Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Iceland Review)   Icelandic carbon dioxide scrubbing system turns CO2 to stone, prompting Jeff Lynne to sue for copyright infringement   ( icelandreview.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, carbon dioxide, Climate, Oxygen, purified carbon dioxide, atmosphere, Global warming, Edda Sif Aradóttir, revolutionary new project  
•       •       •

4958 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Oct 2017 at 3:37 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-12 02:23:06 PM  
I don't science, but wouldn't it make more sense to take the exhaust from a power plant and run it through this thing rather than regular air? Does the concentration matter?
 
2017-10-12 02:44:18 PM  
I'm a little on the fence about carbon scrubbing technology. On one hand, it might be our only option to reduce the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but I'm worried that it's going to lead to 'Fark it, now we can dump as much CO2 as we want... the scrubbers will clean it all up anyway"
 
2017-10-12 02:48:51 PM  

Bowen: I don't science, but wouldn't it make more sense to take the exhaust from a power plant and run it through this thing rather than regular air? Does the concentration matter?


Maybe that's step 2?  But yes I agree.... I'm sure it has to do with the concentration or whatever.
 
2017-10-12 03:08:40 PM  
media.treehugger.comView Full Size


Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.
 
2017-10-12 03:09:22 PM  

markie_farkie: carbon scrubbers


CO2scrubbers.

FTFM...
 
2017-10-12 03:21:01 PM  

markie_farkie: Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.


You're right, but you are aware that Avocado farms are like, full of trees.
 
2017-10-12 03:34:35 PM  
I'm sure Jeff is okay with it. There will be more blue skys in our future.
 
2017-10-12 03:40:15 PM  
The should call the machine "The Medusa"
 
2017-10-12 03:41:54 PM  
Joe Walsh says hi:
Joe Walsh - Turn To Stone (1972).avi
Youtube UC9sRIsvjXI
 
2017-10-12 03:42:21 PM  

markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]

Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.


Not that I'm arguing with you, but I thought it was er, studied? proven? w/e that grass is better at exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen than trees.
 
2017-10-12 03:44:41 PM  

Bowen: I don't science, but wouldn't it make more sense to take the exhaust from a power plant and run it through this thing rather than regular air? Does the concentration matter?


If the process requires two other power plants to power the scrubbing process of the first one - you are just making things worse.

First, don't produce green house gasses.  However, if you to capture CO2, the best way is to pump it to a ocean/sea floor.  The pressure at those depths will keep it there like an underwater lake and it will never enter the atmosphere.
 
2017-10-12 03:45:18 PM  

Aidan: markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]

Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.

Not that I'm arguing with you, but I thought it was er, studied? proven? w/e that grass is better at exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen than trees.


Can't mow the lawn, dear.  This is the only planet we got.
 
2017-10-12 03:45:25 PM  
Silly Icelanders...CO2 doesn't follow troll rules.
 
2017-10-12 03:46:17 PM  
New cars for everybody!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-12 03:50:04 PM  

markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]

Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.


Actually, if we want to carbon scrub, clear cutting is the best option.  You need fast growing weed trees that can then be cooked down to charcoal and buried in old mine pits. Mature forests are actually pretty poor carbon sinks. Remember, the coal in the ground didn't come from trees, it came from swamp moss and muck.
 
2017-10-12 03:50:05 PM  
In 100 years from now, people will wonder why we made so much stone that it lifted Iceland 200 feet.
 
2017-10-12 03:50:13 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: markie_farkie: Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.

You're right, but you are aware that Avocado farms are like, full of trees.


Nonsense. Avocados are Martian fetuses.
 
2017-10-12 03:50:54 PM  

markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]

Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton

Aidan: markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]

Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.

Not that I'm arguing with you, but I thought it was er, studied? proven? w/e that grass is better at exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen than trees.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton
 
2017-10-12 03:52:15 PM  
Well, I sure made a hash out of that.  Apologies to Markie, I don't mean to sound snarky.
 
