Re:Science is obsolete (Score 0)

Let's see if science is obsolete.

Title: Methodologies for carbon capture and CO2 reduction within national domains and marine environments.

Part I - Generator in a Greenhouse (GENGH)

A methodology for producing stable sustainable electrical power into
the future. Move the CO2 from the smokestack/tailpipe to the greenhouse. Tricky,
I know. Clarkson tried and failed.

At the time of writing there are no viable large scale CCS or carbon capture storage
schemes anywhere on the planet. Well there is a serious proposal now.

It is envisaged there will be set of greenhouses (1km sq each) which each hold generators with a
base loading of 4 mega watt operating 24hours-365days. These might reach to 8 meg per sq km
eventually. Is the capital cost/return better than PV or windmills? Yes. This process also
will extract more energy per sq meter than PV or windmills? Yes. It will be of a lower cost.
Yes, after all its only glass, not those expensive photovoltaics. A gas tight greenhouse
should be a much cheaper to build.

In a greenhouse that is gas tight CO2, H20, water and heat are trapped
within its confines. It is an artificial environment that naturally
encourages plants to do their thing. This technique is ideal for desert
regions because of the water control element. Brownfields, contaminated
sites could be cleansed, with the correct ash cleaning, etc. These can be wandering
structures. You could greenify a desert or clean a site of toxins.

Temperature control - fundamental. (HEP)
The first level of thermal control is insulation. Prevent heat escaping until
you want it to escape or be stored in the ground.
A set of heat exchange pipeworks (HEP) are placed into the ground.
In cooling mode (summer) these carry warm/hot water to store the heat into the colder ground.
In heating mode (winter) these carry cold water to extract the stored heat.
So cooling at daily highs and warming at nightly lows is possible. And 1 km of ground
and water provides a lot of thermal reserve. Extra cooling facilities maybe needed.

The nature or type of HEP used depends if it is a permanent installation or not.
The ability and type of cooling engaged depends on the GH's location. Heat transmission
pipes can be placed permanently underground or not. This can be done in phases.
These pipes need to coupled with heat exchange units. These are fridges or heatpumps to you and me
that use gasses trapped in pipes to move heat energy about. Change/reverse the action of the fridge
when you need to heat or cool the GH.

Speed of growth - You can almost see it grow.
This is a description given to some plants seen in warm jungle conditions.
Each GH should be producing the correct amount of greenery or more (redundancy/contingency)
to soak up its daily CO2 load for national grid needs. With luck you really could see them grow,
as the CO2 level will be higher than any open air jungle.

No precondition on the plant type, apart from avoiding genetically modified plants.
Since most plants will have not experienced a environment like this,
we do not know which will respond well. All manner of variations will need to be tested.

One of the GENGH sub functions will be as plant nursery. That provides a
stream of maturing plants to replace those just harvested. It just an efficient use of space, iinit.

Photosynthetic efficiency (dark versus light reactions)
This is not a completely answered question. There is some real science to be done.

The photosynthetic process has a light driven reaction and a dark or thermally driven
reaction. If a plant is above a critical temperature (9c?) it will photosynthesise.
If it is below it, it won't. No matter how much water CO2 and light you give it.
The exact energy contribution of each reaction mode is not known.

Light (daylight) is not the usually limiting factor to plant growth,
but warmth, water, CO2 and nutrients are. If you increase the warmth and CO2 then they will grow faster.
Within certain biological limits that is. We do know it takes a lot of the sun's energy to
warm things up. At high temp, CO2 conditions, the light level may finally be the limiting
factor. This could be used the to answer energy the contribution provided by both reactions.
The answer to this question impacts the efficency of the GENGH project. If the dark reaction supplies
most the energy to the photosynthetic process then under the right circumstances can it
actually cool the gh. Sucking up the thermal energy to grow.

Light efficiency - Keeping the LEDs on at night, why?
There are already food product GHs that employ highly efficient blue red LED lighting
systems during the hours of darkness. These are tuned to wavelengths the plants seem to
want. As long as there is enough (cheap) warmth it will more effective to keep the lights
on at night. This soaks up the daily backlog of CO2 held captive in the GH. As long
the plants are warm enough they will photosynthesise.

Plants need a rest too
Plants need a break too. Slight cooling before 1 hours total darkness (1am?).
Keeping the plants at the correct temperature is key to the
smooth CO2 uptake allowing power delivery. You can imagine 200 mega GHs,
reaching a AM low CO2 on their daily cycle to prepare for the AM power surge.

Daily photosynthesising hours
GENGH 23
Outside 11 Note: Average from the year minus the daily warm up time. This a complete guess.

Size matters.
The GH has to be of a size that it contains/dilutes the CO2 level
and heat of combustion released within its confines to a biologically sustainable
level. Be that five times or one hundred times atmospheric CO2 levels.
It might need to be 20-40 meters high, to give it the correct/necessary
operating volume. Thus enabling it to cope with a daily power surge(s).

