How to change the waste into money!

You are right, but how to recycle this kind of carbon oxide?

Confucius, Way to pat yourself on the back, I always like a man who can agree with himself.

Just collect and dump the carbon oxide into Mars or other planet!

As long as you buy a space rockets from Russia as a carrier, you will be the richest man or woman in the world!

The most promising work in the future, do as a cleaner!!!

Confucius, that's not a valid scenario! How long would it take the planet to run low on oxygen if we dumped vast quantities carbon dioxide outside of our atmosphere? Oxygen composes 72.708 %, by weight, of each ton of carbon dioxide. Here's a somewhat better suggestion: Using solar energy and a catalyst, break carbon dioxide molecules down into carbon and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere. Store the carbon and when we run low of hydrocarbon fuels, we'd have a store of carbon that we could react with hydrogen to create more hydrocarbons in more-or-less a closed cycle. The atmosphere contains something slightly more than 0.037 % carbon dioxide by volume (0.05 % by weight). It is estimated that the oceams of the world contain some 2,000 million long tons of carbon dioxide, probably mostly in the form of the carbonate ion. As more carbon dioxide (here, one mole for example) is dissolved in the oceans, it reacts with the carbonate ion plus water to form 2 moles of bicarbonate ion. As the oceans warm slowly by greenhouse effects, carbon dioxide becomes less soluble in the oceams, and it will increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Someone has to start thinking of a solution pretty soon!

Building big seras for plants and growth alot of trees all over the planet can be solve the problem in the future,than stop technology growth for the moment and start using trees again for energy

irfan

I am interested. Are you interested in linking up with us so that soliciting attention stage phase merges into solution stage. looking forward to your communication

krishnamurthi

mysore/bangalore, karnataka state, south india

This is a good concept, and iam too interested in this topic.

Hi Confucious, welcome to CR4

Just collect and dump the carbon oxide into Mars or other planet!

You are joking aren't you? This has to be one of the looniest ideas I have heard yet and rates way beyond any of the perpetual motion machines I have seen so far.

Have you got the slightest idea how much energy it takes just to get something into orbit let alone to Mars. Just have a look at the size of the fuel tank of the space shuttle to start with. The final orbiter has a mass of around 100,000 Kg when on orbit and it burns around 2,000,000 Kg of fuel just to get into orbit. To leave earth orbit and head to Mars takes even more. You are going to produce thousands of times more pollution getting the stuff to Mars than you could transport to Mars.

I hate to say this but the only way this idea is going to get off the ground is on a piece of paper folded into a paper aeroplane and chucked out the window.

CO₂ to Bio Fuels

How about algeculture at the the major sources of CO₂ where possible.

Bio Fuels from Algae and CO₂ + Solar flux = a "NEW" Agriculture?

Yield of bio diesel from typical domestic crops range from 40 to 250 (up to 900 for coconut/palm) gallons per acre year.The upper end for ethanol is about 700 gallons/acre year. Now compare that to algae generated yields.

Day light hours only … estimated 40% total 24 hour (80% of day light hour) recovery/capture of industrial CO₂ emissions using an enclosed solar pond (reactor)

Primary Inputs: CO₂, sunlight, nutrients, heat (waste), water (recycled)

Reactor size:
gas fired ~ 4-5 acres/Mega watt
coal fired ~ 10-12 acres/Mega watt (due to the higher emissions of coal)

Annual Yield/Acre estimates: biodiesel 8k gallons +plus+ ethanol 5k gallons +plus+ 70 tons feed/fertilizer (This is a mid range estimate … theoretically biodiesel yield might be as high as 15k gallons per acre year).

ROI estimated 5-10 years 10-20% return [these values can be debate based on current lower crude oil of prices $50/barrel].

The yield for open solar ponds is about 20% of the yield of enclosed solar ponds (reactors) since the pedigree of the high yield algae can not be maintained.

Examples of enclosed reactor yields, a gas fired power plant (or other industrial application), on an annual per megawatt basis, could be about 32k gallons of biodiesel +plus+ 20k gallons of ethanol +plus+ 280 tons of feed/fertilizer stock … while …

a coal fire facility could be expected to be about 80k gallons of biodiesel +plus+ 50k gallons of ethanol +plus+ 700 tons of feed/fertilizer stock from per mega watt.