2017-10-12 03:52:23 PM  
The should call it "The Medusa" cause she turned things to stone. Some women have that power to this day, but it only turns parts of men to stone.
 
2017-10-12 03:54:01 PM  

markie_farkie: markie_farkie: carbon scrubbers

CO2scrubbers.

FTFM...


Why do you hate O2?
 
2017-10-12 03:55:47 PM  

Bowen: I don't science, but wouldn't it make more sense to take the exhaust from a power plant and run it through this thing rather than regular air? Does the concentration matter?


It's something that a lot of people are working on.  You can accomplish this with pretty much any basaltic rock. Depending on your location it may be easier to crush local basalt based country rock, pump it full of CO2 and heat it.

You can do it on a small scale in your front yard by buying basalt landscaping rock.  Over time it turns gray as it sucks in the CO2 and transforms.
 
2017-10-12 03:56:03 PM  
How much energy does the device consume per ton of sequestered CO2.  I'm betting more energy is used in the sequestration than originally produced by the burn.  How much heat does it produce?

If you burn fossil fuel - even if you use renewable energy to recapture all of of the greenhouse gas, your burn produced heat and the sequestration also produced heat.

Clearly, just use the renewable energy instead of burning the shiat to begin with.
 
2017-10-12 03:56:19 PM  

markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]
Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.
Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.


Carbon sequesterization is directly related to soil creation/deposition.  Does not apply to places like the Amazon.  I'd really like to know why dumping cornstalks down coal mines (yes, I know some means is needed to keep the carbon from decaying, possibly alcohol or possibly use an abandoned salt mine and flood the thing).

I'm not sure Iceland *has* a carbon emitting power plant.  They have a large geothermal plant, and the island isn't all that big.
 
2017-10-12 03:57:19 PM  
This isn't really "CO2 Scrubbing". That's the process where carbon dioxide is removed from a mixture and concentrated for use or disposal. This is a CO2 disposal process. They are injecting the gas underground.
A better explanation of the process can be found here.

Here is the big, big problem:
The carbon dioxide reacts with the groundwater and the minerals in the existing lava rock to form a carbonate rock like chalk or limestone. How long do they think they can inject carbon dioxide before all of the rock around their injection well gets plugged with all this limestone they are creating?This is a neat little technology demonstration but it doesn't seem to be a long-term solution.
 
2017-10-12 03:57:59 PM  
The advantage in Iceland is of course that the high energy cost of this technology is born by clean geothermal energy. The disadvantage is that ... then the lava came, hit the pocket of sequestered CO2, gasification occurs and a giant erruption of CO2 gas spews it all back into the atmosphere in a giant FU.
That and the required billion fold scale-up.
 
2017-10-12 03:58:58 PM  
Jeff got that one fashion look in the 70s and has never changed it.  Same hair, beard, glasses.
 
2017-10-12 04:00:05 PM  
Hmmmm, i just had a thought. Would it stay as stone indefinitely? Or maybe something would happen over 20 million years that would turn it into oil or some similar hydrocarbon source? Now i'm thinking some "intelligent" species in the past had exactly the samp problem as we're having right now and did exactly as they're doing in TFA, which created all the oilfields we're now pumping out.

In all seriousness, this sounds like a good idea.
 
2017-10-12 04:01:24 PM  

mrshowrules: How much energy does the device consume per ton of sequestered CO2.  I'm betting more energy is used in the sequestration than originally produced by the burn.  How much heat does it produce?

If you burn fossil fuel - even if you use renewable energy to recapture all of of the greenhouse gas, your burn produced heat and the sequestration also produced heat.

Clearly, just use the renewable energy instead of burning the shiat to begin with.


Well, it's on Iceland, and iirc they mostly use geothermal power generation there.
 
2017-10-12 04:05:53 PM  
Iceland just declared war on the Mole People!!!!

flanagansblog.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2017-10-12 04:07:43 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-12 04:08:45 PM  

mrshowrules: How much energy does the device consume per ton of sequestered CO2.  I'm betting more energy is used in the sequestration than originally produced by the burn.  How much heat does it produce?

