"Researchers Find Rapid Way to Make Carbon...." Topic

… Dioxide-Storing Mineral Magnesite.

"A team of researchers led by Trent University's Professor Ian Power has developed an accelerated way to produce magnesite (MgCO3) at room temperature — a mineral which can capture the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.

Scientists are already working to slow global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but there are serious practical and economic limits on developing the technology.

Now, for the first time, they have explained how magnesite forms at low temperature, and offered a route to dramatically accelerating its crystallization…."

Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

"but we now know that the science makes it do-able"

Do-able? Hmm … I wouldn't be throwing a carbon party just yet.

And what would be the "carbon footprint" to mass produce the stuff (and the "polystyrene microspheres" needed), and to obtain and transport the raw materials, equipment and labor required to make it and then to put the product safely in place and without causing worse repercussions for the environment?

Let's make sure the "cure" isn't worse than the "problem"!

And who would really stand to benefit ($$$) from the patent – they will try to patent each variant – and from the mass production of this potential wonder stuff (and the "polystyrene microspheres" needed)? Could it be the same universities, investors, companies and politicians who have been pushing the global warming (climate change) message hard all these years?*

There are questions that need to be asked before this material gets celebrated as a breakthrough. I just don't think many would dare ask them, publicly at least.

Dan
* At the very least it would make for a cool movie, but I doubt any major studio would dare produce such a film. And most mainstream actors would decline to accept the roles. :)

Well said, Brother Dann.

Personally, while making Zillions and being heralded as "saviors" would certainly be a welcome side effect for any such Elites who would try to make this work, I still fear it's more about political and social power to make their particular Utopia. And God help the rest of us who might not agree with their vision.

And the only way Hollywood would put their oar in would be with a storyline about greedy morons trying to PREVENT such a miracle from being performed. I see Tom Cruise and Keanu Reeves as the crusading scientists who KNOW what's good for the world.

TVAG

Personally, I think we should just praise the geniuses, give them a pile of money, let them solve the problem and called climate change "fixed". Wouldn't that be great? To not hear how every single social, economic, and political trend is tied to global warming? To quit installing solar panels on roofs facing in whatever direction in places that are cloudy three hundred days a year?

I do my best to keep our family fairly "green", but it would be nice not to have all the guilt messages blasted at us day and night.

Yes, it's an interesting development, yes it's very preliminary, but wouldn't it be neat to talk about something else?

I used to love nature documentaries. Now I avoid them like the plague because every episode is forced into the same damn conclusion. It reminds me a lot of the Ancient Aliens guys, with their one answer to everything shows.

And, like Andrew, I don't particularly like to be bombarded with guilt messaging* coming from scientists who haven't come up with solutions to their own problems (and specially their own extremely obvious dependence on fossil fuels for doing their work).

And giving the politicians more tax money to mismanage is never the right solution. Even a "scientist" should know that one.

Dan
* It's almost like calling a friend or loved one one or more times every week and each time being told we aren't calling or doing enough. You eventually stop looking forward to the chats.

Agree Dan. We have been told constantly to "recycle", then it comes out that a nearby township felt it was too costly since they are paying the company to recycle & there is no market for the goods, so the trash company is dumping the "recyclables" into the landfill anyway. Crazy!
BTW plant trees, they do remove your "deadly greenhouse gas" from the air too.

It's hard to imagine that this stuff could be made in sufficient quantity to have any impact on the environment. Far better to stop producing so much CO2 in the first place.

Thanks Scott, for the first measured response on this thread.

"It's hard to imagine that this stuff could be made in sufficient quantity to have any impact on the environment"

"Measured response"

Pun intended? :)

Dan

You had to stretch for that one, Dan.

Actually, several years ago the local paper had an editorial on livestock (particularly cattle) cattle grazing as a means of carbon sequestration.

When grass is grazed (or mowed) it triggers additional growth, including the that of the roots thus placing more carbon in the soil. With a wider root system, the grass spreads further increasing the carbon pulled from the atmosphere.

Then there is of course the manure which gets worked into the ground and sequesters even more carbon.