A 1,000 megawatt gas fired facility is planned to be operational by 2009. How does 32 million gallons of biodiesel +plus+ 20 million gallons of ethanol +plus+ 0.7 million tons of feed annually sound from one 5,000 acres facility? THAT IS A LOT OF RECOVERED/"RECYCLED" COx and FUEL in my opinion!!

A coal fired facility annual yield would about 2.5 to 3X greater than the gas fired facility on about a 15k acre farm. How does over 170 million gallons of bio fuel annually sound?

These yields are well above the economic threshold for onsite "refining" result in the further advantage of using waste process heat from the "host" industrial facility further increasing the overal energy efficiency of the "host".

[And while we are at it ... throw in a wind farm (2.5 megawatt windmills in or around the farm) if the wind patterns are appropriate].

This same technology can be applied to agricultural and human waste reactors as demonstrated in New Zealand Fall 2006. I do not have any yield data on this effort.

For your consideration.

Good thoughts. I don't see any estimates of the carbon dioxide produced by the gas , coal etc fired "reactors". You'd have to subtract the carbon dioxide produced by your reactor from any beneficial deletion of carbon dioxide. In Asia (and elsewhere), most farmers collect their biomass (grass, plant leaves and debris) and burn it. A few biomass converters to use that biomass to produce ethanol, etc could reduce another significant source of carbon dioxide and produce a cash return for the alcohol produced. Planting more trees is one suggestion I read here, but one would have to work awfully hard just to keep up with the reduction of the forests, especially in the Amazon basin. We tend to forget how much carbon dioxide we produce. One tiny data fact I can quote is that one WW II submarine, on a patrol consisting of 10,963 miles, burned 123,000 gallons (US) of diesel fuel, an average of 11.22 gallons per mile. Add in all the ships of all teh nations just in WW II. Add in all the vehicles driven daily all over the world, jet commercial aircraft and the military, and the numbers are staggering! I guess what we need is another Rachael Carson to step forward and wake us all up!

point #1. Do you know how Greenland got it's name? Hint: It was NOT because it was covered with snow like it is today.

Point #2. Did you know plants convert carbon oxide, water, and trace minerals to organic material?

point #3. Did you know that the carbon oxide that these contries are spewing back into the air were once plants and animals?

Dear sir

You brought up three good points, it's interesting:

Firstly, I took this issue just as a joking, but it's not completely joking, to my knowledge, the Greenland is named by newcomers around 1600 or so, the land was almost covered by white snow , and the snow was quite thicker than nowadays, as you know, the point is this land has been changing from white to green, not from green to white, that means our ancestors could foresee the future of North Canada region? that's obviously not.

With the melting of snow and iceberg, the sea level will be pushed up, many coastal city will be deluged, with the melting of snow and iceberg, most of species (animal and plants) will be disappeared from earth forever, our fate is just like the dinosaur unless find a new planet of outer space.

I am not trumpeted of doomsday, but it's logical, we can feel it now,

Yeah, the carbon oxide is once the plants and animal, but the trend of consuming is irreversible seeing more and more population become wealthy, can you keep them poor?

So, the only way the human beings survive is to explore the outer space, to utilize the other planets, in this case, to collect and dump the carbon oxide to other planets is realistic solutions, many friends also point out it's energy consuming, that's right, but there is no pollution on earth-our sole homeland, I presume why our ancestors were so eager to find new continents, the Greenland is the fruit.

It's time for our turn! to find the new continent!

George

Confucius,

So, the only way the human beings survive is to explore the outer space, to utilize the other planets, in this case, to collect and dump the carbon oxide to other planets is realistic solutions, many friends also point out it's energy consuming, that's right, but there is no pollution on earth.

