Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cashinmattress

Ammonium Salts Could Provide Viable Way Of Removing Carbon Dioxide From Atmosphere Via Carbon Mineralization

Recommended Posts

link

Removing excess carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere may be essential to curb severe climate change. Possible, but expensive, methods include burying the gas underground between rock layers or 'scrubbing' the CO2 in power station cooling towers before it is released. James Highfield at A*STAR's Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences, together with co-workers at the National Junior College of Singapore and Åbo Akademi University in Finland, has now described a cheaper and more permanent solution that would prevent the CO2 escaping back into the atmosphere.

Their work focused on using carbon mineralization, a process that involves a reaction between CO2 and minerals, such as magnesium silicates, to form solid carbonates. Mineralization occurs naturally between the atmosphere and rocks, and the carbonates remain geologically stable for millions of years. Crucially, plentiful raw materials would be available to conduct this type of CO2 removal on a vast scale.

Natural carbon mineralization is very slow, so scientists are working to accelerate the process in an energy-efficient and carbon-neutral way. Using ammonium salts and magnesium-silicate-rich serpentine rocks, Highfield and co-workers induced rapid carbon mineralization. They also found that milling the solids could convert serpentine directly into stable carbonate.

To accelerate the extraction of magnesium (as soluble sulfate) from serpentine, the researchers used ammonium sulfate. This reaction generates by-products such as iron oxide that may be useful for the steel industry. They trapped the leftover ammonia in water, and recycled this by-product in an aqueous wash with the magnesium solution to produce a mineral form of magnesium hydroxide called brucite. Finally, the researchers carbonated the brucite in a pressurized reactor. The heat generated by this exothermic process was recycled to help power the initial magnesium extraction.

A key aim throughout the processing was to recycle as much ammonium sulfate as possible. The final products, magnesites (magnesium carbonates), could also be useful. "Magnesites are commodities in their own right as smoke- and fire-retardants, and have potential for heavy-metal ion sequestration," the team notes.

Highfield and co-workers discovered that the yield of recycled ammonium sulfate drops considerably at temperatures of 400–450 °C, although reactions at these temperatures produce the most brucite. They suggest that this may be rectified by either increasing the humidity during the process or performing the reaction at a lower temperature to extract an alternative mineral to brucite.

"By virtue of their rich chemistry with magnesium, ammonium salts are likely to become ubiquitous in the field of CO2 mineralization," the team says.

Carbon schmarbon.

See, the boffins will sort it out, cheaply too...IF indeed carbon dioxide is such a big deal.

Its all the other toxic crap, specifically man made radioactive crud, that we are spreading about which poses a real danger to humanity.

EDIT: tree's are much cheaper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my biggest fear. Scientists start messing around with stuff they don't understand.

(if they understood, some of their predictions should have actually happened)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Carbon schmarbon.

If somebody decided to slightly oxygenate the atmosphere we'd all be euphoric.

Personally I think the trees should show us a bit more gratitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, so long as the energy required to mineralise the carbon is substantially less than the energy that was released when the carbon was burned (edit: minus the energy required to mine/extract it). Otherwise it doesn't make much sense - better to simply not burn the carbon. Is there any information on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More playing God lunacy chasing an income stream. Has the scam not run its course yet?

No! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the ultra-rich of this world put their trust funds to good use by starting projects to turn deserts into forests?

That would be a far more sustainable way to reduce CO2 (which I'm personally not fussed about) and to improve the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the ultra-rich of this world put their trust funds to good use by starting projects to turn deserts into forests?

That would be a far more sustainable way to reduce CO2 (which I'm personally not fussed about) and to improve the world.

Even if it were practical, it wouldn't make much difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fossil fuels we're burning over a couple of hundred years took many millions of years to lay down by forests that covered far more of the Earth than today's forests.

It might improve the world in other ways, but it would do virtually nothing to reduce CO2 concentrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it were practical,

It certainly is practical, there have been successful attempts in the past, all it needs is someone to spend the money on it.

It might improve the world in other ways, but it would do virtually nothing to reduce CO2 concentrations.

I don't think that's true, after all a lot of 'CO2 neutral' schemes rely on planting trees, anyway as I said I don't believe the CO2 scam anyway, but large scale reforesting would have loads of other benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is practical, there have been successful attempts in the past, all it needs is someone to spend the money on it.

Really? Perhaps you could point out some of these past attempts that have successfully turned deserts in forests.

I don't think that's true, after all a lot of 'CO2 neutral' schemes rely on planting trees, anyway as I said I don't believe the CO2 scam anyway, but large scale reforesting would have loads of other benefits.

It is true. Just think about it for a moment. Go back 500 years or so, when there was far more forested land than today and very little burning of fossil fuels; under those conditions CO2 levels remained roughly constant. It then becomes obvious that the idea that planting even large numbers of trees can in any way compensate for modern-day industrial fossil fuel burning is laughable. It is the so-called 'CO2 neutral' schemes that are the real scams here. They do little but assuage middle-class pseudo-green consciences.

Not that I'm in any way against tree-planting - loss of habitats and biodiversity are also big problems - just don't expect it to have any significant impact on CO2 concentrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Perhaps you could point out some of these past attempts that have successfully turned deserts in forests.

Do your own googling, I read about such projects years ago so I don't have any links handy to post.

planting even large numbers of trees can in any compensate for modern-day industrial fossil fuel burning is laughable.

