Icelandic Scientists Use New Procedure To Turn Carbon Dioxide Back Into Stone - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0609/Scientists-turn-CO2-to-stone-in-just-two-years-a-solution-for-climate-change-video[/URL] [QUOTE]Nature can turn carbon dioxide into rock, but it takes thousands upon thousands of years. Scientists in Iceland may have just figured out how to do it in less than two. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) holds enormous potential to slow climate change, taking carbon dioxide gas out of the atmosphere and [URL="http://www.iea.org/topics/ccs/"]storing it underground[/URL] – in theory, anyway.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In a radical new approach, described Thursday in the journal Science, scientists mix carbon dioxide with water and then inject the slurry into basaltic rock, where it solidifies into veins. [B]In essence, the researchers managed to turn carbon dioxide into stone – and quickly.[/B][/QUOTE] Video included in the source.

in theory, if salt water proves to be as effective or only slightly inefficient when it comes to use for this process, the water hurdle could be dealt with. However, they're going to need to bring costs down for more companies to consider their use. That said, it's a very new technology and could be optimized over the next few years.

would storing this underground have any cons?

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50542281]would storing this underground have any cons?[/QUOTE] People could dig it up and burn it again? All the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently was originally in the ground, all they're doing is putting it back there.

It's good that we can do this, though I'd rather we just not dump a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere in the first place. Should enact a carbon tax and use the money to fund removing the carbon from the atmosphere, which also incentivises cleaner technology without having to directly subsidise it. If it costs $17 to store a ton, $150 to capture a ton then a good example would be applying a $1.67 tax per gallon of gasoline to cover the cost of removing the carbon it emits from the atmosphere. Not that it will ever happen though until it's too late to do anything about it.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50542341]It's good that we can do this, though I'd rather we just not dump a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere in the first place. Should enact a carbon tax and use the money to fund removing the carbon from the atmosphere, which also incentivises cleaner technology without having to directly subsidise it. If it costs $17 to store a ton, $150 to capture a ton then a good example would be applying a $1.67 tax per gallon of gasoline to cover the cost of removing the carbon it emits from the atmosphere. Not that it will ever happen though until it's too late to do anything about it.[/QUOTE] You'd piss too many people off by doing that, so yeah, chances are that won't happen

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50542356]You'd piss too many people off by doing that, so yeah, chances are that won't happen[/QUOTE] Not while politicians don't agree that climate change is real and a serious presidential candidate wants to take back the Paris commitment. Only Sanders even wanted to get serious on climate change and implement a carbon tax.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50542378]Not while politicians don't agree that climate change is real and a serious presidential candidate wants to take back the Paris commitment. Only Sanders even wanted to get serious on climate change and implement a carbon tax.[/QUOTE] A lot of people just don't like taxes in general, no matter the cause.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50542395]A lot of people just don't like taxes in general, no matter the cause.[/QUOTE] No one likes taxes, but they are necessary. Sometimes they are used to encourage better behaviour though. Sugar tax, alcohol tax, and tobacco tax for example.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50542408]No one likes taxes, but they are necessary. Sometimes they are used to encourage better behaviour though. Sugar tax, alcohol tax, and tobacco tax for example.[/QUOTE] The state has no business trying to encourage better behavior. Me eating sugar, smoking and drinking does not harm anyone else.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50542408]No one likes taxes, but they are necessary. Sometimes they are used to encourage better behaviour though. Sugar tax, alcohol tax, and tobacco tax for example.[/QUOTE] They are necessary, in some cases. But, trying to tax carbon would very likely end in needless drama and would probably never pass anyways. The amount of people who'll be against this will probably be much larger than we think, and the citizens aren't going to be changing their minds on this any time soon.

We can chuck the rocks at Mars and kickstart an atmosphere!

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50542439]The state has no business trying to encourage better behavior. Me eating sugar, smoking and drinking does not harm anyone else.[/QUOTE] Well, it certainly harms the state's economics when a chain smoker is hospitalized for lung cancer, or an obese person suffers a stroke or has Type-2 diabetes. Alcoholics can get fucked by liver failure, etc etc etc. See, the state has a vested interest in stemming the usage or excessive usage of it; the more people with ailments requires more trained medical personnel, and if you've looked into how there's a shortage of doctors in the US already, folk that are willing to bite the bullet for 8+ years of med school are in short supply. Along with that? There's just the cost of it all. Summing up the statistics from Harvard and CDC studies, both from lost production and direct medical care for X-caused incidents, we're looking at nearly 3/4ths of a trillion dollars (or 745 billion dollars) spent yearly to take care of people. So, yes. Excessive usage DOES hurt other people, and it hurts their bank, too. Thusly, to drive up costs, recoup losses by the state to take care of the ill, and hopefully stem usage, taxes are enacted. That's health taxation, baby.

