0.4 deg F per decade) is unprecedented in any temperature record capable of resolving one decade from the next.


It doesn't matter, it's no more dangerous than any other change that will occur, trying to alter that is nothing but a waste of money, when there are things that could be done now and everyday that would actually save money and resources. But people don't do them because they're not told it's important, they are told your bullshit is important, and that distraction is more dangerous then the perceived problem of AGW itself.

But please, go on. Lay out for us what must be done to stop the globe from warming at such a rate and explain how preventing that will save us from an energy crisis. Please note in your proposal, what it will do to the price of energy and energy consumption, as applicable, as well as the tangible long term benefits.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
So... you do agree that the changes I mentioned are unnatural, but you believe they can't be stopped? Sorry, I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position before responding.
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
To make any judgement such as that (natural vs. unnatural) I'd want to see your sources, but even assuming the rate is accurate (which you haven't said if this is "global average" or unilateral global temps, or what), I am saying this rate of change and it's end result is no greater threat to the economy over anything else climatic that will occur, that there are 100s of more direct ways to address the problem more efficiently, and that the notion of trying to guide the climate in any purposeful direction is a waste of time and resources, especially over real actions that could be taken that are GUARANTEED to have a positive effect.

And also, regarding a little earlier when you said "...put maybe 1% of the GDP toward heading off..." you have to realize what's going to manifest from CO2 regulations will not be simply an "initial investment" and then we're done paying, it will be a continuous invisible tax on living. On doing anything that it requires to live in our modern fashion.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
The sources documenting the global average temperature increase are various and many. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikiped...warming) has a number of graphs from various sources, and provides links to research those sources further.

For CO2, read http://www.physor...313.html and you can find many other sources linked from the wikipedia article at http://en.wikiped...mosphere

But what's more confusing is what you write here:

I am saying this rate of change and it's end result is no greater threat to the economy over anything else climatic that will occur.

Are you under the impression that global warming will just mean that we all start wearing shorts and T-shirts? Or are you saying that there are equally dire climatic changes coming (and if so what are they?) As usual, wikipedia has a nice link farm to all the studies of the expected impact of global warming on the environment and the economy: http://en.wikiped..._effects and http://en.wikiped...f_carbon The average over 100 studies comes out to a "social cost" of about $12 per ton of CO2 emitted. So according to this, AGW currently costs the world about $324 billion per year globally. This number is expected to grow super-linearly (maybe even exponentially) if no action is taken.

Now, I wouldn't rely on the Wikipedia article itself, of course -- but it's just the most convenient link farm on the subject.
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
Yes, it's very nice that you can read and use the internet.

It's evident you have no understanding of the issues here, beyond what you are told, and will do nothing beside regurgitate. Fine.

It's evident you cannot illustrate how controlling carbon will do anything positive for the economy. I didn't expect you to be able to, because it can't be done.

And it is evident you are so caught up in the box of global warming that you cannot comprehend any other terms beyond that. Sad.

I'm done here. See ya in the next CO2 thread.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
I'm not sure what I can do aside from quote you study after study -- which you call "regurgitating". I mean, come on, are you expecting me to run my own study or something?

You asked me to demonstrate how controlling CO2 will help the economy -- and I pointed you to over a hundred studies which say (on average) that it will save up to $324 billion per year globally. I think I answered your question pretty directly. I also directly answered your request to back up my claims of temperature and CO2 increases. I'm sorry the answers pissed you off.
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
You indirectly sited a SINGLE study, that sites 100, as far as I can tell, non-scientific surveys.

The whole SCC concept is so basically flawed and not provable (what is used as the "control"? it's impossible to have a valid one, unless you know the alternate reality without the effects of AGW, it's just more pseudo-environmentalism) and completely invalid.

And your answers didn't piss me off, they were sorely lacking in principle it just makes me sad, it was your refusal/inability to engage in intelligent debate that did.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
There's no control group because it's not a clinical trial. It's an economic calculation. Economists have formulae; not control groups. These estimates represent peer-reviewed work done by the world's leading economists on the subject. You can dismiss it as worthless because there are no control groups, but you'd equally well dismiss all other global economic cost estimates and projections (which don't use control groups either.) Economists do compare past against present (or one country against another), which is about as close to a control group as they can get.

