carbon dioxide scam

What are you trying to say?

You definitely don't know what is meant with CO₂ reduction.

It is just one way to put a figure on something that should be controlled. The whole burning fuel economic system should be tackled. Not only the CO2 that is blown in the air is a problem: all the other gasses and dust generated are bad (directly bad) for human beings. The CO₂ reduction can easily be measured and defined, the rest will follow.

CO₂ is good in the actual concentrations, it keeps you breathing. Raise the level from 250ppm to 1000ppm and it affects the function of your brain (you become dizzy and un-attending in a bad ventilated room)

CO₂ does not directly transform more sunlight into heat, the wavelength from the sun's heat is to short. But CO₂ prevents the earth to cool down by IR radiation as it captures the longer wavelengths that are common in this process.

You need to look different to the global warming effect: when we would use alternative energy sourcing where possible, oil prices will get lower and availability will be better. That is direct better for your wallet.

Gwen

Gwen: I have a system in place that removes carbon dioxide from the air. I am removing carbon dioxide from the air. I also have an operating system that heats and cools air by using energy supplied by a wind turbine. The heating and cooling does not burn any fossil fuels. I am trying to get the system costs to be less than fossil fuels. If you stopped burning fossil fuels today, I will still have the capability to make all the energy I need from the sun and the wind which is a form of solar energy.

Carbon dioxide does not convert sunlight into heat. Part of sunlight is infrared radiation that is absorbed by carbon dioxide from the sunlight entering the Earth's atmosphere. Some of the short wave radiation striking the Earth is converted into heat which is also absorbed by carbon dioxide on its way back into the infinite heat sink of space. All of the infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide is passed on to the Earth or into space. Carbon dioxide does not store heat energy except for a very short time. Nitrogen and oxygen behave in the same way. If you want to say that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, then you must say that nitrogen and oxygen are also greenhouse gasses. They truly are. Our moon with a carbon dioxide atmosphere would be a warmer place. It would be slightly warmer than a nitrogen or oxygen atmosphere, but not as warm as a sulfur dioxide atmosphere.

Since some people fear big numbers, let me express the power plant emissions in a different way. At the present time, power companies are dumping 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. We can say instead that 10 billion tons equals one piddle. Earth's atmosphere has a mass of about five quadrillion tons. We can say instead that five quadrillion tons equals one ocean. Therefore, power companies dump every year one piddle of carbon dioxide into one ocean of atmosphere. In the next few years it might be two piddles in the ocean. Now it doesn't sound so fearsome.

I am on your side, Gwen. I am working to eliminate the need for fossil fuels. The point I'm trying to make in this discussion is that some people are trying to get money from all of us by taxing our fossil fuel usage. They will also try to tax our breathing because we exhale 200ml of carbon dioxide with every breath, all 6 billion of us. That's a lot of money. They do not want to eliminate carbon from the atmosphere because that would limit the amount of money they can extort from us.

Wally

Wally,

Congratulations with your activities.

From where did you get the wind and solar powered material, where are your living?

It is not that I'm afraid of big numbers, you are right on the greenhouse gasses, and luckily they are present, in the actual composition. It keep earth survivable for us.

Venus has another atmosphere, so has jupiter and Saturn's. All have another mixture of gasses surrounding them. Only our has the right balance to keep water fluid and to enable the form of life we know.

I'm active in some projects that run in the alpine region (south Germany) There we see that the amount of snow that fall in the winter is not sufficient to cope with the summer heat. That means that in summer the glaciers and permafrost are disappearing. With al the consequences. (stone loaded mud steams, drought,..)

The slight change in the gas mixture has shifted the snow level. Add this to a mild (warm) winter and you will find situation like those from this year.

It is not the CO₂ that has done this, it is the combination of resulting products from our activities. Even releasing the energy that is captured in the fossil fuels is generating this. The change in our habitat is enormous.

