Posted on 11/07/2007 9:57:06 PM PST by crazyshrink
Researchers invent technology to accelerate Earth's own solution to greenhouse gas accumulation CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 7, 2007 -- Researchers at Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University have invented a technology, inspired by nature, to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human emissions.
By electrochemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean and then neutralizing the acid by reaction with silicate (volcanic) rocks, the researchers say they can accelerate natural chemical weathering, permanently transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean and may be beneficial to coral reefs.
The innovative approach to tackling climate change is reported in the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology by Kurt Zenz House, a Ph.D. candidate in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences; Christopher H. House, associate professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University; Daniel P. Schrag, professor of earth and planetary sciences in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, professor of environmental science and engineering in Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment; and Michael J. Aziz, Gordon McKay Professor of Materials Science in Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
"The technology involves selectively removing acid from the ocean in a way that might enable us to turn back the clock on global warming -- removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere while simultaneously limiting the rate at which man-made CO2 emissions are acidifying the ocean," Kurt Zenz House says. "Essentially, our technology dramatically accelerates a cleaning process that Nature herself uses for greenhouse gas accumulation."
In natural silicate weathering, atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves into fresh water, forming a weak carbonic acid. This acid is neutralized as rain water percolates through continental rocks, producing an alkaline solution of carbonate salts. The dissolution products eventually flow into the ocean, where the added alkalinity enables the ocean to hold the dissolved carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. As weathering dissolves more continental rock, more carbon is permanently transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean and ultimately to the sediments.
"In the engineered weathering process we have found a way to swap the weak carbonic acid with a much stronger one (hydrochloric acid) and thus accelerate the pace to industrial rates," Kurt Zenz House says. "To minimize the potential for adverse side effects on the environment we combine it with other chemical processes, the net result of which is identical to the natural weathering process. As a result, the ocean's alkalinity would increase, enabling the uptake and storage of more atmospheric CO2 in the form of bicarbonate, the most plentiful and innocuous form of carbon already dissolved in the earth's waters. That means we may be able to safely and permanently remove excess CO2 in a matter of decades rather than millennia."
Unlike other climate engineering schemes that propose reflecting sunlight back into space to cool the planet, the weathering approach counteracts the continued ocean acidification that threatens coral reefs and their rich biological communities. Moreover, the process works equally well on all sources of CO2, including the two-thirds of human emissions that do not emanate from power plants, and could be run in remote locations and powered by stranded energy, such as geothermal and flared natural gas.
The team cautions, however, that while they believe their scheme for reducing global warming is achievable, implementation would be ambitious, costly, and would carry some environmental risks that require further study. Replicating natural weathering would involve building dozens of facilities, akin to large chlorine gas industrial plants, on coasts of volcanic rock.
"The least risky trajectory is to significantly cut our carbon dioxide emissions -- but we may not be able to cut them rapidly enough to avoid unacceptable levels of climate change," says Aziz. "If it looks like we're not going to make it, the 'House Process' has the potential to let us rescind a portion of those emissions while mitigating some of the chemical impacts the excess CO2 will have on the oceans. It won't be ready in time, though, if we wait until we're sure we'll need it before pursuing R&D on the technical and environmental issues involved."
I wouldn’t be tinkering with the weather, jmo.
It isn’t nice to mess with Mother Nature.
So when the Sun decides its going into a cooling phase the Earth will look like Pluto.
That’s nice. Problem is, CO2 is not too high. It’s well within its’ normal range, just like the temperature is.
Every storm, every flood, every drought, every heat wave, every cold wave will be blamed on them no matter what the facts are.
In addition, trying to engineer things on a large scale that are little understood is a recipe for disaster on every front.
Must be grant writin’ time!
If this is indeed workable, don’t count on the Global Warming crowd to embrace it, as it doesn’t involve them taking control over every aspect of our lives.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. ”
— H. L. Mencken
We need a toolkit of proven solutions ready in the long shot chance they might be needed. That’s much different than actually implementing these problem solving technologies. This particular idea could be funded entirely by creating new carbon credits, except that I’m sure carbon money is already planned for general fund socialist vote buying. The left doesn’t want solutions, they want destruction and restrictions. Things like this will force them to shut up and look elsewhere.
Just what this world needs, more meddling from do-gooders whose actions bring unintended consequences. Unintended consequences that are often worse than the original problem.
I will quote Marx (Groucho that is): “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
Sorry guys, but I think Karl Rove has this technology mastered already.
GORE CRONY BRANSON OFFERS $25 MILLION FOR DEVICE TO SUCK UP CO2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17063453/
Well its worth looking at since right now the only way we have to cool things down is to pick some islands and blow them to smithereens and invoke a mild nuclear winter.
People would object to that.
For the love of God leave it the hell alone. They’ll just end up f#$king it up worse. Besides, I like global warming.
GLOBAL COOLING
. . .an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled “The Cooling World”, it pointed to “ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change” and pointed to “a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.” The article claimed “The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that “what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery” and cited the NAS conclusion that “not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
The article mentioned the alternative solutions of “melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers” but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: “But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - “resulting famines could be catastrophic”, “drought and desolation,” “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded”, “droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons,” “impossible for starving peoples to migrate,” “the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age.”
Excuse me?? What a load!!
How in the world does ANY process differentiate between naturally emitted CO2 (95%+ of CO2 emitted) from the 4-5% that is man made????
The answer is simple..,it CAN’T. There is no difference — but — I keep seeing articles about solutions for man made CO2 like there is a difference?
Good post. Is that the one where James Hansen created the climate model which says the Earth is headed into another ice age?
In this thread: People who think science and technology were perfected in 1970. :p
Next thing you know they’ll be dumping metal flakes in the skies to reflect the sunlight back into space. I know the Air Force was doing a study on the application of that technology as a means to control the weather and other military applications. I think the name of the report was “Owning The Weather by 2025.” Interesting report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.