DailyDirt: Reducing Carbon Dioxide

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Mon, Dec 7th 2015 5:00pm — Michael Ho

We've discussed carbon dioxide before, and there are plenty of other places that talk about the doom and gloom of what happens when CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere. But there are also a bunch of people figuring out ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and monitor what effects anthropogenic carbon dioxide actually has on our planet. Check out a few of these projects that could help keep carbon dioxide emissions in check.

Building a "Hydrogen Economy" is a bit more complicated than it first appears -- because obtaining hydrogen usually involves energy-inefficient processes that also produce carbon dioxide waste. Fortunately, a new methane cracking method could produce hydrogen (and pure carbon without releasing carbon dioxide) reliably, but the costs to scale it up are always the trick for these kinds of projects. [url]
Maybe you've been skeptical about how any countries would be able to make any kind of commitment to reducing the production of carbon dioxide -- when the atmosphere already contains it and it's not like the molecules can be stamped "made in the USA" easily. If you thought satellite data collection was the answer, you get partial credit, but atmosphere-sampling research planes and special air-collecting helium balloon equipment will likely also be used to try to accurately measure CO2 production with geographic variation. [url]
Building materials such as cement (and concrete which contains cement) produce a LOT of carbon dioxide emissions. So it's not too surprising that some folks have been trying to replace traditional concrete and cement with other materials that don't contribute as much to atmospheric pollution. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for stocking stuffers and other awesome stuff.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: atmospheric pollution, carbon dioxide, cement, climate change, co2, concrete, energy, greenhouse gas, hydrogen economy, methane cracking
Companies: calera, carbon sciences

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 6:24pm

why isn't the waste from burning hydrogen a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 7 Dec 2015 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re:
  There is already waste from burning hydrogen. Removing all the other combustion products on average is going to give you one quarter more water vapor minus carbon dioxide and a slew of other rather more directly poisonous things.
  
  So, a touch more humidity near ground level than already from burning hydrocarbons? Although that will rise or drop regionally from the effects of burning carbon anyway, and if underwater is considered humidity, you'll be sparing some part of that at lower coastal elevations. The water cycle being a bit faster than the carbon cycle, water vapor isn't going to be collecting and hanging around significantly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 8:45pm
  
  Re:
  Not sure hydrogen "burns".
  Doesn't it combine with oxygen making water vapor and releasing energy?
  I suppose the loose and vague definition of burn might apply, but isn't there a more accurate term one could use?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Socrates, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:43pm
    
    ICE and fuel cells
    In Internal Combustion Engines it burns, and produce harmful side products, as all ICEs do. They have ludicrously low range as storing hydrogen in a car is a big problem
    
    In a fuel cell, that work less well than a battery, it "recombines" with oxygen. It is just as difficult storing hydrogen if it is intended for a fuel cell as it is for an ICE. They have shitty range too, for the same reason. It uses 4 times as much energy as a battery electric car. And hydrogen ICE is even worse than that!
    
    Hydrogen cars is a scam.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 5:21am
      
      Re: ICE and fuel cells
      I think you might need to do more research, or maybe you haven't done any at all.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 11:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Not sure hydrogen burns"
    just add fire,
    it will burn your whole house down
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 11:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      boom!
      https://youtu.be/7SLsFAAHVZs
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok - so what is the difference between "burn" and "explosion" ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 12:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Not sure hydrogen "burns"."
    
    Go tell that to the passengers of the Hindenburg zeppelin ^^ If you need a fresh view at the footage, here you go:
    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81940076/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 5:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not this again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Combining with oxygen making (possibly) carbon dioxide, water vapor and releasing energy is in fact the literal definition of burning or combustion.
    
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Is this how a fuel cell works?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  Hydrogen does not "burn" in a fuel cell where the reaction is controlled.
  
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-combining-hydrog/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socrates, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:26pm

The "hydrogen economy" is a lie
and the "hydrogen economy" has always been a lie! Those who derailed California Air Resources Board, those who crushed the electric cars of the 90's, those who bought the Ni-MH technology and shelved it for cars, is the same ones who peddle the "hydrogen economy".