If you want to propel anything at sufficient velocity to escape earths gravity it needs to be traveling at 11.2 Kms^-1 so for one Kg of carbon dioxide we need to generate

Energy_Escape = ½ Mass Velocity_Escape²

Energy_Escape = ½ 1 Kg (11,200 ms^-1)²

Energy_Escape = 62,720,00 j

Energy_Escape ≈ 63 Mj

So where do you think all that energy is going to come from? Yes the space shuttle uses hydrogen and oxygen but where do you thing the energy comes from the make that fuel? All the fuel needs to be manufactured and when you take all the inefficiencies in the generation and distribution into account you will need to generate three times this much energy to produce the fuel to launch you payload. That means that the energy you are going to expend manufacturing the fuel is

Energy_Manufacture = Energy_Escape ÷ Generating_Efficiency

Energy_Manufacture = 63 Mj ÷ 30%

Energy_Manufacture ≈ 210 Mj

If you convert the figures on the EIA website every Mj of electricity that is consumed produces about 93 g of CO₂. So if we take the amount of energy that is consumed to manufacture the fuel we can work out how much CO₂ it will pump into the atmosphere as

Energy_Emission = Energy_Manufacture x Emission_Factor

Energy_Emission = 210 Mj x 93 gMj-1

Energy_Emission = 19.53 Kg

Now another problem is that H₂ and O₂ only supplies about half the energy and the rest comes from the burning of powdered aluminium and ammonium perchlorate in the SRBs and this produces about 710,000 Kg of pollution on their own and all of it ends up in the atmosphere. This works out at about 7 Kg for every Kg of payload.

Add all this up and for every Kg of CO₂ that we ship of to some other planet we are going to produce about 19.5 Kg of CO₂ and 7 Kg of really nasty aluminium compounds then belch them into the atmosphere. This is a pretty backward step and we would soon run out of everything including air.

As I said earlier this is one of the loopiest ideas so far and it is an absolutely impractical, inefficient, incomprehensibly, idiotic, idea that would multiply the problem by a factor or over 25 fold.

So my dear friend Confucius, please, please, please,

It's about as functional as dehydrated water and desirable as a fart in a space suit!

Good points. I like your math! One addition: You calculate the energy and carbon dioxide used to send one Kg of carbon dioxide into space. You neglected to add the weight of the containment tank for the carbon dioxide. Today's liquid fueled rockets use rather heavy propellant tanks. The original V-2 rockets used much lighter propellant tanks and generated steam to pressurize the propellant tanks by dribbling hydrogen peroxide over potassium permanganate. Also, don't forget to add in the polymer ("rubber" binder) that is burned in solid propellants, along with other nasty stuff!

This is very true and it just make the whole concept even more uneconomic, undesirable, unintelligent and unbelievably unusable.

Confucius... while I am open minded and encourage creative thinking, I can so no benefit from your solutions. Firstly, our actions as human beings are becoming absurdly redundant in the fact that we cause waste; and instead of applying some sort of reasonable solution as to using the waste or cutting down on it, we prefer to just "chuck it into someone's back yard." We never tend to learn from our mistakes as history shows in so many ways, lack of the majority with common sense I believe.

Secondly, to find and make habitable a different planet is ludicrous. Not only would our current pollution problem absorb us before we found a feasible way of accomplishing this feat, but whats the point of starting over when we are ultimately just going to make the same mistakes. Agent Smith in the Matrix had it right. The human population on a whole is a virus, we consume, create waste, and relocate. Are we just going to hop from planet to planet consuming its natural resources and leaving it a ruined waste land? If we intend to achieve some state as a 'higher being,' then we need to start thinking and acting like higher beings...

point #1. Do you know how Greenland got it's name?

I think it was a travel agent by the name of Lief Ericson.

Point #2. Did you know plants convert carbon oxide ...

Yes, CO₂ has been being stablized (cumulatively stored as fossil fuel) since the first lifeforms occurred on earth.

point #3. Did you know that the carbon oxide that these contries are spewing back into the air were once plants and animals?

Again yes.

The problem is that MAN appears to be dead set on undoing millions of years of "Nature's" work within a few lifetimes ... an "explosion" in slow motion, so to speak, relative to the scheme of things!

Dear George:

This is a very interesting subject.

I like to know what are planning to do?

Is there any plan?

Business Plan or Strategy to proceed and pursue this market?

What do you want to generate?

Please contact me

Pedro Gutierrez

pegusamail@yahoo.com

pegusallc@hotmail.com

Phone:+1-201-655-0042