Carbon dioxide domino

[U1T001]

RE: ... 'They are called plants'

... but they are not enough nowadays. The rapid increase of CO2 in the air means that each year we are going deeper and deeper in the CO2 sht.

Storage is a good step forward, but it is not enough. We need recycling of CO2 at the speed it is produced, and besides if it is recycled to carbon it should be in such a form that it could not be burned back (in CO2),

With the increase of the concentration the chances of dealing with the problem are dramatically reduced.

[Sephu]

She has fangs.. And she knows science.. Class.. You know what this means?...

WITCH!!!

[Fomelogo]

Clever!

[axelasdf]

How good of a fuel are they?

[Mikemenn]

Already developed by God 6000-1000 years ago. They're called plants.

[FrozenHaxor2]

@Mikemenn That's what she said.

[LamaPaj]

@Mikemenn Lol who the fuck believes in god!?

[Quintinohthree]

@LamaPaj

I think that was a poe of young earth creationists.

[marklandynut]

From what I've heard it takes huge amounts of resources and energy to capture carbon using industrial processes. I think something like a 50% increase in consumption to caputre the carbon output. That's an insane amount.

Here's an idea. Plant a forest of fast growing trees. When mature, harvest the trees, dry the wood and hen bury it down an old coal mine where it will decompose much, much more slowly than it would above ground. The result is captured carbon with minimal use of resoruces.

[Thebluegoatsings]

i wonder if you could make a "dominoe" piece of 3 litres of condensed farts.

[toughdog6789]

"global warming" is caused by the sun. nice try science fags.

[KenoshiAkai]

@toughdog6789 If it wasn't for greenhouse gasses the Earth would be a big snowball, even with sunlight at its current levels. Greenhouse gasses capture heat and hold it to keep our atmosphere warm. Too much greenhouse gas and the average temperature of the world becomes too warm. Science teaches one these things.

[Dirtboy101]

I wonder what it tastes like.

[johny260]

@Dirtboy101 for some reason i was thinking the same thing

[taquenos]

3 liters? at what pressure? probably they are lige 2 grams of co2 :--))))

[1RadicalOne]

If you build a structure out of these CO2 bricks, what happens if you have a fire?

[Knnniggit]

@1RadicalOne It would probably act as a flame retardant, since fires consume O2 and produce CO2. This is also how CO2 fire extinguishers work -- by suffocating the fire.

[1RadicalOne]

Then I have an idea.

[Nyphur]

@Knnniggit Fire extinguishers work by pushing all of the oxygen-rich air out of the way with the CO2. The CO2 itself doesn't have any special property that lets it put out fires, it's just heavier than air and forms a temporary blanket over the fire that stops oxygen getting at it. Also, this material isn't solid CO2 or anything. It's just a material with a dense carbon content which it took 3 litres of CO2 to produce. Whether or not it's flammable can't be inferred from what's said in the video

[DeanMalenko]

@Nyphur isn't that what he said? "by suffocating the fire." ... oxidation ("fire") does not work with co2 because it's not reacting with the material. Also it's pretty cold when it comes out of the nozzle but that takes only an unimportant part in this case. Remember the 3 things fire needs.. oxygen, a flamable material and heat. take one of the things away and the fire is out

[Nyphur]

@DeanMalenko Yes, but the point I made to him was that just because a material has "captured" a lot of CO2 doesn't make it flame retardant. The fact that it's something with a high density of carbon in its structure probably makes it very flammable, but the energy you'd get out of it would be less than was put in to capture the carbon in the first place.

[Snelvik]

It probably costs TONS of coal and oil generated energy to make those tidy sqaure 'air turds' Ocean algae handles a whole lot of our CO2, we could start offshore farms... i ramble

[dondude69]

@Snelvik 'air turds' LOL!

[1ockedand1oaded]

EAT IT!

i dare you...

[SFXgalore]

lol

[danopopop]

yes. but there is such a thing as "too much". when the point comes that the co2 is flooding the atmosphere and its being produced faster than plants can take it in and make oxygen. thats kind of a bad thing.

[cikamatko]

yes they do, but there has always be some kind of balance, and the amount of CO2 was constant. That's not the case nowdays, and there's to much of it. And too much CO2 really isn't good for anything but for heating up the atmosphere.

so it's not bullcrap.

[oomblikkies]

cikamatko - wrong! The amount of CO2 was never constant (ice core data suggest levels of up to 10 times more than today), but geological records show that CO2 has never played a part in global warming which has occurred many times in earths history. It is only now that mainstream claims the relationship. I say it is far too early to tell with certainty.

[SFXgalore]

Its true, the earth goes in round in cycles (The amount of greenhouse gases). All this about global warming is crap. We only induced this cycle to happen quicker - it was all ways going to happen. Any member of a science community who says any thing about this is rejected because of the current politics.

