DVader hits it right. When one looks at the investments being poured into most of the schemes (none of which has so far proven to be feasible), one has to question the sanity of the powers that be. One could build a lot of nuclear power plants with this money (have a look at the mini-nuclear that Toshiba is planning to build in Alaska), and plant a whole lot of trees. Trying to capture and sequester carbon dioxide has the appearance of an Emron style scam...

Take a look at http://ecochem.co.za/carbochem.pdf for my views - welding Plastic together into insoluble blocks with and sg over 1.2 would in effect put the fossil fuels back into a form which is similar in chemistry to coal and would tie up carbon and hydrogen (+ a liitle oxygen) and nutralsie them at minimum cost.

So if you cannot recyle the plastic this is an effective way of capturing the carbon.

As a matter of interest could plastic materials not be mixed with aggregate instead of tar and so be used in road fill for hot application?

If the plastic materials can provide the required structural strength and will not melt down on a hot day, then that might be possible.

They might be a problem for surfacing but I would think that the foundation layers could at least accept some.

In the foundry business (shell moulding) a thermoplast is mixed with sand and does a good job. Sand/resin mix is balanced to give break out properties.

I personally think that using the CO2 is the answer, converting it into something useful certainly makes more sense, making it a resource rather than a waste that is expensive or detrimental. Planting of large forests, is perhaps the answer to part of the problem. Creating a renewable resource which has applications for the future. Over the long haul, forestation is net energy positive . . . Mother Nature is certainly an energy conservative engineer.

Use of recycled plastics as mixtures for road construction, does also appear to be viable . . . has anyone seen this done? What are the pit falls and the challenges?

Clearly, stopping production is part of the answer . . . an me personally . . . nuclear power is in that formula.

Does anyone have any knowledge of the Sabatier Reactor that is being developed by NASA?

Having produced the CO2 the answer is how to lock it up again. First if we do not stop the use of fossil fuels as fuels and so making CO2 the future is not good. Using the green route we can get CO2 out of the air but if we use it as a fuel we are going around in circle. We need to bank the carbon in a form that is neutral but we do not want to lock up the oxygen. Plastics are essentially hydrocarbons so they perform an ideal way of getting it out of the system - providing this can be done harmlessly - not down the throats of males or left to float about in the sea. Actually tyres with a high carbon content and with a natural rubber content are also prime candidates. The natural rubber uses up atmospheric CO2. I have heard that they can form excellent artificial reefs if sunk and anchored in the right places and this sound like a way of killing two birds with one stone.

Granulated they could also be used as road fill but this would require energy. Fusing un-recyclable plastics en mass into road fill or into artificial wood also removes it from the cycle.

In the meantime as long as fossil fuels remain an energy source we are going around in ever-decreasing circles. Nuclear could be the lesser of two evils. I have faith that someone is eventually going to find a way of using the energy in spent fuels other than in weapons. Maybe we should put things like NASA on hold until this one is sorted.

evidently you don't understand thermo. CO2 has one of the lowest energy styates, therefore to use it requires input of energy, ie making more CO2.

The best solution that I have read about, is to feed it into algae based reactors for disposal. The algae is then pressed for its' biodiesel fuel, the remains are then used for ethanol production after which, the solids then used for feedstock. The output as a result of algae production is many times that, per acre, of corn, and even sugar ethanol production, and can continue through the winter climes as well, with proper insulation.

There is a company called Green Star Products Inc., that has used the CO2 output from a Utility generator to perform this process and has other 100 and 1000 acre reactors in the works or on the drawig board.

Great to stop the use of fossils but this would keep the carbon circulating - it is necesarry to capture the carbon and reduce the total CO2 in the current system!

Regarding the total CO2, the earth generally uses it for trees, plant life and large amounts are absorbed by the ocean.

The object is to maintain the natural balance, which is done through the reprocessing of the gas by algae. Therefore, should the reduction of this gas, as proposed, exceed this balance it may ultimately result in reduction of our food supply,by continued sequestration and thus, be harmful.

This balance has been maintained though the years despite the larger amounts of CO2 produced by termites, wood rot, natural fires, cattle, and most other types of decay. The object is to reduce the effects of fossil fuels that would otherwise remain unused beneath the earths' surface, so as to maintain more of the natural balance.

Here is a link concerning the NASA Sabatier Reactor . . . this thing works . . . at least in the laboratory and it is exothermic!!! The catalysts being studied include ruthenium, iron, and iron. One quote is to the effect that the C4 (graphite) produced only needs to be scrapped or cleaned from the inside of an iron pipe where it is ultimately deposited. Temperatures of the reaction range from 300 to 700 degrees C.

http://www.isso.uh.edu/publications/A9900/pdf/rich84.pdf

The released hydrogen would then be recycled back into the Sabatier reactor, leaving an easily removed deposit of pyrolytic graphite. The reactor would be little more than a steel pipe, and could be periodically serviced by an astronaut where the deposit is chiselled out. Quoted from Wikipedia, link;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

Reference also the Bosch Reaction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_reaction

Is this the answer? Why can not such a process be scaled to size to use the exhaust of a fossil power plant?

George

Take the time to read (study) http://jimball.com.au/Warming.htm

don't worry CO2 sequestration will not happen by mans hand.

Governments and the IPCC are NOT interested in the weather one iota, they are promoting a one world government which is what you'll have if you ratify the Copenhagen Treaty that Obama will sign next month. Gore, like his father, supports totalitarianism. It'll make him even richer. Look up Lord Monkton's American speech on U Tube.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. A pollutant is something that is harmful to humans and the environment. Without CO2, we die, as does almost every living thing on the planet.

So why try to hide it? Actually, we would benefit, like greenhouses do, by increases in CO2. Plants, trees, food crops et cetera will grow better.

CO2 makes up less than 4% of the so-called greenhouse gases. Water vapour (dihydrogen monoxide) makes up 96%. Nitrous Oxide (NO2) is also a greenhouse gas, as is CO methane etc. There is no carbon in water or NO2. Maybe Hydrogen and Oxygen are the culprits instead.

Science has moved on, CO2 IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Even if you doubled the CO2 concentration to 800 ppm, the global temperature will rise by 0.5 to 0.75 degrees. Wake up America. you'll lose your freedoms as well as your sovereignty.
Ca-Vin