But although CO₂ is not directly toxic, it has effects on our function and we are not that far away from the level that we will feel the effects. Nature has coped with our activities for years but it seams that the bucket has filled up. Scientists believe that the oceans have absorbed more than expected and now that they start to heat up they will start to release the CO₂ again. Other sources of gasses that nature has preserved for ages in ice layers now start to release. Speeding up the process.

Believe me, it has just begun and we will have to go through the cycle. Man will survive and deal with the trouble. Taking away some CO2 is just ridiculous. If you need it for the industrial process you run, great. Just to store it in a bottle, leave it like that. The energy needed to do this could be used for something else.

What bothers me is that there are plenty of alternative solutions to make electricity. And when decisions need to be taken they go for coal or something similar.

Gwen

Thank you, Gwen, for your comments. If all people cooperate, we can together solve most of our problems.

I live in the western part of the U.S.A., in the mountains 160 km south of Salt Lake City. We have a small wooded farm that is habitat for several wildlife creatures. One of them is an endangered species, the Utah Spotted Frog. We try to keep everything in balance so we can share this small part of Earth without harm to the frogs. We must be successful because biologists harvest some of the eggs to be transplanted elsewhere.

My biggest problem is that we do not have enough water to keep the new young trees alive. I must plant 100 trees to keep one growing. This year, I have started a drip irrigation system to conserve water. I am also developing a system to extract water from the air. I believe that I can get all of the water I need from the air without irrigation water from the mountains or from rain. Many other people in the world are also extracting water from the air, but they are using a different technique.

My system uses heat for evaporation and cold for condensation. The process is not efficient, so I must use an economical means to supply power for the process. The least expensive power source for me is the wind. I am building a wind turbine that should supply the power that I need. If I build a big system, I will have all of the water that I need.

If I build another big system, the heat might be enough to heat my home in winter. The cold might be enough to cool my home in summer. The system does not use any fossil fuels. It is safe and will not harm the frogs or any other creature living here. It might be a partial solution to global warming.

Perhaps you could use a similar system in the mountains of southern Europe to supply water, heating, and cooling when necessary. If we can reduce our need for fossil fuels, we may not have to fight over the dwindling oil supplies in the world.

Another problem I have is that there is not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to grow my plants. I must add fertilizer to the soil so as to stimulate the production of carbon dioxide by soil microorganisms. This is a simple and inexpensive way to get the carbon into the plants. If atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing some global warming, then removing some of it from the atmosphere will not harm my plants.

Getting carbon dioxide out of the air is not difficult, but we must sift through 99.5 percent nitrogen and oxygen to get to the one half of one percent carbon dioxide. That is why carbonated drinks and dry ice use manufactured carbon dioxide instead of the free form in air. There is so much money involved with carbon extraction and storage that all of us must use our own resources to monitor the process. Otherwise we will be paying for something that we will not be getting.

I am happy, Gwen, that you are aware of alternate sources for electricity. I use low-wattage flourescent lamps in my home. These lamps can be modified to operate on battery power. Most of my electronic equipment uses voltage converters that could be replaced by automobile batteries built into the house electrical system.

The world that you would like to see is really not far away. Despite our individual differences of opinion, we can all move together in that direction.

Wally

To my impression using alternate power to avoid the formation of CO₂ is more effective than using that power to get it out of the air.

Planting a tree is the best thing to get rid of the CO₂.

The idea to use wind power to heat your house is one of the most effective systems: the losses between the generation of mechanical energy and your needs are nearly 0.

I live in flatland Europe, approx 52° north. We have almost no hydro or tidal possibilities. Suns radiation energy is weakening. All we have to rely on is wind.

Of course we can heat or domestic water with the sun, for some part.

We also need heat to heat our houses, you also do need it. In summer we don't really need to cool the private houses, some decent venting solves over temperatures easily. We even install big windows to get as much of the suns heat in as possible.

I used to work with sprinkler systems and in many cases it was cheaper to install a diesel driven sprinkler pump than to do it electrical. And still diesel only gets installed when insurance asks for it. The idea that it is cheaper is just not logical so the diesel is no option. So are wind turbines, to my idea, a decent turbine, designed for manufacturing, is really competitive as energy source. Especially when it comes to heating. You only must have the will to do it.

