Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Create Renewable Carbon Dioxide Sponge

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the soak-it-up dept.

Science 206

First time accepted submitter Babu V Bassa writes "Concerned about adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Consider a roof top coating on your car with this new material. A multinational team of researchers have developed a renewable sponge like material to capture and store gaseous carbon dioxide. The organic material is made up of gamma-cyclodextrin. Conventional metal-organic frameworks, which also are effective at adsorbing carbon dioxide, are usually prepared from materials derived from crude oil and often incorporate toxic heavy metals and are also non-renewable. The research paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society claims that its synthesis is essentially carbon-neutral and have the demonstrated ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere makes them promising materials for carbon fixation."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Makes it easy for aircraft to spot you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509128)

As seen in the video. [youtube.com]

Re:Makes it easy for aircraft to spot you (-1, Offtopic)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509152)

Please get a new meme...

You clicked it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509216)

Ha ha ha! Neiner neiner neiner.

Re:Makes it easy for aircraft to spot you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509430)

Am I the only one in the world that actually likes that song?

Re:Makes it easy for aircraft to spot you (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509530)

Nope. My dad had some problem with the speakers on his computer, when I got it fixed the first thing he did was rickroll himself. i lol'd so hard, he didn't get it.

Redundent.. (2, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509134)

Wood already works for "carbon fixation" and you can make things with it that people will actually keep. My mother has some "fixated carbon" in the living room over 100 years old. Just grow a tree and make a desk.

Re:Redundent.. (2)

AzariahK (1990690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509188)

Wood already works for "carbon fixation" and you can make things with it that people will actually keep. My mother has some "fixated carbon" in the living room over 100 years old. Just grow a tree and make a desk.

Why use a simple, cheap solution when you can pay so much more for a complicated and less-effective one? The eco-industrial complex can't charge you as much for just growing a tree.

Re:Redundent.. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509248)

You're not imaginative enough then. Here's how you market it: This tree was organically grown in Japanese organic soil and hand watered with Swiss Alp Glacier Water. The wood was hand cut by a single family who eat only organic foods and have been trained for generations in the art of woodworking and yoga.

Re:Redundent.. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510572)

The wood was hand cut by a single family

Do they belong to a discriminated minority?

Re:Redundent.. (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509556)

Great, the "eco-industrial complex" and "Big Green."

We thought the AGW Denialism Batshit Generator Engine was running at max power, but it was just warming up...

Re:Redundent.. (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509598)

Yeah, it's not so much "big green" as it is, GE, which owns NBC Universal, you know....

Re:Redundent.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509714)

Great, the "eco-industrial complex" and "Big Green."

We thought the AGW Denialism Batshit Generator Engine was running at max power, but it was just warming up...

Yeah, like they invented this whole ad campaign which featured blowing up children in a classroom while their peers scream in terror [youtube.com] . Oh wait, that was all us AGW realists. But we know we're morally superior because we bought carbon offsets [carbonfund.org] , amiright? That's absolutely doing something, not just a scam that's a rewrite of the old Catholic practice of purchasing indulgences. Because AGW is definitely not a religion [gaiatheory.org] , and we're entirely justified in using the term AGW "deniers" to liken them to holocaust deniers, because we know they're all racists anyway. [sciencedirect.com]

Re:Redundent.. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509844)

You took down those strawmen like an anime action hero!

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509746)

Maybe you haven't heard of Solyndra?

Re:Redundent.. (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509828)

I have, but I've got no clue what your point is. Explain?

Re:Redundent.. (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510708)

Sure, read the post I replied to -- "eco-industrial complex"

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510056)

Sorry, I don't get it. Are you implying that asshole business people who rip off the US government mean AGW is a myth? I am lost within your twisty maze of, er, logic.

Re:Redundent.. (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510176)

Did you just say SoyLendra Green?

You're right, that really would fix the carbon problem, the only way that's actually better than just waiting a bit for hydrocarbons and coal to be too expensive to use for fuel (I'm guessing that will be in the next decade, maybe two). But even without hydrocarbon fuels and CO_2, the earth is 7 billion humans and growing strong, growing at a rate that makes some hypothetical melting of icecaps and rising of oceans cosmically irrelevant.

