There is a lot of buzz about a new technology being touted as a possible solution in the “climate change crisis.” It is called a CO2 scrubber, and it removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Just one would take a ton of CO2 out of the air every day. I mean, everyone is talking about this. And when I say everybody, I pretty much mean Glenn Beck. Other than him and some in the blogosphere, the subject is almost non-existent. Just Google “CO2 scrubber” and you can see what I mean.
The scrubber is the creation of a team lead by Physicist Klaus Lackner, of New York’s Columbia University. Here’s how it works:
Professor Lackner said carbon dioxide could be removed from the atmosphere by absorbing it in various chemical filters and a newly discovered property of absorbent plastic sheets – which are routinely used to purify water – would be used to used to clean those filters of CO2 so they can then be reused to carry on the job.
The captured carbon dioxide could then be pumped into greenhouses to boost plant growth.
Here is a great way of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, especially when used in conjunction with carbon filters which collect 90% of CO2 emissions from smokestack industries.
Granted, there would have to be millions of these to make a dent, but they are definitely part of the solution. Or they would be if this were really about reducing carbon dioxide and saving the planet from global catastrophe.
The environmentalists should applaud this technology and welcome it to the battle. Instead, it is dismissed and condemned because it allows us to maintain our current lifestyles:
“There’s no magic bullet to save us from the problem of global warming,” said Kert Davies, an energy expert for Greenpeace USA in Washington, D.C. Removing greenhouse gases so readily will not encourage people to develop alternate, renewable technologies, he said, and strive for energy efficiency.
Such techno-fixes also miss the point of the environmental degradation brought on by the use of fossil fuels, he said.
Lackner told the Telegraph, “I’d rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway.â€
Not necessarily, Professor. If some powerful environmentalists had their way, we would all be controlled by carbon. As I noted before, more than once politicians have suggested we become tethered to individual carbon limits, set by governments who have our best interests in mind, of course.
The idea has also been derided as folly because of the cost and the number of filters needed. Kert Davies asked in the link above, “Can you imagine thousands of acres of giant fly swatters across the land?”
Actually, I can. Right here. And it could easily pay for itself over time, because right in the middle of all those acres of carbon trapping flyswatters, I would put “bioreactors” that use sequestered carbon dioxide to grow algae.
Sounds crazy, but let me tell you why.
Two Australian firms have established a joint venture that intends to use emissions from coal power plants to grow algae that can be used as fuel.
Linc Energy and Bio Clean Coal announced the creation of the company last week and said they would spend $1 million over the next year to build a prototype bioreactor.
The bioreactor will be designed to grow algae, using the carbon dioxide produced from processing coal for electricity as “food.” That process should dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal, the company said.
The dried algae could be burned for power generation, turned into biodiesel or fertilizer, the company told GreenTech Media.
MIT rocket scientist Isaac Berzin thinks the idea is a winner, and has been working with algae to clean up MIT’s power plant emissions:
Fed a generous helping of CO2-laden emissions, courtesy of the power plant’s exhaust stack, the algae grow quickly even in the wan rays of a New England sun. The cleansed exhaust bubbles skyward, but with 40 percent less CO2 (a larger cut than the Kyoto treaty mandates) and another bonus: 86 percent less nitrous oxide.
After the CO2 is soaked up like a sponge, the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles. Berzin hands a visitor two vials – one with algal biodiesel, a clear, slightly yellowish liquid, the other with the dried green flakes that remained. Even that dried remnant can be further reprocessed to create ethanol, also used for transportation.
So let’s recap: these carbon dioxide scrubbers would clean the air of “excess” CO2, which could be used to grow vast amounts of algae, which could then be used to create biofuels, lessening our need for foreign oil and creating jobs in America plus fueling millions of cars which create more CO2, which could be trapped, fed to algae…you see where I’m going with this.
While I don’t subscribe to the idea that carbon dioxide is causing an increase in global temperatures, I can see how trapping carbon can be useful for America, and the world. However, it seems that the desire to transform American lifestyles may prevent some from seeing the possibilities created with this technology. When you are fighting a war against carbon, what does it mean when you refuse to accept a tool that reduces the amount by tons a day?
It means that to the enviro-mafia, reducing carbon isn’t as important as changing how you live.