And you don't need to produce microspheres or find a place to store magnesite. Or find a low energy means of producing the magnesium in the first place as the primary method of production is the electrolysis of brine. Then there is the drilling of the wells and the cost of pumping the brine or the building of facilities to use seawater to consider.

Versus hiring a few more cowboys and having some steak for dinner.

But your average cow gives off between 70 to 120 kg of methane per year. Depending on who you believe, methane is 23 to 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

The number of cattle on Earth are estimated to be just under 1 billion.

link

So really? Cows, sheep and other farting ruminants are the answer?

Maybe something like this may help.

link

Bowman: "The number of cattle on Earth are estimated to be just under 1 billion."

I must have woken up hungry. My mouth watered as I read that.

Dan

Genetic engineering??? I can see that flying with the anti-tech eco-conscious crowd who are the greatest believers in CCW/AGW.

If they believed that the answer was to use the best available technology to solve the problem we would be building nuclear reactors as fast as possible for base load power.

On the other hand with more grass and grazing you get higher organic content in the soil which allows it to hold more moisture and water vapor is the major green house gas.

Besides, methane has a much shorter residence time in the atmosphere leading to a lower overall impact.

I guess what they did there is a slightly more innovative attempt than back in the second half of the 20th century, when some scientists went around simply suggesting to everyone that we should spray the world's glaciers with dark dust particles to melt them and stave off the coming man-made ice age. :)

Dan

I was really hoping for the ice age as I wanted to hunt herds of mammoths again.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker talk blog

Bunker – Uummmmmm meat.

Dave

Mmmmmm, yum.

Dan
PS. We might need to start cloning them fast, just in case we DO end up with an Ice Age … once they start setting up weather control stations to cool off the planet. :)
YouTube link
YouTube link

Genetic engineering??? I can see that flying with the anti-tech eco-conscious crowd who are the greatest believers in CCW/AGW.

Quite the generalization there.

Besides, methane has a much shorter residence time in the atmosphere leading to a lower overall impact.

Not really. Methane has about a tenth of the staying power in the atmosphere as CO2. If methane was only ten times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2 you'd be correct. It's not and you're not.

On the other hand with more grass and grazing you get higher organic content in the soil ……

I didn't understand what you meant when you first wrote that. Carbon fixation only occurs during photosynthesis. Heavily grazed grass respires, and doesn't photosynthesize. Grass cuttings deliver very little carbon back to the soil. They rot, releasing CO2. Therefore, on heavily grazed fields more CO2 is given off.

Modifying the RuBisCo enzyme to facilitate more carbon fixation is happening on many fronts, despite your blow off.

link

I must have woken up hungry. My mouth watered as I read that

How about 19 billion chickens and 2 billion pigs on top of that? That's a lot of bacon wrapped chicken fried steak!

Grazed – not over grazed.

Manure and grass fragments get worked into the soil by the livestock.

Once in the soil it enhances the water retention and therefore the root systems expand (even more carbon in the soil).

That is the way rangeland is improved by grazing. At least that is what the ranchers and farmers believe and it seems to work quite well.

Really basic and doesn't require a lot of research dollars into processes to artificially remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Rather on the order of grazing sheep in the Spring on rangeland to remove plants harmful to cattle prior to moving them onto the pasturage rather than spraying pesticides.

And if methane is so bad, then vegetarians should be on your hit list as well as the other herbivores…

Once in the soil it enhances the water retention and therefore the root systems expand (even more carbon in the soil).

Except roots respire, like us, and release CO2 gas. More roots, more respiration, LESS fixed CO2.

It's nowhere as cut and dry as you seem to imply. Here is a good article describing the benefits and shortcomings of grazing as a means for fixing carbon. Seems the situations where it works well are narrower than you claim.

link

And no mention of the methane released.

And if methane is so bad, then vegetarians should be on your hit list as well as the other herbivores…

Typical of the comments here. Ya, I have a hit list. Just like I'm hoping for super hurricanes.(Where's the face palm emoticon?)

And finally, what is the problem with exploring every process in removing atmospheric CO2, including prevention?