If you burn fossil fuel - even if you use renewable energy to recapture all of of the greenhouse gas, your burn produced heat and the sequestration also produced heat.

Clearly, just use the renewable energy instead of burning the shiat to begin with.


How are you going to use wind or solar to power a jumbo jet? A cargo ship? There are applications where it's likely we'll be using fossil fuels or biodiesel for the foreseeable future so this kind of tech might be useful for a long, long time.
 
2017-10-12 04:10:45 PM  
"Then we take this purified carbon dioxide and pump it down into the ground and thus remove it permanently from the atmosphere."

Carbonated water pumped underground == Permanently?

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2017-10-12 04:12:59 PM  

robodog: How are you going to use wind or solar to power a jumbo jet? A cargo ship? There are applications where it's likely we'll be using fossil fuels or biodiesel for the foreseeable future so this kind of tech might be useful for a long, long time.


Did you just ask how you would power a ship with wind?
 
2017-10-12 04:16:05 PM  
If you leave it lying around long enough, concrete absorbs CO2 and turns back into stone.

It takes 50,000 years though, so it is useless in the fight against climate change. Also, useless as an explanation for how the Great Granaries of Egypt were built.

Although that has not stopped the loonies from claiming to have found straw in the stones used to build the Pyramids, thus "proving" that the Israelites built them under Ramses II. If they found straw in anything, it was probably concrete used to repair something near the Pyramids.

We know how the pyramids were built. Having their own tombs (and tomb paintings) was one of the perks of being Pharoah's favourite architects. They built the pyramids the same way that college professors and their students have been moving large blocks of stone ever since the 19th century. Rollers, massive manpower, water to lubricate the sand, ships to carry the stones from the quarries during the flood season, etc.

It was a government make-work project to keep the peasantry occupied during the off season. THEY KEPT RECORDS.
 
2017-10-12 04:16:54 PM  

mrshowrules: robodog: How are you going to use wind or solar to power a jumbo jet? A cargo ship? There are applications where it's likely we'll be using fossil fuels or biodiesel for the foreseeable future so this kind of tech might be useful for a long, long time.

Did you just ask how you would power a ship with wind?


Yes, a modern cargo ship is not a freaking schooner and I don't think people want to wait an extra 20 days for their shipment because there was slack wind.
 
2017-10-12 04:17:26 PM  
It would've been nice for the author to tell us exactly how this works.

Since old news is so exciting, here's an article from last year which describes the process:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-envir​onment-36494501
 
2017-10-12 04:18:52 PM  

wren337: "Then we take this purified carbon dioxide and pump it down into the ground and thus remove it permanently from the atmosphere."

Carbonated water pumped underground == Permanently?

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]


Or put carbonated water in glass or plastic bottles.
 
2017-10-12 04:18:58 PM  
Straw was also put into bricks. Any Israelites working in the building trade in Egypt were making bricks, not concrete. Bricks were probably used to build a lot of the lesser tombs around the pyramids, which were merely the showy centrepieces of vast complexes for the Pharoahs, their families, top bureaucrats, architects and so forth. The Pharoahs took everything with them when they went, including the old government.
 
2017-10-12 04:21:12 PM  

Smoking GNU: mrshowrules: How much energy does the device consume per ton of sequestered CO2.  I'm betting more energy is used in the sequestration than originally produced by the burn.  How much heat does it produce?

If you burn fossil fuel - even if you use renewable energy to recapture all of of the greenhouse gas, your burn produced heat and the sequestration also produced heat.

Clearly, just use the renewable energy instead of burning the shiat to begin with.

Well, it's on Iceland, and iirc they mostly use geothermal power generation there.


Let's say they use 2 units of geothermic energy to sequester the CO2 generated by burning to create 1 unit of energy?  Maybe it is 5 to 100 units of energy needed to sequester that.  We don't know. It is inefficient.  Better to use that geothermic energy to power wind turbine or solar panel factories for export.
 