Soylendra Green -- or a really perfect global plague that kills (say) four out of five people currently alive -- might preserve good old Mom Earth long enough to let us achieve a Type I civilization, but otherwise carbon offsets are, as they say, pissing into a force four gale.

rgb

Re:Redundent.. (2)

thePuck77 (1311533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510114)

While I am a supporter of eco-preservation and green tech, I have to agree that there is an entire industry sector out there who is eager as hell to turn saving the ecosystem into a goose laying golden eggs. While I know, of course, that planting trees, while technically a solution, isn't really a solution because people aren't going to give up urban environments any time soon (which is exactly where we need the most carbon fixing), the point is valid...there started being an eco-industrial complex the moment people with money started being willing to spend it on the issue.

There is also an edu-industrial complex who wants to own learning, an entertainment-industrial complex that already owns entertainment, etc, etc.

It's not just weapons dealers, bankers, the MPAA/RIAA, and Microsoft that want to own a sector of the economy. The minute it stopped just being fringe hippies that gave a shit about the environment, slime-buckets came oozing out of MBA programs all over the country to exploit it.

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510330)

Wait, now I'm confused. Is big business bad for the environment or not? I didn't see anything in the GP that attacked AGW.

Re:Redundant.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510700)

We thought the AGW Batshit Generator Engine was running at max power, but it was just warming up...

There, fixed it for you.

This whole AGW thing is turning into an Ideology, a kind of "Climate Communism", where every weather event "too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry" and every hurricane and tornado is due to AGW, due to "poisonous CO2", "polluting our atmosphere".

Any naysayers, or people who aren't convinced by the models are shrilly denounced as "deniers!!", equating them to Nazis , and in some cases threatening them with jail.

I don't actually care if temperature rises 2C or sea levels rise 2 inches. Extra CO2 will be a boon for plant life, just as it has been in the past, back in the carboniferous when the coal deposits were laid down. Humans will adapt.

Exponential growth and over-population is a much bigger threat than CO2

Re:Redundent.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509192)

Yeah but this is a new method right? Like your new method of spelling redundant?

Re:Redundent.. (1)

planimal (2454610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509204)

this. i'm also very curious to see how an increase in CO2 levels is going to effect plant populations and growth.

Re:Redundent.. (3, Informative)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509270)

I recall seeing a documentary that included a study of this. IIRC, there was a measurable increase in plant production, but not an increase in nutrients. So, it's not going to help (and may instead degrade) the quality of your vegetables, although perhaps trees/bamboo used for construction material will improve (but maybe other qualitative aspects would be reduced, such as strength of the material). However, I think the increased level of CO2 required to measure this was beyond anything we're likely to see...but it was a long time ago, so I don't remember the details or who did the study.

Re:Redundent.. (-1, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509336)

What? Degrade the quality of your vegetables? Are you fucking stupid or something?

Re:Redundent.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509398)

Absorption-limited nutrient supply from the soil / more vegetable mass produced = less nutrients per pound. Do you have to be so rude?

MOD AC PARENT UP (1)

anwaya (574190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509806)

The GP was both unnecessarily rude and wrong, and the parent addressed both issues nicely.

Re:Redundent.. (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509400)

Actually, his point is fairly sound if you assume the primary growth constraint on plants is the availability of CO2 (although the composition of most fertilizers proves it isn't.)

The assumption is that, when more carbon dioxide is readily available, plants will grow more. However, since the availability of other nutrients (especially exotic minerals and ions) isn't increasing, there will be less of these nutrients to spread amongst the increased number of plants. Hence, vegetables and other crops that are less able to pass on these nutrients to the people eating them.

Of course, this is all irrelevant, because plants have a huge excess of CO2 in the present atmosphere and are generally prevented from growing due to the lack of free nitrogen and phosphorus. Incidentally, I believe more than a few people have suggested (and perhaps even implemented) dumping fertilizer into the oceans to make the resultant algal blooms suck up more CO2. This is a double-edged sword, in that the blooms block out sunlight for plants growing on the ocean floor, but also eventually die off and provide a substantial food boon to the animals near the surface.

