<x-charset ISO-8859-1>http://www.solaraccess.com/news/story?storyid=6001
I was intruiged by it. The point to me wasn't the spin that the inventors were putting on it. That is par for the course. Many inventors (not all, but many) fall prey to stupid worthless thinking that their achievement is the be-all end-all. I basically dismissed that nonsense before I set eyes on the article. A society needs many inventions and devices and technologies to function, (and some human behaviour achievements and ideas on top of that) and there is no such thing as a be-all end-all device, even if some are more wonderful than others. But what was important to me was to develop a sense of where we stand as far as the concept of artifially dealing with some of the CO2 surplus problem. Don't get me wrong..... I don't think I presently advocate anything other than stopping the production of surplus and letting the earth eco-system's natural inbuilt self-protective processes take some action. But still, I want to be aware of what the artificial advocates are thinking. We have gone from the Conservatives coming into power in 2000 actually daring to be serious about the probably-unbelievably-destructive idea of storing CO2 at the bottom of Oceans in liquid form. While we seem to have abated their enthusiasm for that primitive (and in my view, somewhat revealingly assinine) notion, we do need to be aware of it when they come up with something else. To my eye, the immediate challenges to this artificial notion are: 1. How much energy would it take to separate Carbon from Oxygen? 2. What would be done with the Carbon? I don't think there's enough of a market for the few products mention for Carbon Black to warrant being so cavalier about the matter. If you're talking about separating enough Carbon from Oxygen to make a difference to Global Warming, I think you should have better thinking in place as to what to do with the Carbon. 3. Keith mentioned the danger of releasing so much O2. I'm not sure what to make of whether or not it would be good to release so much O2. I refuse to get into being overly-dismissive of any idea, so if this inventor has an idea he wants me to consider this idea for ameliorating our CO2 global surfeit, I'll try to give it some fair consideration. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:57:55 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >Hi Bob > >This looks silly to me as well and came across it >while doing a google news search for “global warming”, >about 1,600 hits with all manner of things presented. > > >Regards, > >Ken > >> >> this seems very silly, at least in thermodynamic >> terms. I don't care >> what magical process you use it requires just as >> much (actually more) >> energy to to reduce carbon dioxide to carbon as you >> get from oxidizing >> it in the first place. >> > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