Consider the debate over national health care for example. There are all these estimates of costs, benefits, and market impacts, right? Do you think they used control groups when making up those estimates? Probably not. And those estimates are heinously complex, involving intricately interconnected pieces, and they're probably all wrong by various amounts. So what do we do? Just give up? A policy decision has to be made, and imperfect data is better than no data. Politicians exist to make decisions from imperfect data; that's their job (ideally.)

That said, if you can provide any references to a peer-reviewed economic paper stating that a warming of 2 deg F by 2050 would be "no big deal", I will read it with an open mind.

You indirectly sited a SINGLE study, that sites 100, as far as I can tell, non-scientific surveys.

If you'd like, I can paste in 100 individual citations. ;-) Oh, and just to clarify: it was a survey of 100 estimates, not a survey of 100 surveys.
Nuevo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009




Algae bioreactors and why do we need them
it is the safest cleanest fastest way to grow algae and makes harvesting a simple process

Why should we grow algae


Source wikpedia .com
Energy source
Algae can be used to make bio diesel (see algaculture), and by some estimates can produce vastly superior amounts of oil, compared to terrestrial crops grown for the same purpose.
Algae can be grown to produce hydrogen. In 1939 a German researcher named Hans Gaffron, while working at the University of Chicago, observed that the algae he was studying, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (a green-alga), would sometimes switch from the production of oxygen to the production of hydrogen.[7] Gaffron never discovered the cause for this change and for many years other scientists failed to repeat his findings. In the late 1990s professor Anastasios Melis, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, discovered that if the algae culture medium is deprived of sulfur it will switch from the production of oxygen (normal photosynthesis), to the production of hydrogen. He found that the enzyme responsible for this reaction is hydrogenase, but that the hydrogenase lost this function in the presence of oxygen. Melis found that depleting the amount of sulfur available to the algae interrupted its internal oxygen flow, allowing the hydrogenase an environment in which it can react, causing the algae to produce hydrogen. [8] Chlamydomonas moeweesi is also a good strain for the production of hydrogen.
Algae can be grown to produce biomass, which can be burned to produce heat and electricity. [9]



Current Pollution control
Algae are used in wastewater treatment facilities, reducing the need for greater amounts of toxic chemicals than are already used.
Algae can be used to capture fertilizers in runoff from farms. When subsequently harvested, the enriched algae itself can be used as fertilizer.
Algae Bioreactors are used by some power plants to reduce CO2 emissions. [10] The CO2 can be pumped into a pond, or some kind of tank, on which the algae feed.
Alternatively, the bioreactor can be installed directly on top of a smokestack. This technology has been pioneered by Massachusetts-based Green Fuel Technologies.[11]




Green fuel technologies will be my biggest competitor the company was started by 5 M I T professors in 2004


Nutrition
Seaweeds are an important source of food, especially in Asia; They are excellent sources of many vitamins including: A, B1, B2, B6, niacin and C. They are rich in iodine, potassium, iron, magnesium and calcium.[24]
Algae is commercially cultivated as a nutritional supplement. One of the most popular microalgal species is Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis), which is a Cyanobacteria (known as blue-green algae), and has been hailed by some as a super food.[12] Other algal species cultivated for their nutritional value include; Chlorella (a green algae), and Dunaliella (Dunaliella salina), which is high in beta-carotene and is used in vitamin C supplements.
In China at least 70 species of algae are eaten as is the Chinese "vegetable" known as fat choy (which is actually a cyanobacterium). Roughly 20 species of algae are used in everyday cooking in Japan.[24]
Certain species are edible; the best known, especially in Ireland is Palmaria palmata (Linnaeus) O. Kuntze (Rhodymenia palmata (Linnaeus) Kuntze, common name: dulse).[13] This is a red alga which is dried and may be bought in the shops in Ireland. It is eaten raw, fresh or dried, or cooked like spinach. Similarly, Durvillaea Antarctica [14] is eaten in Chile, common name: cochayuyo. [15]
Porphyra (common name: purple laver), is also collected and used in a variety of ways (e.g. "laver bread" in the British Isles). In Ireland it is collected and made into a jelly by stewing or boiling. Preparation also involves frying with fat or converting to a pinkish jelly by heating the fronds in a saucepan with a little water and beating with a fork. It is also collected and used by people parts of Asia, specifically China and Japan as nori and along most of the coast from California to British Columbia. The Hawaiians and the Maoris of New Zealand also use it.
One particular use is in "instant" puddings, sauces and creams. Ulva lactuca (common name: sea lettuce), is used locally in Scotland where it is added to soups or used in salads. Alaria esculenta (common name: badderlocks or dabberlocks), is used either fresh or cooked, in Greenland, Iceland, Scotland and Ireland.
The oil from some algae have high levels of unsaturated fatty acids. Arachidonic acid (a polyunsaturated fatty acid), is very high in Parietochloris incisa, (a green alga) where it reaches up to 47% of the triglyceride pool (Bigogno C et al. Phytochemistry 2002, 60, 497). [16] [17]