Re:Redundent.. (2)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509762)

Worse than blocking out sunlight is the fact that blooms lead to less oxygen as phytoplankton dies and is decomposed by bacteria, removing oxygen from the water column. There are a lot of anoxic coastal waters specifically because we've been dumping too much nitrogen into the ocean, we definitely don't need any more.

Re:Redundent.. (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509452)

I described results from someone else's study...and yes, I added a bit of my own speculation/interpretation.

Can you elaborate on what your disagreement is, rather than just firing off profanity and insults?

Re:Redundent.. (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509794)

Seems unlikely. This seems to be another spittle-and-rage-filled /. thread.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509842)

The Germans studied it recently. The required increase was within the speculated increases of the CO2. I saw it from the DW document.

Re:Redundent.. (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509206)

It is pretty hard to patten an oak or maple tree. The few examples of GMO trees don't count either as they are mainly fruit trees. Why isn't someone working on developing trees that suck up twice the C02 as regular trees?

Re:Redundent.. (3, Informative)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509218)

To be fair, though, unless stored properly in a dry environment, wood will decay and release the carbon. If you want to store it forever, you need to bake it down into charcoal. Then you can bury it in the ground. Where it can later be dug up to fuel a power plant.

In any event, I don't know who is supporting research for this retarded carbon dioxide sponge, but it needs to stop. There are so many more important things that could be done with that time and money. Feeding the poor, curing diseases, providing me with high end hookers and a pile of coke the size of Rhode Island. You get the idea.

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509488)

There are reasons why we do research on CO2 scrubbing besides 'green' initiatives. How do you maintain proper gas mixtures on a submarine, a spacecraft, or the re-breather on scuba gear? You scrub out the CO2 and add in additional oxygen. Carbon sequestering for the sake of sequestering is a silly concept, but don't just write off any research into a field.

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509692)

If you want to store it forever, you need to bake it down into charcoal. Then you can bury it in the ground. Where it can later be dug up to fuel a power plant.

Howzabout we just use vapor deposition to grow diamonds. Then you can bury them in the ground and later De Beers can dig them up and sell them.

Re:Redundent.. (3, Interesting)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510350)

What you want to do to sequester CO2 is to make Terra Perta [wikipedia.org] by using the wood as a carbon source for low temperature pyrolysis called Biochar [motherearthnews.com] .

Re:Redundent.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510454)

To be fair, though, unless stored properly in a dry environment, wood will decay and release the carbon.

Which means nothing compared to the material from TFA.

If you want to store it forever, you need to bake it down into charcoal. Then you can bury it in the ground. Where it can later be dug up to fuel a power plant.

Better use it as Terra Preta [wikipedia.org] to grow plants on. Trees for example.

Re:Redundent.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509228)

But wood takes forever to grow

Also, the "sponge" in question doesn't even fix the carbon... if I understand correctly, the sponge starts releasing stored CO2 as soon as the sponge is placed in an area of lower concentration. So it's at best a step in the right direction but more work is needed.

Re:Redundent.. (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509256)

Growing trees to carbon-fixated fruition takes patience! Who has that? You? What, are you a ritalin-and-prozac junkie or something?

Carbon Fixation (5, Insightful)

Hanzie (16075) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509258)

A way to fix carbon permanently is to bury it underground in a specially capped storage facility. Just so long as it doesn't decay, and just acts like a rock under the dirt, we're doing good.

I call the above 'burying paper in a landfill'. Al Gore has an old newspaper he keeps on his desk that was perfectly preserved in a landfill.

So we take trees, that suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, turn them into paper to sell and finance the operation. Collect the paper and "carbon sequester" it underground in a capped storage facility (landfill). We're saving the planet!

Given the above, the worst thing you can do is recycle paper.
The more recycled, the less new produced.
The less new paper produced, the fewer Douglas Fir trees planted in the managed forests.
The fewer new trees planted, the less CO2 pulled from the atmosphere.

Someone with more environmental awareness please show me where the logic is flawed. I'm unable to find it, and I've looked.

