Link
[quote]the brief is to devise a system to remove a "significant amount" of greenhouse gases – equivalent to 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or more – every year from the atmosphere for at least a decade.
...
There are also a few catches in the prize's fine print. The winner will initially only be give $5 million, with the remaining $20 million being paid "at the end of 10 years if the judges decide that the goals set out have been achieved". And the conditions include that the removal must have long term effects, "measured over, say, 1000 years", but gives no indication of how this will be assessed.[/quote]

I was day dreaming about a method to do somthing like this about a month ago, and was supprised what a prize was announced :P
But isnt the figgers just wishfull thinking?
If 0.04% of the planets atmosphere is CO² and 1 billion tons needs to be removed per-year, thats somthing like 81,278 tons of atmosphere per-second needing to go through a filtration system, with 100% CO² removal rate (32tons of CO² per-second)??
Im not sure if I have done the math right, but isnt that about 61.3 million cubic meters of sea level amosphere (24,000 m³ of CO²) per-second?
Can somone verify the math? :P

I was reading at wikipedia that the amazon rainforest stores 0.62 ± 0.37 tons of carbon per hectare per year.
Im not sure what ± means, so im not sure exacly how many tons it is, but how many hectare's of rainforest would need to be planted to absorb 1 billion tons of carbon?

One of the idea's I had was genetically modified tree's that can convert much more carbon into biomass faster than anything to we know of today.
But I gave up on that idea for a coastal cliff wind funnel, where 2 mountins close together, force air from the ocean into a narrow valley, where a funnel like structure could force the air into a tube, and then into filtration system.
But even that I cant see handling 61 million m³of atmosphere per-second.
Maybe dry-ice is an option?

What are your views and ideas?

± = Plus or Minus. it's the margin of error, and it's pretty damn high. 0.62 ± 0.37 means it could be anywhere from 0.99 to 0.25.

Throughout history, man has hired man to solve problems. Money seems to be the big motivator for getting things done. Why? Hell if I know, I hate the stuff. The problem is, if they fail, there might not be much time to spend the money, since the estimate is 50 years until the next ice age, should certain parts of the ice caps melt or collapse.

My own view (which everyone is going to insult me for) is that we've already fucked up enough as is, and the weak should just die off because of it. Russia will probably survive, since they're used to the cold, unless the water level rises above their height, which isn't too likely. This is, of course, assuming that the estimates aren't propagandistic bullshit.

Also, some things.. such as Seaweed, might already filter that much air per second, and if we just stop putting CO² into the air, the plants may clean it up for us. It's not just removal you have to think about, it's prevention... the removal may follow on its own.

[quote author=[RealityRipple] link=topic=16297.msg164581#msg164581 date=1171234002]
± = Plus or Minus. it's the margin of error, and it's pretty damn high. 0.62 ± 0.37 means it could be anywhere from 0.99 to 0.25.

Throughout history, man has hired man to solve problems. Money seems to be the big motivator for getting things done. Why? Hell if I know, I hate the stuff. The problem is, if they fail, there might not be much time to spend the money, since the estimate is 50 years until the next ice age, should certain parts of the ice caps melt or collapse.

My own view (which everyone is going to insult me for) is that we've already fucked up enough as is, and the weak should just die off because of it. Russia will probably survive, since they're used to the cold, unless the water level rises above their height, which isn't too likely. This is, of course, assuming that the estimates aren't propagandistic bullshit.
[/quote]
Damn, thats still 1 - 4 billion hectare's of fully developed rainforest lol :P

50 years until the next ice age? :P where did you read that.

It was in Gore's movie, which my sister won't shut up about (still haven't seen it). Like I mentioned... PROPAGANDA. The question is how accurate the propaganda is.

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16297.msg164584#msg164584 date=1171234829]
[quote author=[RealityRipple] link=topic=16297.msg164581#msg164581 date=1171234002]
± = Plus or Minus. it's the margin of error, and it's pretty damn high. 0.62 ± 0.37 means it could be anywhere from 0.99 to 0.25.

Throughout history, man has hired man to solve problems. Money seems to be the big motivator for getting things done. Why? Hell if I know, I hate the stuff. The problem is, if they fail, there might not be much time to spend the money, since the estimate is 50 years until the next ice age, should certain parts of the ice caps melt or collapse.

My own view (which everyone is going to insult me for) is that we've already fucked up enough as is, and the weak should just die off because of it. Russia will probably survive, since they're used to the cold, unless the water level rises above their height, which isn't too likely. This is, of course, assuming that the estimates aren't propagandistic bullshit.
[/quote]
Damn, thats still 1 - 4 billion hectare's of fully developed rainforest lol :P

50 years until the next ice age? :P where did you read that.
[/quote]

I'm actually taking an archaeology class right now, and according to my Professor (as well as the rest of the department), we're in an interglacial period and are due for glaciation some time soon.

Well isn't that nice... maybe it isn't all that wrong then. According to the theory, if Greenland or some other places melt and the water level rises by like... 200 feet... another ice age will start. I have no idea what the specifics are, but ya...

Mmm, of course we're due for an glaciation!
Just like we're due for a multitude of other things; volcanoes, meteors, gamma ray bursts, freak tidal waves, etc.
On the case of global warming an an ice-age. If I remember accurately from AIT, we've passed the so called "point-of-no-return" and now the ice caps are just melting faster and faster from the water absorbing heat, the heat melting the ice caps in turn leaving more water to be heated. ( And so on and so forth. )

Well, I cant see an ice age happening in are life time apart from in movies like "The day after tomorow" where the iceage comes and goes overnight and clears the atmosphere from greenhouse gas's :P
Altho if we are coming up to that part of the cycle, the ice is going to have alot to over come :)
Global warming is becoming more and more evident, we can safely say that, but lets hear some greenhouse gas removal ideas, and views on Branson's prize :P

I was thinking abit more about the wind funnle idea, and I think you would need a 1173² (3/4 of a mile wide) square meter tunnle, with sea level atmosphere presure air moving through it at 100 miles-per-hour.
If my math is right, I cant see this with in reassion.
Is this Branson's way of saying "hey look at me, im green" why thinking *And my $25million is safe to*? :P
I think Branson has said he wont ground virgin airlines because that just make space for his competitors, so by pileing his profits into projects like this, will do more in the long run at fighting global warming.

[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16297.msg164696#msg164696 date=1171337215]
I was thinking abit more about the wind funnle idea, and I think you would need a 1173² (3/4 of a mile wide) square meter tunnle, with sea level atmosphere presure air moving through it at 100 miles-per-hour.
[/quote]

Wtf? You're supposed to say "metre" and use kilometers-per-hour. :-/

[quote author=brew link=topic=16297.msg166094#msg166094 date=1172787160]
[quote author=Ringo link=topic=16297.msg164696#msg164696 date=1171337215]
I was thinking abit more about the wind funnle idea, and I think you would need a 1173² (3/4 of a mile wide) square meter tunnle, with sea level atmosphere presure air moving through it at 100 miles-per-hour.
[/quote]

Wtf? You're supposed to say "metre" and use kilometers-per-hour. :-/
[/quote]
No, Clicky
For a ton, I used 907kg. :) (I think thats a short ton -- non-metric?)

but.. you're european...