Global Warming Solution?

Question

What if we take/store/use the excess CO2 gases trapped in the atmosphere and somehow convert it to energy? If energy can be created from heat, is it hypothetically possible to do that?

Answer 1

Not reallly. The chemistry is wrong. CO2 is formed by combining carbon and oxygen to release energy--that's the whole pooint of burning fossil fuels. Thats called an "exothermic reaction (it produces more energy than is required to drive the chemical reaction).

But most reactions that use CO2 are endothermic--you have to put more energy in than you get out--not very helpful. There are chemical processes tha tuse CO2 and are exothermic--but none are practical on the massive scale needed to make a signifigant difference in the amount of COw2 in the atmosphere--and a lot of them produce toxic chemicals as a result.

What might work to get some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere is reforestation--growing a lot more trees. But it won't do any good if we don't cut CO2 emmissions.

Answer 2

First off, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Remember that from 5th grade science class? Other than that this is an excellent question, if there's global warming going on. Sure mainly the Democrats of the U.S. and even other members of NATO, etc. will tell you there is global warming going on. Sure, it's "technically" true.
But, what is forgotten is Earth searches for equillibrium. Earth is in a warmer period of time. 10,000-20,000 years ago, did man call it global cooling during the ice age?
What can humans use to store greenhouse gases and tranfer the heat to another form of energy? Meteorologists are finding that the average amount of cloud cover has increased slightly over the past 50 years. Coincidence with global warming? I think not. As we all should know from junior high (at the latest) science class, clouds act as a solar blanket (making it's own greenhouse effect) from the bases of the clouds down to the surface of the Earth. Pollutants are one culprit in contributing to the clouds. With more cloud cover being observed, temperatures are actually warmer than one would think. Since the clouds are apparent during the overnight hours, the surface temperature can't fall as quickly as it would with little to no cloud cover due to radiation (or lack thereof in this case). Once the sun rises, the surface temperature can still climb as with little or no clouds, just not as quickly. Solar energy would only work in those areas on the globe who receive a very high average of sun vs. "shade" ratio.
Wind turbines would be a great asset as well. The global warming guys will tell you that storms are going to be much worse over the next 50-100 years. If the storms are going to be worse, then that would lead to more wind being produced. Storms provide wind energy and wind turbines convert wind energy for commercial use? Good fit, right?
Then we get to water power. More storms, higher temperatures, icecaps melting, New York City and 1/4 of the Atlantic seaboard under water in the next 50 years, would reveal a hydroelectric gold mine. Fact is, it won't happen, as it's too costly and unfeasible.
What about harnessing lightning strikes? More storms, more lightning. That would be a cheap way to go as well.
In closing, my thoughts are to go with wind turbines first. They're cost-effective (considering the alternatives), plus they're low maintenance. Same goes with the lightning rods

Answer 3

It is not hypothetically possible because CO2 has a low chemical energy. It is impossible to create of destroy energy. It is only possible to convert energy from one form to another. In a fire, carbon and oxygen combine to make carbon dioxide and in the process convert some of the chemical energy to heat. Carbon and Oxygen atoms separately have more chemical energy that the combination of them in a carbon dioxide molecule. Then we use the heat to boil water to run a steam engine to make electricity.

Answer 4

It is interesting when people try to argue that the sun isn't responsible for global warming. It is like saying my heater isn't responsible for warming my house. The sun is obviously responsible for almost all of our weather. To assume that 100 part per million CO2 in the atmosphere is going to change the earth into a burning ball of fire (or even make it significantly warmer) is sophistry. Plants do what you suggest. That is one of the flaws in the global warming alarmists thinking. Extra CO2 will be used in plants and will be deposited in greater quantities in the ocean especially in warm water. It is a cycle that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. An interesting thing about Calcite (It has carbon in its structure) is that it is less soluble in warm water.

Answer 5

No. In order to create energy from heat you move heat from a hotter location to a colder one. Power plants are either located on water to dump the heat into, or have cooling towers to dump it into the air.

And you need a concentrated source of heat, not a widely spread out one.

Where could we move the heat? And wouldn't it cost way too much money?

Climatologists don't ignore the sun. It's included in all their analyses. Scientific data clearly shows the sun's share of global warming is only about 10% of the total.

Short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Longer:

The sun (or, in the case of Mars, giant dust storms) may be responsible for the other planets, but it's not the main cause of global warming on Earth.

Actual data shows it's not the suns radiation that's the major cause of global warming on Earth, it's us. Solar radiation is carefully measured. Climatologists include it in their analysis.

The results are in the report below. Increased solar radiation is 0.12 watts per meter squared. Man's warming is 1.6 watts per meter squared, more than ten times as much.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

What scientists think. Not from the "liberal" media.

""While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html

Answer 6

The answer is cooling the sun back down again. Its output has gone up .2% in the last 40 years and Mars and Pluto are warming down and Mars doesn't have SUV's.

Here's a 4 year old article that people ignore ...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html