2017-10-12 04:24:17 PM  

markie_farkie: [media.treehugger.com image 662x441]

Nature's best carbon scrubbers and carbon sinks.

Too bad we keep clear-cutting them globally to make more Costcos, Walmarts, Avocado farms, and shiat like that.


Bruce Cockburn - If A Tree Falls
Youtube ErS9HCh8GfE
 
2017-10-12 04:26:19 PM  

robodog: mrshowrules: robodog: How are you going to use wind or solar to power a jumbo jet? A cargo ship? There are applications where it's likely we'll be using fossil fuels or biodiesel for the foreseeable future so this kind of tech might be useful for a long, long time.

Did you just ask how you would power a ship with wind?

Yes, a modern cargo ship is not a freaking schooner and I don't think people want to wait an extra 20 days for their shipment because there was slack wind.


Nuclear powered ships are a possibility.  Biodiesel of course.  The US Navy is already investing heavily in biodiesel.  A cargo ship could have both biodiesel and wind assist.  Of course trans-oceanic transportation will probably be the last piece of the puzzle.  There is so much which could happen domestically before then.

It stands to reason that any process recapturing something already release will consume far too much energy to make sense.
 
2017-10-12 04:27:32 PM  
This sounds like every other carbon capture and sequestration system I've heard about.
 
2017-10-12 04:27:33 PM  

WelldeadLink: wren337: "Then we take this purified carbon dioxide and pump it down into the ground and thus remove it permanently from the atmosphere."

Carbonated water pumped underground == Permanently?

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]

Or put carbonated water in glass or plastic bottles.


You are a climate change denier so you must find this whole topic very silly.
 
2017-10-12 04:30:18 PM  
 
2017-10-12 04:31:20 PM  

flucto: New cars for everybody!

[img.fark.net image 694x371]


... With the new 'ATMOS' exhaust scrubber system!
 
2017-10-12 04:33:33 PM  

WelldeadLink: markie_farkie: markie_farkie: carbon scrubbers

CO2scrubbers.

FTFM...

Why do you hate O2?


CO2.  C O2 Run.  Run, O2, Run!
 
2017-10-12 04:40:09 PM  

mrshowrules: Smoking GNU: mrshowrules: How much energy does the device consume per ton of sequestered CO2.  I'm betting more energy is used in the sequestration than originally produced by the burn.  How much heat does it produce?

If you burn fossil fuel - even if you use renewable energy to recapture all of of the greenhouse gas, your burn produced heat and the sequestration also produced heat.

Clearly, just use the renewable energy instead of burning the shiat to begin with.

Well, it's on Iceland, and iirc they mostly use geothermal power generation there.

Let's say they use 2 units of geothermic energy to sequester the CO2 generated by burning to create 1 unit of energy?  Maybe it is 5 to 100 units of energy needed to sequester that.  We don't know. It is inefficient.  Better to use that geothermic energy to power wind turbine or solar panel factories for export.


But one has to hire more people, build things, and ship them. This technology lets them run some pumps, and sell their sequestration service around the world to people who want it sequestered.
 
2017-10-12 04:40:42 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I'm a little on the fence about carbon scrubbing technology. On one hand, it might be our only option to reduce the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but I'm worried that it's going to lead to 'Fark it, now we can dump as much CO2 as we want... the scrubbers will clean it all up anyway"


Why would you have a problem with that? What's your real issue? You won't be able to keep hating evil oil companies? You won't have to scare children into believing their world is about to end?

Religion! Climate alarmism is a religion
 
2017-10-12 04:41:46 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I'm a little on the fence about carbon scrubbing technology. On one hand, it might be our only option to reduce the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but I'm worried that it's going to lead to 'Fark it, now we can dump as much CO2 as we want... the scrubbers will clean it all up anyway"


I'm not on the fence on it at all.
I totally understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but the amount of carbon we're dumping into the atmosphere is a huge emergency that needs to be addressed and mitigated to whatever extent we are able immediately. Also, I think that cleaner technologies already have enough momentum that we don't have to worry about discarding them.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report