Other uses
There are also commercial uses of algae as agar.[22]
The natural pigments produced by algae can be used as an alternative to chemical dyes and coloring agents.[18] Many of the paper products used today are not recyclable because of the chemical inks that they use, paper recyclers have found that inks made from algae are much easier to break down. There is also much interest in the food industry into replacing the coloring agents that are currently used with coloring derived from algal pigments. In Israel, a species of green algae is grown in water tanks, then exposed to direct sunlight and heat which causes it to become bright red in color. It is then harvested and used as a natural pigment for foods such as Salmon. [19] 2


A brief history of what algae is and how important it is to our planet


Source wipedia.com
Algae have conventionally been regarded as simple plants within the study of botany. All are Eukaryota, though Chromophyta have Bacterial (see Blue-green algae) characteristics and some authorities consider them all to be Protists, however this view is now considered to be outdated.[1] They may still be included in the algae as plants. Some authors often include the blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) but note that they are not eukaryote. Algae do not represent a single evolutionary direction or line but a level of organization that may have developed several times in the early history of life on Earth.
The protists are traditionally considered more animal-like (see Protozoa).
The prokaryotic forms, referred to as blue-green algae are only half-algae with a mixture of bacterial characteristics. However, they are quite distant from the bacteria and are referred to by some as Cyanochloronta. All other forms belong as true eukaryota algae within the study of Botany, they have a nucleus enclosed within a membrane.[2] The protoctists are defined by some as eukaryotic microorganisms with the exception of animals and plants and including fungi and algae, slime moulds and other obscure eukaryotes.[3] There is still some disagreement on some of these matters.
Algae range from single-cell organisms to multicellular organisms, some with fairly complex differentiated form and (if marine) called seaweeds. All lack leaves, roots, flowers, seeds and other organ structures that characterize higher plants (vascular plants). They are distinguished from other protozoa in that they are photoautotrophic although this is not a hard and fast distinction as some groups contain members that are mixotrophic, deriving energy both from photosynthesis and uptake of organic carbon either by osmotrophy, myzotrophy, or phagotrophy. Some unicellular species rely entirely on external energy sources and have reduced or lost their photosynthetic apparatus.






All algae have photosynthetic machinery ultimately derived from the cyanobacteria, and so produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, unlike non-cyanobacterial photosynthetic bacteria. It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen[4] - which is available to humans and other animals for respiration.
Not only is algae the best producer of oxygen it also created the atmosphere that is used today and Nuevair also has planes to produce salt water algae
Source wikpedia .com
Algae species world wide
In the British Isles the UK Biodiversity Steering Group Report estimated there to be 20,000 algal species in the UK, freshwater and marine, about 650 of these are seaweeds. Another checklist of freshwater algae reported only about 5000 species. It seems therefore that the 20,000 is an overestimate or an error (John, 2002 p.1).[12]
World-wide it is thought that there are over 5,000 species of red algae, 1,500 %u2014 2,000 of brown algae and 8,000 of green algae. In Australia it is estimated that there are over 1,300 species of red algae, 350 species of brown algae and approximately 2,000 species of green algae totaling 3,650 species of algae in Australia.[13]
3
Around 400 species appear to be an average figure for the coastline of South African west coast.[14]
669 marine species have been described from California (U.S.A.).[15]
642 entities are listed in the check-list of Britain and Ireland (Hardy and Guiry, 2006).[16] source wikpedia
One misconception about algae is that it smells when the fact is that it is animal decomposing that makes the odor and that problem is solved with the use of bioreactors




another benefit of growing algae it reduces carbon in the environment and allowing crop baring fields to produce bigger crop yields and it creates new atmosphere and green house gases when fully implemented

The market for algae
right now there is bio diesel refinery's in every state there is currently no company offering a passive algae framing there are company's that are working on commercial projects Nuevair sees this market as being wide open and is truly the only way to save the planet from global warming and control smog pollution and create a cash crop







Mission statement
to be a green company saving the planet one bioreactor tank at a time
working together we can achieve anything