Why an eyesore?
The GH built should fit sympathically in its environment. And not be of size to
be an impediment to the local flora and fauna. A hundred kilometre long biological
barrier is not a good idea. There should clear breaks/paths for the unimpeded movement of
other species. A 0.5km break every after 1 km.

Two options for plant material use:

1. Dried plant material fed direct to standard furnace inside the GH, producing steam from water
for a turbine driving the generator. (Inefficient? Cheaper? Stage one of commissioning?)
Fly ash?

2. Dried plant material fed to a vacuum thermolysis device (VTD - possibly with H2 enrichment)
e.g. complex woody molecules get broken into simpler compounds. Which are then stored for later use
within a gas turbine. The hot exhaust from the gas turbine is used to provide the
heat in the VTD.

The fly ash (usually non-toxic metal oxides) generated would normally just be returned to the soil.
If there are pollution concerns, the fly ash should/could be treated before
returning to the soil. The methodology needed for each pollutant type will vary. (arsenic anybody?)

There is no reason not to combust other suitable waste (plastics - see oxygen burning below)
materials. The trick is to force its complete combustion.

VTD - Vacuum thermolysis device (400-800c operating temperature - take advice.)
The technical challenges are formidable. It must handle dried combustible powdered plant
material SAFELY at 12kg/sec (a guess), with absolutely no oxygen allowed. It must separate off the fly ash
from distillates that are collected. Crucially it must possible to feed plant fuel/material (slightly wet)
semi-continuously into a (partial?- nitrogen?- H2?) vacuum. It must dry it then cook it, sorry thermolysis it
and capture the gases released.

Unless cropping proves more effective it is likely the whole plant including the root will be
utilised. Which increases the energy output. Compared to a crop producing greenhouse which throws
away the rest of the plant.

More Ancient Top Gear Stuff.
Exactly what the all distillates will used for, has yet to be decided. Petrol heads.
Jeremy was piteously close to being right for once, when he towed that GH behind
his range rover. And Richard it's not 2 square miles of greenhouse anymore, its
0.4 miles, ish. Jeremy's ego could probably tow that.

Social
People can live in these heated environments. Excess heat can be piped to 'needy' locations nearby.
(Think Battersea power station). e.g. Reuse of existing brownfield sites within city and town environments
would be advantageous. It is closer to where the power will be used. Lower transmission losses.
A potential indoor warm environment for activities within a city, just needs some asking and planning.

Soil Health - humus (decaying plant matter)
Various essential plant nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, potassium, sulphur etc,
must be monitored if one seeks optimal plant growth. Putting the ash back, helps. Ask a farmer.
Unfortunately, in most jungles the soil appears threadbare of humus. In a temperate zone the
average temperature stays low enough through out the year, that all not the dead plant material gets consumed.
So it accumulates. If temperate zone soil is trapped in a high temperature GH, it may gas out its stored
humus as CO2. The bacterial, fungal growth rates may explode. This (GEN IN GH) technique is probably best used
on humus thin soils at slightly higher altitudes (cooler). It is possible import humus materials as needed into
the GH. This should make up for any stolen by the petrol heads.

Pontoons at Sea?
A 1km square floating GENGH pontoon for extracting algae and converting it into distillates or dry powder.
Situated 10-20km off the coast. Power delivered by wire just like windmills.
However the capital cost (think CO2 cost) of these floating islands is likely to be much higher.
The cost of energy extraction might eventually beat windmills. On land however...
The case is clear. GH's should win hands down.

Honey I shrunk Kielder Forest
https://www.chroniclelive.co.u...

A well documented "green" attempt was by made Drax? a UK company, which imported(s) about 300,000
tonnes a year of wood chips from the americas for use in a duel fuel system. Wood was substituted
for coal or oil or whatever to claim there was less carbon used, and thus a green subsidy might be paid.
Oh and many jobs were promised.

The amount of wood used, was/is the equivalent to the felling of Kielder Forest, yearly.
The problem with this approach is:
a) Kielder Forest is quite nice. Most of like it as it is.
b) It will take more than a year to recover after being chopped. Doh.
c) There was energy wasted in transporting wood from the USA. Doh.
d) The CO2 is still released. Doh. Doh. Doh. (Soo sustainable.)

Plants grow eight (8) ? times faster in a GH under the correct
conditions. If you are not sure ask a biologist or a horticulturist.
Thus shrinking the land area usage to an eighth or less. I have no idea
how many jobs will be created in the construction or operational phases of the ghs
That depends on the level of automation designed in. That is a political choice.
Factoring in the extra hours of light gives a potential growth rate 16 times
higher than normal. All aspects of GENGH should be monitored automatically to provide feedback
for systematic improvements.

Distributed small local GENGHs have the advantage of relocalising power supplies.
Or at least de-monolithising it. And it captures carbon dioxide.

Political
There will be a rush of private companies which will cause land
and glass prices to soar uselessly. It will need government planning and
regulation to stop the gold rush effect. Because as we have found with windmills
any idiot can do it, if they command the resources. I have second hand
windmill, I can sell you. To be fair windmills can coexist with
greenhouses.