Like I said I couldn't care less about CO2 and sooner or later you will realise too that blaming CO2 for climate change was just a big scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your own googling, I read about such projects years ago so I don't have any links handy to post.

You made the claim. You back it up.

Like I said I couldn't care less about CO2 and sooner or later you will realise too that blaming CO2 for climate change was just a big scam.

At least you now realise that planting trees is ineffectual in combating CO2 emissions. Now you just need to do a little more critical thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made the claim. You back it up.

I mentioned it in the hope it might attract your curiosity to do your own research about it, that's all. I'm not out to convince you, I couldn't care less what you think.

At least you now realise that planting trees is ineffectual in combating CO2 emissions.

Not really, your arguments were about as clear as mud... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned it in the hope it might attract your curiosity to do your own research about it, that's all. I'm not out to convince you, I couldn't care less what you think.

I did do a little googling, and couldn't find any evidence to support your claim. That really is your job!

Not really, your arguments were about as clear as mud... :rolleyes:

At least I have arguments, rather than simply making random assertions. I'm sorry if I can't make them simple enough for you to follow. I'll try harder in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least I have arguments, rather than simply making random assertions.

Sorry my mistake, 'arguments' was the wrong word, 'random assertions' are the words I should have used to describe what you said, thanks for correcting me... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One for you snowflux:

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.[...]

http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One for you snowflux:

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Oh come on, how is it that you can so uncritically swallow such obvious misinterpretations!

The NASA people were referring to the dissipation of by CO2 molecules of the energy carried by high-energy particles hitting the upper atmosphere. This is a completely different effect to the retention of heat by CO2 in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Some idiot (or, more likely, some propagandist) has seen the references to CO2 and cooling in the article and put 2 and 2 together to make 5. The NASA researchers themselves, of course, make no such claim about their work debunking global warming and indeed have added a footnote to their article to help clarify this, presumably after its misinterpretation by the AGW-denial propagandists:

No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the ultra-rich of this world put their trust funds to good use by starting projects to turn deserts into forests?

That would be a far more sustainable way to reduce CO2 (which I'm personally not fussed about) and to improve the world.

Problem is that trees need variable amounts of water according to species. Those that woof up most CO2 are in wet locations (temperate and tropical rainforests)

From what I recall Saudi Arabia was pretty dry which may explain why they haven't converted their deserts to forest although I'm sure they would like to.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, how is it that you can so uncritically swallow such obvious misinterpretations!

The NASA people were referring to the dissipation of by CO2 molecules of the energy carried by high-energy particles hitting the upper atmosphere. This is a completely different effect to the retention of heat by CO2 in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Some idiot (or, more likely, some propagandist) has seen the references to CO2 and cooling in the article and put 2 and 2 together to make 5. The NASA researchers themselves, of course, make no such claim about their work debunking global warming and indeed have added a footnote to their article to help clarify this, presumably after its misinterpretation by the AGW-denial propagandists:

Why are all AGW BELIEVERS/followers so smug? You and fluffy are extremely arrogant and smug and feel personally offended. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come now.

The point of the article is that there are solutions to deal with the atmosphere, some more simple than others, regardless of what you believe in as far as the many climate change hypotheses floating about.

Whether it be rationing, alternative energy sources, atmospheric scrubbers of some sort, planting trees.

No need to get into a sparring match.

Crisis and invention go hand in hand.

The boffins will sort it out, IF, it is required to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come now.

The point of the article is that there are solutions to deal with the atmosphere, some more simple than others, regardless of what you believe in as far as the many climate change hypotheses floating about.

Whether it be rationing, alternative energy sources, atmospheric scrubbers of some sort, planting trees.

No need to get into a sparring match.

Crisis and invention go hand in hand.

The boffins will sort it out, IF, it is required to do so.

How are the "boffins" supposed to sort it out when we simply turn a deaf ear to what they're saying? The vast majority of climate scientists (and most other scientists) are telling us that there is a major problem and that we urgently need to start dealing with it properly. I really don't think it's a good idea to simply ignore them until the problem becomes intractable and then say "OK, lads, sort it out please!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the "boffins" supposed to sort it out when we simply turn a deaf ear to what they're saying? The vast majority of climate scientists (and most other scientists) are telling us that there is a major problem and that we urgently need to start dealing with it properly. I really don't think it's a good idea to simply ignore them until the problem becomes intractable and then say "OK, lads, sort it out please!".

Because that is what humans do.

You keep banging on about doom laden stuff that is hypothetical and cannot be proven outside of theoretical models.

My theory is that you are a pain in the buttocks to all those around you, even when shopping for your weekly dose of tin foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are all AGW BELIEVERS/followers so smug? You and fluffy are extremely arrogant and smug and feel personally offended. Why is that?

Because that is what humans do.

You keep banging on about doom laden stuff that is hypothetical and cannot be proven outside of theoretical models.

My theory is that you are a pain in the buttocks to all those around you, even when shopping for your weekly dose of tin foil.

That's what I love about you AGW deniers - you're so gracious in defeat. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that is what humans do.

You keep banging on about doom laden stuff that is hypothetical and cannot be proven outside of theoretical models.

My theory is that you are a pain in the buttocks to all those around you, even when shopping for your weekly dose of tin foil.

You want Doom Laden? You couldn't handle Doom Laden .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are all AGW BELIEVERS/followers so smug? You and fluffy are extremely arrogant and smug and feel personally offended. Why is that?

Alas the wail of the lumpen masses when faced with the elegant perfection of elevated perception, perforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 243 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.