Nuevair
will provide bioreactor tanks and maintenance of the tanks and tank components scheduling of harvesting of bioreactors and collection and dispersement of funds with a goal of building bio refineries to produce bio diesel ethanol hydrogen and with production of algae comes a host of new industry uses in food production , pharmaceutical , micro carbon industry


the ideal
they are redoing the viaduct in Seattle Washington and i have my own thoughts on what they should be building in its place but thats another story ,the one thing i can create and change was my ideal for pollution control by automobiles was algae tanks or bioreactors it is later in my research that i found out about the business of growing and producing algae as a viable business

Nuevo & Nuevair is a new start up company
with no investors at this time the company will be directed by Mr Mj Bedford he has been in the construction and warehouse transportation industry's for the last 25 years he see the company growing by hiring human resource personal and project managers and technical engineer and accounting and sales and promotion and production personal and equipment


Nuevair
customers are metropolitan city's with a air pollution problems any building any land and or parking lots freeways and highways and land that are not suitable for growing traditional plants and the owners wanting to be in the agriculture business pharmaceutical company's agriculture fertilizers any group of people who want to save the planet i see this as a global industry if we are going to save the planet production and the transfer of industry's for the use algae production are already developed and completely under utilized and underdeveloped industry's for algae production

Nuevair sales staff will decide what are advertising needs will be to maximize expenditures

Bioreactor just what is it
it is any tank that is used for growing plant life
what makes Nuevair's bioreactor tank different is its design and the ease of adjusting the size of tank to meet the customers needs then there is the weather to deal with we will impalement temperature controls special lighting that can allow for maximum growth in the shortest time frame the standard size of the tank shall be 5'x6' x6%u201D this will maximize shipping of the tanks as it is optimal size for ease when using shipping pallets and the tanks will hold 100 gallons of water with maximum harvest growth achieved every 30 days or less and the water from the tanks can also be used to create hydroponics farming creating new crop yields





Creating an unique selling proposition
Nuevair
will be creating a new industry and new way of farming and we are sure the competition will be created
to compete with the new company's Nuevo plans are to build regional staging containers to aid in water reclamation and build refinery's to add to the profits of the company
water reclamation
Nuevo has plans to built regional water tanks to collect gray water in addition to these tanks
we have plans to ask the corps of army engineers to allow us to build tanks by rives that we know flood every year. the plan is to collect this water before it can flood the land and damage property
Salt water bioreactor tanks
Nuevair plans to explore the growth of kelp and other seaweed as a viable crop
and we will be creating hydroponic green houses in conjunction with are algae tank farms using the enriched water from are tanks

nuevair
will be creating hydroponic farms using new technologies to increase production of crops
Positioning
Nuevair
is the only company at this time that is using bioreactor tank in a passive farming of algae with the aspect that we know of with ability to be placed any wear.
And we would be using solar power to energies systems to increase the profitability of are tanks .
We will use produce from are hydroponic farms to aid in profitability of Nuevo Lunch And Dinners
are farms can support fish and phosphorus production
and as byproduct of distilling algae is pure carbon,and with pure carbon i can create my own solar power cells and increase the strengths in metals and this carbon is used in nanotechnologies industry's

algae as a product can be used fertilizer can help any plant to grow, and when injected into the the ground it can help clean the soil and the ground water

we will be able to produce bio fuels and hydrogen and be able to produce hydrogen gas and ethanol gas stations with the ability to sale other Nuevo products

we will be able to develop new technologies in using the carbon atom as a source of energy transference and capture















The competition
uses open pit algae farming
it is very expensive about 80 k per acre to produce and animals and insects have easy access to the pond and it is not transportable and only be used depending on the weather even with these cost they remain profitable
commercial competition
uses a closed system to maximize the absorption of the discharge of the plant they service it is great at what it dose but dose nothing as far as taking out other harmful pollutants out of our environment this type of application remains to be profitable

plastic bag algae and hanging bag farming dose have it uses it dose great in smaller spaces and smaller species of plants.
only draw back it is the co2 transfer dose nothing for environment must be used in a controlled environment it might be great for space production if we ever create the ships with ability to travel in space or in hydroponic applications