If it would work it would be instantly sabotaged.

Battery electric cars exist today, is much cheaper to make, cheaper to maintain, can be charged at home and anywhere else with an electric outlet, and is much cheaper to operate than hydrogen. Converting electicity to hydrogen and back looses 75% of the energy, and costs extra money.

Ethanol compatible cars exist today, as any gasoline car on the planet is ethanol compatible! They are cheaper to produce, and cheaper to maintain. Ethanol have better octane numbers than gasoline and have much better range than hydrogen. And biological ethanol is cheaper to produce than biological ethanol. And biological ethanol for cars is produced, and used, in large scale, in large parts of the world today!

I recommend to not propagate the hydrogen lie, it is a diversion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Socrates, 7 Dec 2015 @ 9:47pm
  
  Typo
  And biological ethanol is cheaper to produce than
  ... biological hydrogen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 5:25am
  
  Re: The "hydrogen economy" is a lie
  Who is lying here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 11:24pm

they do not want sheepple splitting water into Hydrogen in their basement via cavitation, or something
what they want is to keep this strange religion were you go to the pump to refuel
either oil, gas, hydrogen, alcohol, batteries, whatever
but they want to keep the business as it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2015 @ 11:28pm

did Al Gore just buy techdirt? how much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 12:48am
  
  Re:
  come on Michael Ho, how much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 6:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    how much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael Ho (profile), 8 Dec 2015 @ 7:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really? You think I have accepted some kind of bribe to write up a few sentences on ways to control pollution?
      
      https://m.facebook.com/notes/arnold-schwarzenegger/i-dont-give-a-if-we-agree-about-climate-change/10 153855713574658/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        there is more pollution outside that naturally occurring Co2
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow - that proves it.
        You are so insightful, must be a genius or something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OGquaker, 8 Dec 2015 @ 3:32am

NO CO2
Gore's wind farm, our bread-basket Mid-west, is loaded with potential (pun intended).

Take Al's wind, extract DC (not must-use-now AC electricity with 250 billion dollars in transmission lines) add a little water and air (20% N on a good day) and you have an easily transportable liquid fuel, and dump your waste product (O) into the sky or whatever.

We bought six billion gallons of the stuff last year, pipelines run between states. 400 retail outlets in Iowa, handles just like Propane @100psi, not @10,000psi hydrogen.

Bio-hazard is trivial; lighter than air, humans make a lot of it for pee, smells like rabbits.

Some kid drove his S10 P.U.truck across the country on NH3 in 2008, Belgians were driving their bus' in WWII, the X-15 rocket burned NH3.

Farmer's buy NH3 from offshore suppliers now at $300-700/ton, why not make it on the farm, just like Ford built his tractor to run on mash & Rockefeller invented the Eighteenth Amendment!

DuPont & GM trashed ammonia (think Servel) in America's newspapers so they could sell short-lived Frigidaire and bio-toxic 'Freon'. My ammonia refrigerator runs great, built in 1950. Want cancer and explosions? Try gasoline.

And, refiners sell you any dam "gasoline" carbon molecule that's convenient depending on the spot price of jet-fuel & asphalt & Diesel & kerosene & roofing tar & HDPE or Styrene, NOTHING CAN BE LEFT OVER.
Thus tuning your IC engine is impossible if your fuel is any carbon trash from any well on earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 5:29am

So - there is no better term than "burn" to describe two hydrogen combining with one oxygen, producing heat and water vapor?

Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2015 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  Oxidation and reduction reaction. The H2 molecule is oxidized, the ogygen is reduced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CrushU, 9 Dec 2015 @ 2:40pm

Measuring CO2...
If you thought satellite data collection was the answer, you get partial credit, but atmosphere-sampling research planes and special air-collecting helium balloon equipment will likely also be used to try to accurately measure CO2 production with geographic variation.

This just in: Countries that fly atmosphere-sampling research planes have more CO2 production than countries that don't! We are unsure at this time why this is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]