Gwen

Gwen: I agree that avoiding the formation of CO2 is more effective than trying to remove the small portion of it in our atmosphere. I believe that power companies should install scrubbers that can reduce CO2 emissions in addition to dust and other polluntants. However, we probably should also pursue technology to remove CO2 from the air because we must do that when we have habitats on the moon and Mars.

As you have said, trees are very effective at getting rid of CO2 because they can trap it inside their structure for a very long time. Trees are also beautiful to look at.

We are fortunate in the U.S.A. because we have hydro, tidal, and wind power, although not everywhere. I don't have hydro or tidal power, but I do have wind some of the time. The wind turbine I have will include the capability to store the wind-generated energy for times when the wind is not blowing. I hope to have it operating this summer.

People in the U.S.A. are afraid of nuclear energy and nuclear waste, but we expose ourselves to the sun, which is a big nuclear furnace. Many thousands of Americans die because they receive too much radiation from the sun. Do Europeans fear nuclear power and radioactive waste?

Wally

Are people afraid of Nuclear power?

Of course, there is a natural fear for the unknown. For the things we have no own control.

But little by little the knowledge and acceptation grows. The big discussion on stepping out has shifted: stepping back in, on which conditions. Certainly the zero C0₂ emission is interesting for the politic world.

I worked as fire protection specialist in different nuclear and conventional power , chemical processing and assembly plants. It was clear to me that the high knowledge of nuclear dangers was taken for granted and nothing was left to eventuality. I liked working in those nuclear sites: everything was well organised, clean and monitored.

In conventional power plants, everything was working at the limits, to gain as much power as possible from the investment. You could read from the installations that the cheapest got the contract.

At nuclear sites they simply asked us what the best solution was, the supplier with the best explication got the contract, price was only important if two offered the same solution. In conventional situations the cheapest was still too expensive.

But we rely to much on grids, forcing the power companies to look for compact solutions. In fact we would like to have wireless free electricity, with no pollution. This is impossible and certain scarifies have to be made.

If CO₂ can make people be concerned about their energy usage, it has at least done something good. Is it's role in the whole picture disputable? Perhaps, but we need to change some mentalities.

Gwen

Gwen: I guess we won't know whether or not one half of one percent CO2 is contributing to global warming until we actually reduce the emissions. I suspect some people might see an opportunity to get money by creating CO2 and then collecting it and storing it. One of the easiest ways to create CO2 is by treating carbonates with acid. They will get money for liberating CO2 that was entrapped in rock formations. They will get additional money for storing it. This technique will not reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it will generate a lot of money.

Following is one method for treating biomass before it decays into free carbon dioxide gas. The people and equipment are already in place to do this.

Many poor people in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere are already converting carbon into a concentrated solid form, charcoal, that can be stored in a place where it will not reenter the atmosphere. Those who are interested can search the internet to learn how these people are making charcoal, which can be up to 90 percent carbon. If they did not convert the biomass into charcoal, the biomass would eventually decay and return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If those indigent people would increase their production of charcoal above the current world usage, the excess charcoal could be stored somewhere until a use for it is found other than burning. These people would have to be paid for their efforts. Someone other than me could claim the $25 million Gore/Branson prize. He or she could then distribute the money wherever it is needed to further the anti global warming effort. Most of the money will be going to the people who are doing the work and who probably need it the most. Nature is already doing a fabulous job of removing atmospheric carbon dioxide by absorbing and dissolving the gas in rainwater. Our best bet is to reduce the amount we are putting into the atmosphere by such means as requiring scrubbers on the power plants and converting excess biomass into charcoal.

The scrubbers and biomass intervention will most certainly reduce atmospheric CO2. If CO2 is not the cause of global warming, the stored carbon can be recovered and used for many good purposes. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, we can take our excess charcoal to Mars and warm that planet.

Wally

Wally,

To make charcoal you need to cut a three.