Re:Carbon Fixation (-1, Troll)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509352)

Al Gore has an old newspaper he keeps on his desk that was perfectly preserved in a landfill.

This doesn't surprise me. Most of what crosses Al Gore's desk is garbage.

Re:Carbon Fixation (-1, Troll)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509516)

Al Gore has an old newspaper he keeps on his desk that was perfectly preserved in a landfill.

This doesn't surprise me. Most of what crosses Al Gore's desk is garbage.

Not in comparison to what comes out his mouth...

Reallly (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510244)

I wasn't aware of any dementia that turned him into a teabagging denier.

Re:Carbon Fixation (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509360)

Ooh better yet, require companies to keep huge amounts of paper records indefinitely! Then you don't even have to pay for the landfill! I smell a revamp to the tax code coming!

Re:Carbon Fixation (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509524)

Ooh better yet, require companies to keep huge amounts of paper records indefinitely! Then you don't even have to pay for the landfill! I smell a revamp to the tax code coming!

OK. This actually explains a lot... Or at least it makes more sense than most government initiatives.

Re:Carbon Fixation (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509610)

Stop recycling paper. I love suggesting it because people snap to the judgement that not recycling MUST be a bad thing. To be fair, I'm not positive not recycling would be a net carbon sequestration scheme, but it's certainly possible.

In the first world forestry companies usually plant MORE trees than they harvest, so at least 100% of the harvested trees get replaced. The paper products are basically sheets of sequestered carbon. Bury them deep enough and they'll stay that way, until they get turned into coal.

Re:Carbon Fixation (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510034)

"Bury them deep enough and they'll stay that way, until they get turned into coal."

Then we can burn it as fuel!!!

Re:Carbon Fixation (3, Insightful)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509386)

The energy needed to make paper from trees are larger then the energy needed by reusing old paper so that process will create alot more CO2.

The owner of the land will plant new trees independently if paper are recycled or not. There are other uses of trees then for paper and the need for paper is increasing in this computerised world since many 'cant read' from the screen and insist of printing it into paper.

Re:Carbon Fixation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509458)

False. The paper industry is one of the most environmentally friendly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liquor

Re:Carbon Fixation (3, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509636)

Nobody reuses paper. They recycle it. And that's a whole other ballgame. Wikipedia says recycling paper actually uses MORE fossil fuels than producing new pulp because new pulp mills get energy mostly from burning wood scraps while recycling plants usually use electricity, which tends to be produced from fossil fuels, particularly in the urban areas where you want your recycling plant.

No, if you don't use paper less trees get planted. Paper is a major consumer of forestry products and most of it in the first world comes from managed forests - they're harvested then replanted, just like farms. If they're not harvested, they don't get replanted.

Re:Carbon Fixation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509730)

The largest use of paper, by far, is toilet paper. Go ahead, I dare you to "sequester it".

Carbon sequestration is stupid in idea in the first place. First, dig up the gases/liquids/solids, burn them, then plant trees to capture the stuff so we can bury it... Genius! (sarcasm)

Wouldn't it be a better idea not to dig up carbon fuels in the first place?? Yes, it means more renewables AND nuclear.

Paper is a major consumer of forestry products and most of it in the first world comes from managed forests - they're harvested then replanted, just like farms.

Those are not forests. Those are trees. Forest is balanced ecosystem. Farms are not balanced ecosystems.

Whoever said you can't see the forest for the trees, was more right than most people realize. Bogs, marshes, decay in forests, fire, and everything else that lives there is much much more than just trees. It's like comparing "the burbs" with a city like New York or Paris or Moscow.

Re:Carbon Fixation (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509780)

Nobody? Not ever, not one single sheet? Not like how I use almost all the paper that comes to my house for notes, or the kids to draw, etc, on *before* recycling it or using in the compost heap?

OK, clearly I must be imagining using my paper 2 or 3 times typically. And printing almost nothing out of my own.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Carbon Fixation (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510120)

Little pedantic hey?

Okay, the MAJORITY of paper reuse/recycling is recycling. Happy?

