|
(We don't have one yet, but we need one) |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Australia A new industry |
|
The climate problem is caused by too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How much do we need to remove? Here are some estimates from the New Scientist magazine. The "gigatonne gap" looms large as UN climate talks in Cancún, Mexico, enter their final days without new commitments from big polluters to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. A five to nine-gigatonne gap, to be precise. That is the gap between what has been pledged and what is needed to avoid dangerous global warming. To keep the world on track to cap global warming at under 2 °C by mid-century, rising CO2 emissions should be kept below 44 gigatonnes a year in 2020, more than a third higher than today. But the UN Environment Programme warned here today that current national pledges would leave 2020 emissions anywhere between 5 and 9 gigatonnes too high. Fred Pearce on gigatonnes of carbon This indicates the range of extraction we need. This article also |
|
The purpose of this project is to collect energy from a solar-derived source, to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to produce a solid store of carbon to prevent it getting back into the atmosphere. The project should be self-sustaining by the sale of energy and products. At present (2009) politicians hope that injecting carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells will be sufficient. In reality there is no reason to believe this process will be either effective or affordable. It won't be effective because it doesn't put enough carbon out of use by several orders of magnitude; it won't be affordable because it has no saleable product. Sequestration needs another technique that will remove much larger quantities of carbon, and will make a profit. Is it possible that the world's natural systems will remove the carbon that has been added to the atmosphere? That is, can the oceans (the main sponge of carbon) be relied on to remove the carbon by photosynthesising it in a reasonable time? To rely on this process to bring the atmosphere back to the pre-industrial state would seem to be rather too hopeful. If there is evidence that the sea can do it, let us see it. |
|
How should the Human Community react to the Climate Change now underway?
The last item points to the need for industries capable of reversing the 200 years worth of carbon emissions in something like the same time scale. |
|
1. OTEC plants at the coasts of Arid areas. These will produce:
2. Spirulina Hydroponics Using the fresh water from the OTEC plants and solar radiation Spirulina will be produced. These will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. (This has nothing to do with the various quack "remedies" associated with this organism.) 3. Plastics manufacturing from the Spirulina. From the point of view of geotherapy the need is to convert the carbon into a solid long lasting form that will not return to the atmosphere until long in the future (hundreds of years). It has taken about 200 years to raise the carbon dioxide level and so may well take a similar time to get the level down again. Has any work been done on a plasticising process? I would like to hear from anyone who is working in this field. |
This
is the sort of work that needs to be done Chlorophyll production from Spirulina with Urea |
|
Geography Experimental and Pilot plants
The further away from the Poles the stronger is solar radiation. The aridity of the land means that few people live there and the vast acreage of hydroponics can be placed there without displacing the local population. |
Project completion report: Preliminary laboratory experimentation on the potential of mass-scale cultivation of a high-protein blue-green alga, Spirulina ... report / Hawaii Natural Energy Institute) |
|
Economics It is likely that by the time Climate Change has been recognised as a serious present danger, a Carbon credit system will be in place. Possibly the radical marketisers - followers of Milton Friedman - will have lost influence so that a straight carbon tax will be implemented simply to discourage carbon emissions, if the moral sense of the emitters isn't sufficient. By the time this project gets started there should be megawatt sized OTEC plants, capable of producing large amounts of energy and desalinated water. Moreover there will be a sense of urgency, at present lacking from climate discussions, and a need to absorb the carbon already loose in the atmosphere will be considered acutely necessary.
Megawatt sized OTEC plants will have large quantities of cool water which can be used instead of electric air conditioning in local buildings, and possibly for some industrial processes. In general the whole project area will become an important new industrial area stretching along much of the northwest African coast, and probably for some distance inland (how far is it economic to pump the desalinated water?). This has implications for politics, and there may well be new cities in the area. At present the area supports nomadic animal herders whose livelihood is very difficult because of arid conditions in the Sahara itself and the neighbouring Sahel region. A Somali project would be useful in providing an income for people who at present resort to piracy because there is no economic activity. A taxable income would support a proper government. Another area where carbon fixing could be encouraged is north Western Australia. Here too is an area of arid desert near an Ocean with potential for solar input. Because it is a developed country Australia would be a good area for an initial research project but in the long run would also be a useful site for seriously large installations (a useful economic replacement for the agriculture of southern Australia, as that area becomes arid, and also for the coal exports which have to be phased out). Australia is the developed country most likely to be seriously damaged by climate change as almost all of its current economy will be made impossible. The southern agricultural area will wither as the rain belts retreat into the Southern Ocean. The coal exports must cease after coal is banned as a source of energy. Research and Pilot projects
|
| Ending It may take 200 years but if this project succeeds in reducing the CO2 proportion of the atmosphere there should be a protocol for stopping the process. Here is a New Scientist article pointing out the dangers of reducing CO2 too far. |
![]() Biogas index |
|
![]() Home |
Since 20/07/11