Crop yields


Source wikpedia
Biodiesel
[edit] Yields of common crops associated with biofuel production
Crop
kg oil/ha
litres oil/ha
lbs oil/acre
US gal/acre
maize (corn)
145
172
129
18
cashew nut
148
176
132
19
oats
183
217
163
23
lupine
195
232
175
25
kenaf
230
273
205
29
calendula
256
305
229
33
cotton
273
325
244
35
hemp
305
363
272
39
soybean
375
446
335
48
coffee
386
459
345
49
flax (linseed)
402
478
359
51
hazelnuts
405
482
362
51
euphorbia
440
524
393
56
pumpkin seed
449
534
401
57
coriander
450
536
402
57
mustard seed
481
572
430
61
camelina
490
583
438
62
sesame
585
696
522
74
safflower
655
779
585
83
rice
696
828
622
88
tung tree
790
940
705
100
sunflowers
800
952
714
102
cacao (cocoa)
863
1026
771
110
peanut
890
1059
795
113
opium poppy
978
1163
873
124
rapeseed
1000
1190
893
127
olives
1019
1212
910
129
castor beans
1188
1413
1061
151
pecan nuts
1505
1791
1344
191
jojoba
1528
1818
1365
194
jatropha
1590
1892
1420
202
macadamia nuts
1887
2246
1685
240
brazil nuts
2010
2392
1795
255
avocado
2217
2638
1980
282
coconut
2260
2689
2018
287
chinese tallow
3950
4700
3500
500
oil palm
5000
5950
4465
635
algae [1]
80000
95000
70000
10000

According to there figures algae production is the leading cash crop not yet fully developed and Nuevair has plans on being on the four front of making this a reality and affordable and profitable for everyone

Development status
Nuevair is still in process guaranteeing financing
the design work has been created on the bioreactor tank and installation process
We anticipate the first runs of our product to be outsourced with finale Assembly to happen in house
plans are in the works for the purchase of equipment to manufacture the bioreactor tanks in house
Nuevair will be using high strength plastics or other high strength material in the manufacture of bioreactor tanks and we will be outsourcing the manufacture of heating cooling and lighting components for the bioreactor tanks with finale Assembly in the field
we are using plastics for the ease of repair of bioreactor tank if something should happen to a tank

We also will be outsourcing the building of reclamation tanks and pump installation for collecting flood waters and set the dispersement of the waters collected






We will also establish regional offices to set harvesting schedules of algae slurry and other vegetable products and delivery schedules to regional processing plants and set up regional trucking contracts

Nuevair
being a green company we will be moving to creating are plastic products in house so we can reuse plastic containers that are not being recycled at this time this includes milk and juice containers and by using reclaimed plastics we can achieve huge savings in the manufacture cost

Cost for producing molds for the production of a prototype of the bioreactor i anticipate it to be $50k once the molds are made the cost of end production to be under $1.5k per unit.
Other cost will be hiring an office and sales and marketing staff and leasing of warehouse and office space and licensing requirements in addition to these cost there will be cost of technology products Nuevair anticipates this start up cost to be 1.5m

Pricing
nuevair being a start up the unit cost has not been determined an estimate of cost would be 1.5k per unit with a estimated cost of 180k per acre
the size of an acre is 66 ft x660ft that is approximately120 units or moor depending on stacking per acre
that equals 12.000 gal of slurry every 30 days or less with the advancements in tank temperature control and lighting to produce 144,000 gal slurry per year per acre
pricing on the hydroponic aspect of this project range in price according to the size of the farm being created

Current job market
with current job markets across the country i see this company could easily grow and support a million jobs in very short time





















Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
Nuevo... just paste a link next time. ;-)
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
There's no control group because it's not a clinical trial. It's an economic calculation. Economists have formulae; not control groups.
That's false. How would you develop a formulae and use it accurately if you didn't have a control group to initially develop it against?
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
If you're making statements about the effect of something, you HAVE to have a baseline. You have to know what the conditions would be, presently (not past), without the effecting event, and there's no way we can know what the world climate would be like today if we never started releasing carbon at an unnatural rate, you have to know that to be able to make real estimates. Otherwise it's just worthless, and probably politicized, speculation.

Another thing, your cost analysis says nothing about the costs of controlling carbon, another invalidation to it.

So what do we do? Just give up? A policy decision has to be made, and imperfect data is better than no data.

You see the problem is (and this is what I should have been arguing the whole time), the ENTIRETY of your argument is based on nothing more than speculation (that AGW is real/we can do something about it). Entirely! No two ways about it. And no, taking drastic political actions on incomplete data is not better than doing nothing when you could take a proven route (my argument).

My argument is based on fact. Really what pissed me off is I let you draw me into your argument. Your argument (AGW) is invalid and worth nothing, if you want to deal in reality anyway.

