Would global warming believers oppose a CO2 scrubber?

Question

I heard that the average american produces 18 tons of CO2 per year... this scrubber is suppose to scrub 1 ton of CO2 per day!

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049983/posts

Answer 1

The apparent goal ISN'T to clean the planet, it's to require everyone to ride the bus.  Scrubbers won't help achieve this goal.

Answer 2

not only would they oppose c02 scrubbers, they in fact DO oppose the technology. they also oppose nuclear reactors for generating electricity, and other environmentally friendly technologies. the global warming crowd doesnt really care about the planet, they care about power and control. money is power, and political power is control.

Answer 3

Truth is that Co2 scrubbers have been in use in industry for over a hundred years. Why, because they are profitable to the companies that install them in their process. They sell the collected Co2 to air products companies that then sell it for use in other industrial and commercial products. Some common commercial uses you might encounter in your daily life are:

Carbonated soft drinks (the fizz and bubbles are Co2)

Dry ice that is used at parties and such to keep things cool longer than regular ice and leaves no water behind.

Fire extinguishers for use on electrical or gas fires.

As a refrigerant in small portable refrigerator and air conditioning systems as a greener substitute for dangerous Freon.

Co2 is a needed but rare part of the planets atmosphere that is needed for all green plants to live and grow as one of the plants major foods. The plants eat the carbon atom and release the two oxygen atoms for us and other animals that use it to live on.

One of the dumbest things the AGW promoters have suggested is the idea of collecting and sequestering Co2 in underground reservoirs. One clear piece of knowing real science instead of voodoo science the AGW promoters use is this. Each Co2 molecule contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The plants use it for food and we humans and our animal companions need that oxygen to breathe. If we sequester that Co2 under ground we remove oxygen from the air we breath which means we will eventually run out of it as the idiotic AGW promoters wish and then they will bring the sequestered material back up and sell us the oxygen atoms to keep us alive.

So the scam is looking generations ahead in ways to profit now and profit more in the far future from those who follow media hype and do not look for truth and facts. As one great man once said, there is a new sucker born every minute so I will never starve.

Answer 4

Nope.

The excesses of Greenpeace are not the mainstream of the environmental movement.

Answer 5

So does a few pine trees or a corn field.  A man made scrubber would probably use fossil fuels somewhere along the line and produce CO2 so it would be less desirable than natural vegetation.

If you divide the total atmosphere up among all humans we have approximately one million tons each.  so 18/1,000,000 is but .0018%.  And also the CO2 we put in the atmosphere does not all stay there, some is washed out in the form of carbolic acid when it rains and much is removed by plant life.

Nuclear power should be used more because it is the cleanest energy we have right now that can really produce.  Wind turbines will take off also as they can produce a very profitable business plan if done right.

I am in favor of cutting down on fossil fuel, not because of the CO2 issue but because of pollution.  Also it is getting boring having the fossil fuel guys dictate everything.  I mean we have been on the gas powered IC engine for a hundred years and feel there must be more refreshing ways to look at personal transportation and home heating.

Answer 6

All plants on the planet are natural CO2  scrubbers .

Answer 7

Aside from the fact that it'll probably use more energy to scrub the CO2 then you generated by burning whatever released it (at least if it is being used to allow for the continued use of fossil fuels) the technology should be developed as a solution to the already existing excess CO2.

What we need to do is switch to nuclear power and then we'll have whatever clean energy we need for such things.

Answer 8

Yes some of them would, but most would say let's give it a try. Whether global warming is something to be worried about or not, believers and non-believers both like clean air to breath and clean water to drink.

Answer 9

Well, there's not any technical information in the article, so i'll have to guess.

This CO2 absorption column most likely uses an aqueous solution of ethanolamine, which increases the solubility of CO2 in the solution. The gas is passed into the bottom of the column, and the liquid feed into the top. On they way down, CO2 is dissolved into the solution. The top effluent (air with less CO2) is expelled, and the bottom effluent (water, ethanolamine, and dissolved CO2) goes through some kind of mechanical separation (perhaps heating or cooling or compression) to release the CO2 gas from the liquid. The gas released will be mostly CO2 (for vapor-pressure equilibrium separation roughly .0005%wt to .001%wt ethanolamine based on my quick calculations). But there will also have to be a purge stream, which I cannot estimate here, and will probably release a lot more MEA into the environment (unless the scrubber is about the size of a city block).

MEA is extremely toxic and bad for the environment.

For small-scale and industrial applications, it's OK, but I would not recommend its extremely large scale use to scrub CO2 from the entire atmosphere.

Answer 10

The best 'scubbers' on the planet are the TREES!

Answer 11

Algae farms are excellent scrubbers because they also produce biodiesel or jet fuel. This is NOT science fiction. There is a power plant operating in Arizona that sends the CO2 exhaust and waste water into transparent tubes filled with green algae. The algae grows VERY fast in this environment. Algae are 50% oil - far more fuel laden than corn or other food sources. Green algae farms like this  have the potential to produce hundreds of billions of gallons of fuel at very low costs.

For more information see www.CitizensEnergyForum.com and google "algae biofuels"

Answer 12

The environmentalist Will oppose anything that allows our country to continue to be the super power it currently is.. They are left over communist form the cold war era and are using the emotional stigma of the environment to Levy their cause for communism.

Answer 13

A co2 scrubber would be an excellent idea, unfortunately that is all this is an idea, it has been floating around since 2006 this version (your link) seems to have the heartland institute stamp all over it and the quote from an NCPA is laughable as the NCPA is part of the Heartland institute.

I don't know were you got the 1 ton per day number as it's not in the link or the further link to the heartland site.

This idea has been around for a while and has gone nowhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

The reason heartland push it is pretty obvious it fills one of their aims to spread dis-information on GW they also push the other two theories

1) it not happening

2) it's happening but we didn't do it.

and now this co2 scrubber which would be

3) It is us after all, but we can fix it with this machine.

3) Is a possible idea as long as you don't ask a couple of questions, how much power is required and how much sodium hydroxide (aka lye) is needed, based on what the system would have to do you would be talking at least 100's of millions of ton's to make a dent in human produced co2.

They casually say the byproduct could be pumped down oil wells but this would be a quantity of toxic material that would require a fleet of vehicles and ships larger than those that deliver oil to the market and if even a small amount of this material got into the ocean it would make any chemical spill in history seem tiny.

I think I see why environmentalists might have a problem with this idea if used on a scale that could help with co2.

Deniers like to say there is a conspiracy going on, yet fail to notice that the main idea behind all of the heartland's theories is "we can keep using oil/coal" were does their funding comes from?

Deniers recently have also stated that Al Gore is paying people and greens are using their large finances? to fund the AGW myth, heres a thought oil/coal industries would consider the "wealth" of al & the greens petty cash?