Wouldn't it be better to leave the three and learn the poor how to cook on solar heat? (if it is available)

The charcoal production might result in a black mass containing 90% of carbon. The pollution is enormous, it is one of the most pollutive activities in the developing regions.

Gwen

Gwen: You are correct that charcoal is a pollutant, but only if it is burned. If the charcoal is buried instead, it will be carbon that has been removed from the ecosystem. Many people are searching for ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They believe that every human activity that produces carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. Charcoal is one way to reduce the amount of CO2, but only if it is buried and not burned. My concern is that some people will create the illusion that they are reducing CO2 when they are not really doing that. People who do not understand the science can be easily fooled.

I like your idea for planting trees. I grow trees on my small wildlife preservation area. The forest is always ten degrees cooler than the sunlit meadow. Trees help to cool the environment by providing shade and evaporating water. The leaves in the trees reflect infrared rays from the sun back into space if there are no water vapor clouds in the way. If the skies have clouds, the radiation cannot escape the Earth.

If we plant enough trees and other vegetation to provide shade for city buildings, roads, and highways, the trees might completely offset global warming from other human activities.

You have many good ideas, Gwen. I wish other people would join our discussion.

Wally

Wally,

The process of making charcoal is very pollutive: it creates a lot of chemicals that you should not inhale. That is why it is done in India and China, and not here in the rich part of the world. (the installations to clean out the smoke are quite expensive)

A second problem is that you need quite some forest to do it, and guess what: they use virgin forests for it, without planting new trees. Don't bring them into a system that they would destroy even more, just to bury the charcoal.

A Chinese official said some months ago: "Ecology and alternative power is a luxury we can't afford" this should open the eyes of the world: China and the rest of Asia doesn't bother on nature, they use it as much as possible. The only thing we can do is to cope with it and try to force them with "eco" taxes that should compensate the gain they had not to work ecological.

Do you follow the threads started by Masu each Sunday? There are some nice people that dispute together, it opens up your eyes on local differences in energy systems and needs.

I have an idea to sell heat and cold. Not the fuel to generate it.

Those who want heat, sign a contract, I install a system that captures as much heat as possible and stores it. When the customer then uses this heat, I measure the amount of joules and charge him for it.

This approach has some benefits: modern middle-class is interested to live less influencing for nature but just can't afford to invest in the systems that allow them. They would agree to pay some % more for the heat if they knew that it really is "green".

The side-effect is that a lot of installations will be done and the price for the parts will go down.

The fact that we would use less fossil based fuels to heat and cool the house preserves them for automotive use. Which is quite controlled on exhaust.

What blocks me: money. I have a house to pay and two kids to rise.

I love this discussion anywhere I hear it. Everyone is scared by the people telling you that Global warming is coming and wants to blame it all on CO2. At least this group has some idea of the why's of green house gasses. But a couple things to concider before you buy into the CO2 hype.

1. CO2 is only one of a number of green house gasses. It only accounts for between 9-25% of the greenhouse effect. Water Vapor is the Number One greenhouse gas, accounting for 35-70%. Now, notice the large differences in the numbers. It's because the atmosphere is realtively fluidic. It moves and changes.

2. This is the really interesting fact! While it is correct that CO2 levels are higher when the earth is in a warm phase, they follow the temperature trends, not lead them...therefore it's like saying that pain causes injury. All of the data Al Gore showed in his little "Chart" was too magnified to show this fact, but if you look at the actual data, what he told you was a lie. Global warming causes CO2 rise, not the other way around.

Now, I'm all for producing energy without using fossil fuels for a battery, but for completely different reasons. And all the conservation in the world, all the Carbon Offsets and taxes, all the other hype that the 'Environmental' politicians spout is just another in a way they have found to part the masses from their money and make them voluntarily give up their power.

Can anyone say Baaaaah? I knew you could. (read with a very bad Mr. Rogers accent)

Um. This may be a dead thread, but I'd sure like to see your explanation for saying, "Global warming causes CO2 rise, not the other way around."