It is nice to develop a technology that can reduce the carbon content in the atmosphere; I have absolutely no problem with this part. However the researchers, according to the news article below, did not talk about their technology quantitatively. Does the machine big like a ship? Does it use as much energy as a city to capture just 1kg of carbon dioxide? They only talked about using sodium hydroxide; so how much NaOH is needed to run the machine? Does the production of NaOH release even more CO2 than the capture capacity of the chemical? As there is no free lunch in the world, what is the by-product or exhaust from this technology? Although this issue is not about the environment, cost of building such a machine is always an issue. All in all, building the technology is just a first step; there are many questions they need to address before talking about installing a machine in China!
Alberta researchers claim their machine removes CO2 from air
Actually, no machine is needed. Plants can to a better job and no waste will be created as side product.
回覆刪除P.S. Liberal also claimed that their green shift plan works too. If $10 per ton didn’t work for us, make it $100.
[版主回覆10/01/2008 01:41:00]Yes, millions years of evolution gives us something called plants! They are more reliable than those eye-soring machines.
Green shift plan, no wonder "green" also means $
"This technology isn't going to make energy any cheaper," "This technology is not going to make our local air quality any cleaner." So, what's the deal?
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/01/2008 01:34:00]This is just a technology that lowered the CO2 level in the atmosphere. As long as carbon tax does not have its way, the technology won't lower the energy cost.
The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is high for the environment but way too low to be considered as poisonous to our body. Thus CO2 has nothing to do with clean air.
係呀, 生產呢d 野既時候可能釋出的CO2比吸收的還要多. 例如生產NaOH時的NaCl 溶液電解就需要電能, 除了用可再生能源外, 電能不就是要靠燒呢樣燒o個樣產生的嗎?
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/02/2008 10:35:00]所以這些所謂解決方法真是要好似睇合同一樣好細心一個步驟一個步驟去看。