----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 1327] Re: new IPCC assessment
>
>> So, the nuclear carbon sequestration machine does appear to be the more
>> economical way to remove co2 from the atmosphere.
>
> The beauty of the biological route is that CO2 removal from the air is
> a necessary step for all biomass formation. That does not apply to
> nuclear power, you'd always have to divert some of the power output
> from nuclear to achieve CO2 capture.
>
> In practical terms, think of paper making and well managed landfills
> for example. There we've got a current example of a case where the
> biomass is not burned, and it's economic.
>
> Or, consider the production of ethanol
>
> C6H12O6 (sugar) goes to 2 CO2 + 2 C2H6O (ethanol)
>
> About half of the mass of the sugar is turned into a pure CO2 stream,
> which is ready for sequestration (and that sequestration step could of
> course be powered by cheap, clean and renewable* nuclear power).
>
> While some CO2 from ethanol production is currently used by fizzy
> drinks makers, that's rather short duration sequestration, I don't
> think any is currently being injected underground. Enhanced oil
> recovery schemes get their CO2 from other sources I believe.
Yes, any process bio or nuclear that produces a valuable trade good as a
byproduct would have a chance at economic sustainability. But if that
product happens to be a combustible fuel, the captured CO2 is released once
more to the atmosphere. Your idea would divert a portion of the CO2 into a
sequestration reservoir of some sort with nuclear-powered pumps (or,
ethanol-powered pumps?)
I suppose Gareth's bioengineered supertree scheme could accomplish the same
thing by selling a portion of the wood as fuel (or other wood products)
while sinking the rest into the ocean.
Now, if he engineered the trees to float on the ocean and drop
super-high-density fruits that sink to the bottom, he'd save the cost of
planting, harvesting & hauling land-based forests. Then the whole process
would be self-sustaining by solar power, but who would compensate the
bio-engineers for their services - Branson? Or perhaps beachcombers who
would gather, carve, and sell driftwood sculptures to tourists, with a small
portion of proceeds deducted to repay bioengineering bonds?
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