[pepelolos]

1 word: trees

[oomblikkies]

yes, pepelolos, trees are the answer, but on condition that those trees are never chopped for making firewood because then the carbon trapped in the trees is again released into the atmosphere

[Rigge1988]

carbon dioxide (CO2)

[SFXgalore]

davew8572 : Carbon monoxide kills you by blocking up your hemoglobin. It would be slightly annoying if this was produced in huge amounts. A car exhaust exhales CO which is why it can kill you if you direct the gases into a confined space ie. The back of a car.

[hyunchoi98]

If you bulid something with that "domino" won't it eventually go off and realeasing all that co2 and exploding?

[ltcornflakes]

Ahha, it's solid, not a little gas container.

[tricky778]

They might know the answer, but they might lose their funding if they tell you :)

[bmwsux4]

Why does everyone seem to deamonize carbon so badly? If there was for example 100 tons of CO2, there most likely will always be 100 tons of CO2. Its not like the extra carbon comes from mars.

Pollution [from oil] is a give in, but the use of deterium reactors will put the middle east out of business, so we can use the oil just for cars and these "cubes" you talk about for other light industrial applications.

[JasoniumGH]

actually, you are wrong. the CO2 in the air doesn't come from existing CO2. it comes from combustion reactions where a hydrocarbon is burnt and the carbon from it bonds with the oxygen that is required to ignite it; thus, creating CO2

[bmwsux4]

Really? If there is for example 100 tons of CO2 it will either be in combined form or freely in the earth as C. There is no new CO2 created; just combined from what there.

What about a chemical reaction that does NOT need a flame to produce CO2?

Not all CO2 reactions require heat.

[JasoniumGH]

its funny that you mention "or freely in the earth as C" because when you burn something, it produces CO2 and heat, and the black smoke that you see a lot of the times is carbon from incomplete combustion.

yes there is new CO2 created. for example, there is carbon in CH4, there is oxygen O2. no CO2 in there so far right? but there is once you burn the CH4 in the presence of oxygen because then you would get CO2 and H2O. the CO2 wasn't there before.

[JasoniumGH]

the problem is that we don't want this CO2 getting into the air so we need to keep it where it is in--in the oil in the ground.

so the moral of the story is still--yes, burning oil is bad

also, no one is deamonizing carbon. carbon makes up pretty much every organic thing. we're just deamonizing carbon DIOXIDE emissions.

[mvpetri]

But if was, like you say, 100t. of CO2, exist another 100t. of Butane (a common hidrocarbon). If we burn this 100t. of butane, will produce 188 tons of new and bright CO2.

[6manchesterutd6]

Interesting response uve gotten down there.

[stephencchua]

Already developed millions or years ago. They're called plants.

[VanillaShoelace]

@stephencchua Try billions of years. Wise guy

[deomis]

@stephencchua plants don't store Co2 they eat it.

[dondude69]

@deomis they do store 'carbon' which is derived from CO2, so I guess they do kind of 'eat' the carbon part of CO2.

[Nyphur]

@stephencchua Plants are much too slow at incorporating CO2 into complex compounds, and the carbon density isn't as high as we can potentially produce thruogh industrial processes.

[MrBigEnchilada]

@stephencchua lol 

[indalcecio]

@stephencchua Until they die and release all that CO2 again.

[marklandynut]

@indalcecio Not true. Plants don't release CO2 when they die. The carbon is only released as CO2 when the plant is digested by an animal or bacteria (i.e. the plant is eated or rots). If the dead plant material is locked away and can't decompose the carbon remains captured. That is how coal was formed.

[ilikeitlife]

i though i has been invented...CO2 is stored in fire extinguisers...

[gassyoldman]

How much carbon dioxide is produced in capturing and condensing 3 litres of carbon dioxide?

[sy1234]

quote from their website:

One of the technologies that the Centre will work on uses a natural process in conjunction with silicate-based rocks such as serpentine, which is found in large enough quantities, and in the right places, to store all the CO2 produced by the combustion of the entire worlds known fossil fuel reserves.

-

They talk about the "natural process" already being found in nature but being slow. They're speeding it up so it binds faster.. curious.

[gassyoldman]

Thanks. I just hope they don;t trap all the oxygen at the same time :-)

[CarlosWever]

@gassyoldman TRUE!!..by making the one piece you produce 5 liter of carbon dioxide, it's a piece of crap then...

[07734world]

@gassyoldman why does that matter?

[gassyoldman]

@07734world because they could release more than they capture!! 

[07734world]

@gassyoldman but why is CO2 bad??? why capture it?

[gassyoldman]

@07734world Carbon dioxide is a "Greenhouse Gas". The sun's heat can get in, but the earths heat can not get out so well. The planet is getting warmer. A few degrees more and we have a runaway effect. All the ice caps will melt, the seas will expand, coastal flooding, massive weather changes, a disaster.

[livedandletdie]

@gassyoldman wrong the polar caps won't cause the sea levels to rise but another thing will the expansion of the volume of the water caused by lower density which water get's at lower temperature or at higher temperature. because Ice has less density than water at 0ºC and water above 0º have lower density as well. and when density is lower pressure sinks and volume gets bigger. The weather won't change much. England might even get sunny weather instead of the constant rain.

[OsitolovesCosita]

Wow I would like to know more about this!