[QUOTE=N.A.N.B;50542509]Well, it certainly harms the state's economics when a chain smoker is hospitalized for lung cancer, or an obese person suffers a stroke or has Type-2 diabetes. Alcoholics can get fucked by liver failure, etc etc etc. See, the state has a vested interest in stemming the usage or excessive usage of it; the more people with ailments requires more trained medical personnel, and if you've looked into how there's a shortage of doctors in the US already, folk that are willing to bite the bullet for 8+ years of med school are in short supply. Along with that? There's just the cost of it all. Summing up the statistics from Harvard and CDC studies, both from lost production and direct medical care for X-caused incidents, we're looking at nearly 3/4ths of a trillion dollars (or 745 billion dollars) spent yearly to take care of people. So, yes. Excessive usage DOES hurt other people, and it hurts their bank, too. Thusly, to drive up costs, recoup losses by the state to take care of the ill, and hopefully stem usage, taxes are enacted. That's health taxation, baby.[/QUOTE] The solution is clearly to let people take care of themselves through insurance, which can rise and lower premiums depending on risk factors.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50542439]The state has no business trying to encourage better behavior. Me eating sugar, smoking and drinking does not harm anyone else.[/QUOTE] Secondhand smoking?

[QUOTE=Morgen;50542341]It's good that we can do this, though I'd rather we just not dump a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere in the first place. Should enact a carbon tax and use the money to fund removing the carbon from the atmosphere, which also incentivises cleaner technology without having to directly subsidise it. If it costs $17 to store a ton, $150 to capture a ton then a good example would be applying a $1.67 tax per gallon of gasoline to cover the cost of removing the carbon it emits from the atmosphere. Not that it will ever happen though until it's too late to do anything about it.[/QUOTE] Such a hike on gas would make it extremely hard for the poor that live paycheck to paycheck.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50542483]They are necessary, in some cases. But, trying to tax carbon would very likely end in needless drama and would probably never pass anyways. The amount of people who'll be against this will probably be much larger than we think, and the citizens aren't going to be changing their minds on this any time soon.[/QUOTE] "needless drama" sure, if you don't think we need to avert the destruction of the our living space. "probably would never pass anyways" as long as people who know better maintain such a defeatist attitude, certainly. "the citizens" can change their mind very rapidly with the right charisma and fragility public opinion, which i think is present considering the current election. We could reach a point where oil/coal propaganda actually starts working against themselves.

d

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50542549]Such a hike on gas would make it extremely hard for the poor that live paycheck to paycheck.[/QUOTE] Exactly, I wouldn't be able to fucking make it to work because the car I own has shit gas efficiency. And telling me "just get a more gas efficient vehicle" doesn't do shit for me. Taxes like that don't discourage use, they fuck over the poor more than anything. The major carbon offenders are just going to pass off the expense to those that can't afford it and keep the same usage.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50542774]Literal purpose of a state and government is to encourage and enforce "better behavior"[/QUOTE] No, it is not. It is to protect people and property from violence, if even that. By that logic we should be taxing being mean.

d

[QUOTE=Zyler;50542254][URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0609/Scientists-turn-CO2-to-stone-in-just-two-years-a-solution-for-climate-change-video[/URL] Video included in the source.[/QUOTE] Really cool tech but unfortunately uses 25 tonnes of water per ton of CO2. Seeing how we produce several milliards tons of co2 per year the infrastructure for this alone would be humungous

[QUOTE=Octavius;50542843]Is protecting people and property not an enforcement of a "better behavior"?[/QUOTE] No, it is an enforcement of property rights.

[QUOTE=Dalto11;50542800]Exactly, I wouldn't be able to fucking make it to work because the car I own has shit gas efficiency. And telling me "just get a more gas efficient vehicle" doesn't do shit for me. Taxes like that don't discourage use, they fuck over the poor more than anything. The major carbon offenders are just going to pass off the expense to those that can't afford it and keep the same usage.[/QUOTE] Easy solution. Just ramp it up over say 5 or 10 years and cut another tax to maintain about equal revenue at the same time. As people move over to cleaner stuff and we see significant drops in carbon usage then bring the lowered tax back up. So it gets more and more expensive every year to run your shit efficiency car but your other costs go down. [QUOTE=AlienCreature;50543061]No, it is an enforcement of property rights.[/QUOTE] People might feel like property rights are being infringed when their house gets destroyed by extreme weather. Or doesn't that count even though the more shit we dump in the atmosphere the worse climate change gets and the more frequent and more extreme weather events get? It's no business of the state to encourage saving the world? Climate change if left long enough will wipe out entire countries and displace billions of people. [editline]18th June 2016[/editline] Maybe your argument against other taxes is okay because they don't really hurt other people directly. But dumping shit into the atmosphere DOES hurt other people.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50543061]No, it is an enforcement of property rights.[/QUOTE] Literally millions of people already are fighting the problems of rising sea levels, overfishing, droughts and desertification, what about their property rights?

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50542439]The state has no business trying to encourage better behavior. Me eating sugar, smoking and drinking does not harm anyone else.[/QUOTE] It harms the tax funded national health system when you go to hospital.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50542439]The state has no business trying to encourage better behavior. Me eating sugar, smoking and drinking does not harm anyone else.[/QUOTE] Except your bad health choices might suck for someone who needs to use the hospital [editline]18th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Badballer;50543251]It harms the tax funded national health system when you go to hospital.[/QUOTE] Not just tax funded

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50543061]No, it is an enforcement of property rights.[/QUOTE] i hope you don't actually believe a governments only job is to enforce property rights.

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50543061]No, it is an enforcement of property rights.[/QUOTE] Now you're just being stubborn.

-snip got too mad-