Re:Carbon Fixation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510738)

That's negated by me throwing out unused, white paper if it's in the middle of a print job that my printer fucked up, and I couldn't be bothered sorting out the blank pages to re-use them.

Re:Carbon Fixation (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509752)

Simple. It costs more energy to recycle paper than it does to grow new trees for the use in wood and paper products. To recycle you need to, bleach, skim, decontaminate, treat, mash, mix, repulp, then make new. Plus using waste paper as mulching and mixed with other biomaterials works wonders. I mean those of us who live in the north have been doing this for nearly a 100 years, more so when there isn't any damn topsoil.

Re:Carbon Fixation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510526)

Simple. It costs more energy to recycle paper than it does to grow new trees for the use in wood and paper products. To recycle you need to, bleach, skim, decontaminate, treat, mash, mix, repulp, then make new. Plus using waste paper as mulching and mixed with other biomaterials works wonders. I mean those of us who live in the north have been doing this for nearly a 100 years, more so when there isn't any damn topsoil.

Do you work as a lobbyist for the pulp wood industry by chance?

Re:Carbon Fixation (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510024)

Just the same BS as "permanent" storage of nuclear waste - only difference that CO2 sequestered storage does not radiate.

Who the hell knows who will be the surprised recipient of all that crap in 10k years?

Re:Carbon Fixation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510228)

The stored nuclear waste radiates a few centimetres in the rock; it can't go very far, unlike the stored CO2 until it has - after several thousand years - calcified.

Do the math... (2)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509262)

Sounds good to me. All we have to do is get everyone on the planet to plant several tons of trees every year (30 billion tons CO2 emissions per year / 7 billion people). Should be easy!

Re:Do the math... (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509362)

It is easy.

You just stay home, and the trees will take care of planting themselves.

Print this out and tape it to your wall. It will sequester the carbon, and remind you that earth will take care of itself.

Re:Do the math... (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510438)

Yes, eventually the trees will sequester the carbon, but they cannot sequester it fast enough to prevent the concentration of carbon dioxide form rising steeply due to humans burning fossil fuels. That's why the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen steadily [wikipedia.org] since the industrial revolution. Again, check your math. Yes, it's harder than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA! I can't hear you!"

Re:Redundent.. (3, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509310)

Wood already works for "carbon fixation" and you can make things with it that people will actually keep. My mother has some "fixated carbon" in the living room over 100 years old. Just grow a tree and make a desk.

Apparently the IPCC agrees with you, even. However, relying on wood as a sole means of carbon sequestration requires [wikipedia.org] planting far more trees than we can reasonably dedicate land to.

Planting trees to counteract CO2 emissions is cheap and effective, but it's not enough. We already know how to do it, so you're probably not going to see any news about new advances in tree-planting technology on Slashdot.

Re:Redundent.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509378)

My mother is some "fixated carbon" in the living room over 100 years old.

There, fixed that for you :p

Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509148)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Prior art (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509194)

You know what else absorbs carbon dioxide? Trees.

noko (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509230)

I have a few in my home and some on my yard.

They are called plants.

They even support somewhat extensive carbon storage upgrades.

And believe it or not, this actually grows in trees!

Re:noko (0)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509334)

I love the way you get a -1 for stating the fucking obvious.

Re:noko (2)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509518)

Sometimes, people need to get banged in the head with the obvious.

Re:noko (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509542)

And I got a +3 Insightful for it... Go figure.

What? A rooftop coating? I don't get it. (1)

prz (648630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509276)

It says "Consider a roof top coating on your car with this new material." I don't see why anyone would want that. The coating would saturate with CO2, then it would absorb no more. And it would remain on your car for years, uselessly full. How is this useful? Alternatively, what if it absorbed the carbon, then released it later, so as to be reusable? Why would that be any use as a rooftop coating? The release of the carbon would go back into the atmosphere. The whole idea of a rooftop coating for your car is pointless. Surely the scientists who developed it would not say that. Is this from a marketing person?

Re:What? A rooftop coating? I don't get it. (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509390)

Better to make the car (or large portions of it) from wood.