Do I think mankind is having some effect on the climate, yes, I know we we are. I've stated this in other threads and it's really indisputable. But I don't believe the effect we are having is near as big as "Big Environment" wants you to believe. And it doesn't matter anyway, because we do plenty to regulate emissions today (anything more will be greatly restrictive and inhibitive), and there's other things we could/should be doing to prevent the carbon from being released in the first place (f*** sequestering it/costing us to live), but those things won't be done, because it is left out in the AGW psuedo-environmentalism equation.

How can you not understand these simple principles? It's terrifying.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Well, I'm not going to defend the whole field of macroeconomic cost estimation.

But I do consider this progress. Years ago, I couldn't even get deniers to agree that global warming is happening at all (much less that humans are involved!) This has always been the tripartite response of the denier:

1) Global warming isn't real
2) Even if it's real, it's not caused by humans
3) Even if it's caused by humans, the effects won't be that bad

I used to never even get past #1! So I'm heartened that even on physorg the debate usually ends up at #2 or #3 these days. I think that I'm happy leaving today's debate at #3 (i.e. the "social cost" estimate we're currently debating.) We probably won't get much further on this thread anyway. The "social cost" estimates are the softest of the science we've discussed (and macroeconomics is arguably not even science at all). So we can just leave it here, if you agree. I've enjoyed the lively debate. :-)
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Man, I used to be an AGW proponent (when I was a glossy-eyed Envr. Science major fresh out of the glorified day-care that is college), but then I got a job where I deal with industrial emissions regulations everyday. I said my piece in my OP really, consider this discussion left.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Well, I'm not going to defend the whole field of macroeconomic cost estimation.

But I do consider this progress. Years ago, I couldn't even get deniers to agree that global warming is happening at all (much less that humans are involved!) This has always been the tripartite response of the denier:



1) Global warming isn't real

2) Even if it's real, it's not caused by humans

3) Even if it's caused by humans, the effects won't be that bad



I used to never even get past #1! So I'm heartened that even on physorg the debate usually ends up at #2 or #3 these days. I think that I'm happy leaving today's debate at #3 (i.e. the "social cost" estimate we're currently debating.) We probably won't get much further on this thread anyway. The "social cost" estimates are the softest of the science we've discussed (and macroeconomics is arguably not even science at all). So we can just leave it here, if you agree. I've enjoyed the lively debate. :-)

Ever suppose that the reason the "deniers" refused to talk to you on level terms would be due to the fact you start off by insulting them in each post you make? Trying to put skeptics of the AGW hypothesis into the same group as people who don't believe the holocaust happened is pretty stupid.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Ever suppose that the reason the "deniers" refused to talk to you on level terms would be due to the fact you start off by insulting them in each post you make? Trying to put skeptics of the AGW hypothesis into the same group as people who don't believe the holocaust happened is pretty stupid.

Sorry, I didn't mean any offense, and I certainly don't see AGW deniers as being in any way similar to Holocaust deniers. I thought "denier" was just the standard term, since that's the term I've always seen used. But I can see how you might consider the term pejorative. Should I use "skeptic" instead, then? I suppose that would be a more accurate term anyway, since most AGW skeptics do not flat-out "deny" AGW; they're merely too skeptical of it to sanction action against it which they feel is too costly. I certainly have no interest in using pejorative terms when posting; it automatically paints one as a close-minded zealot and shuts down meaningful debate. Now that I know, I'll stop using it.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
This step will greatly increase your chances of finding those among the skeptical side who are willing to have a discussion of the topic without resorting to ridiculous statements.

Honestly, who the hell would think that man has no affect on his environment?
Nuevo
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
my control group is based on current farming practices

and hey thats my plan to help the environment if you have a better ideal id like to here it and if you would like help support this plan id like to here it and i do like the ideal of using salt water as a conductor of carbon the question is what we do with it once we capture it and i would like to have the carbon enriched salts and the separated water but if they are just going to bury it so it leaks back in the environment that is unacceptable

thank you

mjbedfordusa@hotmail.com
defunctdiety
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Nuevo, our control statements had nothing to do with you. I admittedly didn't read all of your OP (and am not going to), if you have a website, I'd check it out, but let me say I think algae produced bio-diesel has great potential.
Damon_Hastings
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
I agree. Thirty times the per-acre yield of corn (and without driving up food prices) sounds pretty good. Doing it in the desert or coastal waters sounds even better. I've been watching oilgae for a while now -- I hope something comes of it!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.