This is interesting: http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadi...t-into-pellets
A way to make fuel from capturing CO2. Stuff like this could be really useful in the north, or other isolated areas. Use solar in the 24 hour day light to power the operation in the summer and manufacture fuel for the winter. Also useful for a Mars mission?
This is interesting: http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadi...t-into-pellets
A way to make fuel from capturing CO2. Stuff like this could be really useful in the north, or other isolated areas. Use solar in the 24 hour day light to power the operation in the summer and manufacture fuel for the winter. Also useful for a Mars mission?
CE actually was a Calgary company until recently. Dr David Keith is the guy who started it all, he was (and maybe still is) a prof at U of C. I went to an international carbon capture conference a few years back and the guy was a rock star. Everyone wanted to talk to him. Word was MIT was trying to get him to move there.
Because the kinetics of their process are not terribly favorable, I've always thought they need to get the energy inputs to a very low level to make it advantageous. The fans for the contactor, the circulation pumps, etc. They have smart people working on the pilot (including a former colleague) so I think they are on to something.
As far as being used up north, I would expect they need an ambient temperature of over freezing (for the contactor to work) and the warmer the better for the reaction kinetics. Interesting idea though.
A lot of the focus in CO2 capture is on large point source collection ("smoke stacks") so there is some skepticism on this kind of atmospheric collection simply because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is exceedingly low. But I do see some value in approaches like this as part of a multi-pronged approach to problem solving. My thought would be these would perhaps be useful near busy freeways where the local CO2 concentration would be higher. More bang for the buck.
I have a bit of a background in CO2 capture, and am currently not working so I have some time on my hands. Anyone who has any questions, I'll see what I can do about scaring up some technical answers.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to InglewoodFan For This Useful Post:
I was up in the Yukon this summer, it is well above zero!
I was thinking, instead of needing the fans, why not build it in wind corridors and let nature move the air? Or does it need to move really fast?
Could work, my hunch is the contactor likes a constant air flow rate as it sets the pump flow rate to match.
Another idea I like for northern energy applications is small scale LNG. Ideally have and LNG plant up in NE BC where there is tons of gas and transport the liquified gas north on truck or rail to communities that are on diesel generators at present. Big improvement in efficiency and therefore reduction in CO2.
The Following User Says Thank You to InglewoodFan For This Useful Post:
SeeGeeWhy makes such solid contributions to this thread, and gives me hope for the future.
Thanks very much Trout!
Check out my friend Michael Shellenberger KICKING ASS in this Ted talk. Some great realities about where we are at with clean energy technologies in here.
Maybe I'm just a glass is half full type of guy but I see bountiful opportunity due to climate change (although it's sacrilege to dare suggest that there is anything but doom and gloom associated).
This graph is misleading as it is too short a time span. Climate has ALWAYS changed and always will. By the way, do you realize that the lower extinction level for ALL life on this planet is 150 ppm of CO2. For the last few hundred thousand years we have been perilously close to that level many times. And we want to DECREASE CO2 below 400 ppm? 450,000,000 years ago CO2 was at about 7,000 ppm and at that time the earth supported a VASTLY larger abundance of living things. The oceans did not boil away. I wish people would just think about this a bit. The planet is running out of CO2. When that happens, we all die.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Where's this post is terrible when you need him?
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
Must have missed the hover text of the graph: [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.
I'm gonna use that if I ever get charged with murder. You see your honour, I couldn't have done it, humans have died before.
Your second example is my go to response. Yes, climate changes all the time, but no denier has been able to give me evidence of a natural cause for the current warming trend. I would honestly love to hear one.
March … I Mean April … I Mean May … I Mean June … I Mean July... I Mean August 2016 Is the Sixth … I Mean Seventh … I Mean Eighth … I Mean Ninth … I Mean 10th … I Mean 11th Temperature Record-Breaking Month in a Row
March … I Mean April … I Mean May … I Mean June … I Mean July... I Mean August 2016 Is the Sixth … I Mean Seventh … I Mean Eighth … I Mean Ninth … I Mean 10th … I Mean 11th Temperature Record-Breaking Month in a Row
Your second example is my go to response. Yes, climate changes all the time, but no denier has been able to give me evidence of a natural cause for the current warming trend. I would honestly love to hear one.
I'm not a denier, but he has a fair point about the graph. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why look at only the temperature variation over the last 22,000 years?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I'm not a denier, but he has a fair point about the graph. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why look at only the temperature variation over the last 22,000 years?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
I'm not a denier, but he has a fair point about the graph. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why look at only the temperature variation over the last 22,000 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour
Yes, the earth has been warmer/hotter before and its only the recorded temperatures for the last 11 months that are breaking records.
The most important thing to consider is how long the naked ape has been on the planet and how the environment has been since we became the dominant life form on this rock. Since homo habilis gave way to homo erectus some million years ago, we've had a pretty consistent climate. Modern humans took over some 50,000 years ago when things were a lot cooler. The trends we are facing will put the average temperature at a level only seen once during our period of dominance. By the end of the century we face a temperature last reached 1-2 million years before our ancestors stood up for the first time. As a species, this is uncharted territory and was from a time when our very early ancestors were prey, not predators. That should be sobering to consider.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
I think the rate of change is more important than the absolute change. Kind of lost on a graph with millions of years, but quite apparent on the graph of the last couple hundred thousand.
And then we'll have the release of all that frozen methane in the Arctic at some point, and the rate should increase further still - that would be a process that would've taken millenia under normal conditions.
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7087239/earth_temperature_timeline.png)