Morgan has been using wood frames forever.
http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/carpages/44/44.html [morgan-motor.co.uk]

Re:What? A rooftop coating? I don't get it. (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509588)

Except wood is one of the last materials you'd want to use in a car (well, in many things, but especially a car). It's heavy, weak, and highly susceptible to environmental degradation.

Eh? (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509300)

Concerned about adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?

No.

China + India + Coal (1, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509372)

Meanwhile the Chinese are building new coal plants, driving more automobiles and generally becoming a western style consumer culture. Any action which might be undertaken by individuals, like this carbon capture sun roof, is meaningless by way of comparison; it's spit in the ocean. I am now more convinced than ever that the target audiences of these products are wealthy European and American liberals who wish to absolve themselves of "green guilt" associated with their high carbon affluent lifestyles through purchases of what amounts to indulgences. I have no problem with this. Let everyone spend their own money as they choose. However, I do have a problem with these same liberals attempt to use the power of the state to force their bullshit green attitudes on the rest of us. The Chinese, Indians and everyone else laughs at how stupid these green Americans are while building more coal plants and driving around in dirty two-stroke diesels. Face it, environmental quality is a luxury good and its becoming a luxury that even wealthier Americans can no longer afford.

Re:China + India + Coal (5, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509608)

The Chinese are building more nuclear plants these days and electric scooters are very popular there. I wouldn't be surprised to see them become more environmentally friendly than the US in the next 15-30 years.

Re:China + India + Coal (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509644)

However, I do have a problem with these same liberals attempt to use the power of the state to force their bullshit green attitudes on the rest of us.

And I have a problem with fundamentalists and the far right attempting to use the power of the state to force their bullshit anti-science and war mongering agendas on the rest of us. I don't want Creationism anti-science taught in schools that are funded by my taxes. I don't want my taxes used to kill people, in far away places and here. (Honestly, I'd think that if the fundies were to answer the question that's hanging on the walls of most of their churches, i.e. WWJD?, we wouldn't be trying so hard to kill anyone. But hey, you know, that whole common sense thing is vastly over-rated.)

Yeah, mod me down. See if I care. Haters gonna hate.

Re:China + India + Coal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509830)

I am now more convinced than ever that the target audiences of these products are wealthy European and American liberals who wish to absolve themselves of "green guilt" associated with their high carbon affluent lifestyles through purchases of what amounts to indulgences. I have no problem with this.

You are, of course, correct. Check out this service,

http://www.justenergy.com/green-energy.html [justenergy.com]

People opt to "offset" their natural gas usage via these services. But I guess we do lots of things to make ourselves "feed good". Just look at all the deniers proclaiming AGW is "fake" despite scientific consensus to the contrary. I can only explain this by their inability to deal with reality that their activities are detrimental to future of their kids and grandkids. They deny reality so they can "feel good" about themselves. Similarly to people that drive a Hummer then "offset" their CO2 emissions.

Face it, environmental quality is a luxury good and its becoming a luxury that even wealthier Americans can no longer afford.

That part is bullshit. We choose to shit in our environment for sake of profit. In some city in Asia (Bombay or Calcutta or something like that), air pollution is the greatest threat to police officers directing traffic and to population overall. What is their primary concern? Economy and money. Too bad that the shit you dump ends up the shit you eat, drink and breathe. Cancer rates are skyrocketing and over half can already be linked to environmental pollution. What is the cost of that??

Environmental quality is a COMMON RESOURCE and hence it suffers from tragedy of the commons.

Re:China + India + Coal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509834)

Because others are doing the wrong thing, I won't do the right thing! Not only should we be using the "power of the state" to clean up our act, but globally, we need to put pressure on the emerging economies (BRIC nations, especially) to do the same.

Climate change is going to be a bastard for all of us. It's time for everyone to get on board the "bullshit green attitudes" bandwagon. This isn't a problem markets can solve (how can you internalize the cost of climate change??), so we solve it through coordinated group effort, or, as you put it, the "power of the state."

Then again, I'd wager you don't buy that whole "theory" anthropogenic climate change. (Because you're a climate scientist, too.)

