Could Crude Solution Work?

If it works, I'm all for it. Makes sense to me. Numbers look good to me.

Send a plant that does this out to the great Pacific Plastic Swirl, and clean the island of plastic up to run jet airplanes on, and I'll be very happy.

Please read http://www.ecochem.co.za/carbonchem.pdf - sorry, link no longer available

By recycling the handpicked stuff you have a great saving. all other plastic should be either fused into a block which will be harmless, or mixed with inert gravel at temperature and used as roadfill. Most plastics are essentially hydrocarbons (a small % of oxygen in some) and so are chemically similar to the original fossil fuels.

Old tyres are a first rate system of carbon capture. They consist of carbon black and synthetic &/or natural rubber. If they are of natural rubber this came from atmospheric CO2 and so we are capturing that too. I understand that they make excellent artificial reefs and can be put to good use and hidden from view. They are also chemically akin to fossil fuels.

In the meantime let us dedicate ourselves to getting a better source of energy than using fossil fuels.

You can not use old rubber tires for a artificial reef. The state of Florida has been spending big money on cleaning up that good idea.

Source ??? Last thing I heard was that they were going great guns holding the coral together and so getting the reefs to grow. Tyres must be completely inert. Suppose you might have to find a way of anchoring them in the first place.

Hi hazman,

Scooter's right on this one, the idea just didn't pan out. I think part of the problem was they wouldn't stay put and were damaging natural structures.

Source was the Miami newspaper. And the main problem was proper anchoring.They tend to move around alot and damage u/w structure. Several organizations are in the process of removing them

Tossed Christmas trees make a better reef

This works. There is a company called GEEP in Barrie, Ontario, Canada that recycles electronics. They take the mixed plastic stream, convert it back to a burnable oil and then turn generators to help power the plant. Pretty cool.

Here in small country, Sri Lanka I know one guy who has developed a similar system where he does this? He converts waste plastics into a gasoline like liquid which he uses to run his fleet of 3 wheelers engines and sells surplus to his colleagues at 50% of the price of gasoline. This has been going on for the last 3-4 years.

Sisira - can you forward additional information on this guy's process?

TiQE

Missing the point burning carbon just recycles what we have total CO2 remains the same - Banking carbon takes it out of the system and so reduces CO2 - PROVIDING we can cut down on fossil fuels use and replace it with renewable energy.

All sorts of ideas such as pumping CO2 into underground storage (which will all bank the oxygen) have been put forward.

As the old plastic has a chemical structure similar to fossil fuel (coal) storing it in a suitable way such as by fusing it into blocks will remove the carbon from the system in a suitable easily handled form. Future generations can perhaps tap this as a chemical feedstock.

What in fact can be done is to use plant synthesis using solar power to convert the CO2 into a form which can be easily returned to carbon - Old tyres with a proportion of Carbon and a vegetable plastic (natural rubber) can lock up quite a bit of carbon - problem is the fossil fuel used to process them.

Missing the point burning carbon just recycles what we have total CO2 remains the same

Total CO2 remains the same isn't this our desired endgame? What's the rub?

Exactly but if the total remains the same it's not building up...suggest 1+1=1

the problem with injecting it into a deep aquifer is that it makes the aquifer into carbolic acid, which then attacks the wellhead and injection string. CO2 is one of those things that sounds good in theory and has been done, but the costs are not trivial. Neither are the risks.

How he does that? The amount of energy to convert doesn't offset the output gained?

That is where the carbon footprint comes in - it takes loads of energy to build a bridge of steel and/or concrete. A trestle bridge of wood would cost much less. - Depends where you want to build it I suppose. Renewable energy wind, sun, wave, biodiesel, or what have you does not put more carbon into the system tie up oxygen and produce more water

How much time and energy are we going to expend on this theoretical CO2 issue? It seems a fools errand at best based solely upon an assumption. Isn't there anything constructive science can produce?

Don't fool yourself - global warming it is real not theoretical! Science has made it quite clear that unless we stop using Fossil Fuels and use renewable energy we are going down the drain. The same thing happened with timber in the western USA eventually someone woke up to the idea that if they did not start planting trees and harvesting them at the same rate they were going one way. Sweden and Norway did the same and now have a sustainable industry. The tropical rainforests I understand are not managed and so are a future problem. Business and people liking their comfort zone and their overpowered cars hope that the fossil fuel problem it is going away - do not kid yourself as long as people think your way, the problem will get worse. Whether you like it or not the message seems to have got through and most of the discussions are not if but how.

I do not know at my age why I should care for a lot of spoiled brats but for some reason I do.

Join the modern progressives - they only go forward when someone pushes them.

Okay then, it appears a clean up is needed of the plastic island anyway so can proceed towards and efficient result or should we like a turtle tuck in our parts and wait until our ideas match the circumstances at hand?

That would appear to not be the case. (see my other post.)

Carbolic Acid is another name for Phenol - a rather nasty coal tar by-product & it is not an acid. CO2 dissolved in water is Carbonic Acid - consumed daily by millions -AKA soda water.

Please read http://www.ecochem.co.za/carbonchem.pdf. These are the basic facts - the problem for all is how but there is no doubt that something must be done.

Seems that major nations are taking it seriously and wind power seems the most popular but I doubt if it is enough. All rotes must be employed.

In the meantime the excess CO2 must be reduced as well as emissions from fossil fuel stopped.

Why? there is no evidentiary proof that CO2 is more than a minor player at best. The solar input would appear to be the major driving factor. not a single model has come close to either predicting what has happened on any timescale you can find. the models are flat out bogus.

And you are correct, it is carbonic, not carbolic, I always confuse the two.

I have seen production tubing that was in an oil well with high amounts of CO2 for two weeks, the tubing came back out looking like it had been eaten by termites. And that was only after two weeks.

that means that any wells intersecting that aquifer will have to be completely redone with high nickel CRA's to deal with that. That costs money.

I don't know how the CO2 is affecting tubing - it is pretty inert I have been guzzling it for year. But the idea of trying to compress it and shove it under ground is plain stupid. Better to convert it to solid CO2 (done all the time - dry ice) and drop it into the Antarctic - it freezes the water around it and would be happy to do nothing.

If we carry on the way we are some drastic problems will arise. We must get to use renewable resources some how. It is not a question of which route is the best it is a case of all hands to the pumps.

It is all a matter of concentration. Carbonic acid in small amounts is not that bad, but if the concentration is very high it becomes very aggressive, especially at high pressures. Also all of the materials used in soft drink containers are either plastic (or plastic coated), aluminum, or CRA (stainless steel). Most oil wells use medium to low carbon alloy steel. the level of corrosion resistance is not even in the same ballpark.

And again, what evidence do you have that "drastic problems" will arise if we do not stop using fossil fuels? CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and will be much higher again. the CO2 level is mainly a function of the sea water temp, which is mainly a function of solar input. we are finding that the sun has a far larger effect on our climate than we ever suspected. Not just in straight radiant heat input, but through changes in solar particle flux causing cloud formation thereby changing the albedo. It is far more complex than the models assume.

And we need to do this because of all that global heating right?