Re:China + India + Coal (5, Insightful)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510078)

America - Why be green? The Chinese will still destroy the environment.
China - Why be green? The Americans will still destroy the environment.

Implications for space (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509376)

Does this have any sort of implications for our current/future space efforts? I guess there might also be some implications for submarines? though I assume most submarines would just surface and pop their top. Then again maybe it would matter for stealth subs or perhaps extreme depth missions? I can't for the life of me find any point for using this in atmospheric conditions, I mean we have trees and plenty of other stuff dealing with carbon dioxide and such.

Re:Implications for space (1)

thePuck77 (1311533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510256)

And if those were enough, then we wouldn't be talking about this. They aren't. Once upon a time, trees and plants did the job fine. Then we both cut them down and built factories everywhere that pump CO2 out, including little ones with wheels on them, so now we need a new solution.

Researchers Create Renewable Carbon Dioxide Sponge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509428)

Is it called "tree"?

good start. what about methane? (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509434)

its 20 times worse than c02in regards to global warming.

Re:good start. what about methane? (5, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509506)

its 20 times worse than c02in regards to global warming.

But there's more than 200x as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is methane.

Re:good start. what about methane? (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509564)

its 20 times worse than c02in regards to global warming.

But there's more than 200x as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is methane.

Unless I have eggs for breakfast...

What's the fixation with Carbon Dioxide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509444)

Can someone please explain why everyone and their dog are all so fixated with carbon dioxide when methane is an order of magnitude worse as a greenhouse gas?

Re:What's the fixation with Carbon Dioxide? (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509498)

There's a lot more of it?

Re:What's the fixation with Carbon Dioxide? (1)

esten (1024885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509592)

everyone and their dog are all so fixated with carbon dioxide

Oh the pun in killing me!

Re:What's the fixation with Carbon Dioxide? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509612)

Come on now... I am an American and can only concentrate on one evil at a time.

Co2 sticks around, methane doesn't (5, Informative)

clonan (64380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509716)

Because methane is a pretty reactive molecule. So it reacts spontaneously. In the atmosphere Methane has a half life of about 8 years.

We don't worry much about methane for the same reason we don't worry about H2O. Water vapor causes roughly 60% of all greenhouse effects yet since a water molecule on is in the atmosphere for about 9 days there is not much to worry about.

Co2 has a half life of centuries. So while boiling water on the stove stays in the atmosphere for a few days and cow farts stay in the air for a decade, CO2 stays up there for centuries.

This can have some use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509450)

...but NOT in the way people are talking about

Like, if the cyclodextrin is selective enough, you can use it as a mean of obtaining pure CO2 without having to use the old industrial acid+carbonate reaction. At least, this would make less CO2 be thrown in the atmosphere, what would EASE, but not conclude the greenhouse thing.

The best way is still not throwing up the CO2 in the atmosphere in industrial scale at all.

Re:This can have some use... (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37510466)

I'd be very surprised if most commercial sources of CO2 didn't come from Natural gas combustion rather than acid+carbonate reaction.

underwear (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509552)

Make underwear out of these and it will be much more effective.

Carbon Neutral* excluding waste streams (3, Interesting)

esten (1024885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509580)

I always love how processes that claim to be carbon neutral exclude the largest sources of waste such as reagents and solvents used in processing which are in excess to 1000x the product achieved.

And yes while some of these can be recovered somewhat on an industrial scale their recovery is highly energy intensive process.

Re:Carbon Neutral* excluding waste streams (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37509678)

Well we have to do something. I mean, we could all just sit down and die, then the point would be moot, because the planet will almost certainly fix itself long before the sun dies.

Re:Carbon Neutral* excluding waste streams (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509786)

Do you have citations for any of the cases that you allude to?

Rgds

Damon

standard sequestration (0)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37509810)

I sequester up to 50 litres of carbon in my gas tank, until it's all gone, then I pay a lot of money to sequester some more.

All the gasoline I've thus sequestered septuagenarified in the paint (now in the process of peeling off). Speechless.

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with sky
carbon

beside the organic
chicken.

eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37510252)

when will you lemming/sheeple stop chanting global warming...

the sun is warming up and you fools can't do shit about it...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?