Starting to develope/cultivate the skill sets in these areas might pay dividends.

Ask these guys: http://www.thanetearth.com/ They even generate electricity.

Part II - Oxygen enriched (internal or external) combustion

High density living pollution, diesel particulates ,nitrogen oxides
Combustion using pure(er) oxygen. Why? Because things burn better in pure oxygen, even diamond.
At 100% O2 there is no nitrogen, so there would be no nitrous oxides products to worry about,
except what is in the fuel reactant. Under most circumstances the amount of
O2 far exceeds that of the fuel, which ensures it is completely consumed to
100% C02. Incomplete combustion of carbon based fuels gives rise to the
classic petrochemical smog bedevilling a lot major cities. It also causes
the diesel particulates which would be reduced or potentially (testing please) eliminated.
This is highly compounded by vehicles sitting in traffic queues, where the engine is
required to operate very inefficiently. This would be 'fixed' by 100% 02 input
where 100% use of the fuel product should occur. It is thermodynamically more efficient
as a higher combustion temperature is obtained. Shock. And there may be more power.
A negative is your catalyser in now useless.

It also provides a safer methodology for destroying single use plastics. (Done the correct way.
Pulverise it and stick in the thermalyser, then burn with high 02)

A large freight ship needs about 3kg of oxygen per second. Modern
oxygen distillation systems can cope/ be engineered (safely) to meet
this challenge. There is a capital cost. But also huge savings.

What the fuel/CO2 saving might be? All non aviation forms of transport,
using internal combustion might save 30% (a guess) on fuel costs. That is
shipping, freight, trains, energy generation and personal transport or anywhere
a fuel is burned for power. The cost of adding this technology to
various engines depends. Will it pay for itself? In CO2 pollution reduction
terms alone. Yes. In purely capitalistic notions of return of costs.
Even more so.

Kinetic Energy
If one considers the proposed freight shipping speed limit of 15 knots (? Good. Remember
that the kinetic energy is half M times V SQUARED, guys. That's a 25% saving right there)
and the use of 100% oxygen, there is potential for a 50% reduction in shipping fuel use
on the table right now. With a commensurate reduction in CO2 output from human use.
A customer might complain that it takes three days longer to ship, but paying 50% less due to
improved fuel use is a commercial winner.

It is recognised that the design of the current generation of engines may force
the use of some atmospheric air. e.g. 100% oxygen combustion may not possible
without engine replacement. However, just being able to run at 40% O2 should
tidy up a lot of older engine's dirtiness. A lot of older diesels could be unscrapped.
Their engine management software will have to be upgraded to understand the new O2
levels.

It is a pity that the VW diesel engineers wasted their time innovating how to cheat
the emission test, instead of researching and perfecting a safe micro liquid oyxgen still.

Oxygen distillation Micro (still)
You probably only need 8-10 peltier coolers and 1m pipe length with a series of folds (20 cm).
The liquid 02 gathers in the final fold for use. The chilled de-oxygenated air is directed back over
the hot side of the peltiers to expel their heat. With suitable insulation, it might fit in a 30cm
by 30cm box. And there is the standard gas expansion cooling O2 condensation process.
Active distillation of 02 should be safer in the case of accidents. The volume of liquid 02 stored is small.
Just enough produced to meet with demand. A small delay in starting might be needed.

A culture of engineering innovation has been killed by something. Is it short termism?
So that big risks must be avoided for this quarter's return? Bonuses? Secrecy?

I am sure there will be a lot of safe conversion kits, even for petrol engines.
Inner city air pollution could drop considerably. A guess. But it should.

With the two technologies explored above; Gen in GH and Oxygen Enrichment (GENGH, OE), there
is a potential drop of 40% in human related CO2 output across the planet.
And it is probably doable within 10-15 years.

I repeat: Starting to develope/cultivate the skill sets in these areas might pay huge dividends.

My sincere apologies to all, for NOT saying this out loud, ten, fifteen years ago.
The only new to come along in the last fifteen years are cheap growth LED lights.

Oh I forgot, then there is the Cloud Chimney. Anyone? 2km high, 300m wide spewing
water vapour collected from the Atlantic ocean. Creating thick storm clouds on the
west coast of Africa. Water vapour (18g/mole) being much less dense than dry air (28.5g/mole)
should make it gush. Bring a raincoat hopefully.

My son instantly pointed out the first Cloud Chimney would be built on the California
coast where the money is. Will he be right?

Regards

L Palmer 2/4/2018 - 6/4/2018

https://apnews.com/bb14d1bf3a6...
https://www.economist.com/news...

These are the low hanging fruit of CO2 reduction.

Part I - Generator in a Greenhouse (GENGH)

A methodology for producing stable sustainable electrical power into
the future. Move the CO2 from the smokestack/tailpipe to the greenhouse.

At the time of writing there are no viable large scale CCS or carbon capture storage
schemes anywhere on the planet. Well there is a serious proposal now.

It is envisaged there will be set of greenhouses (1km sq each) which each hold generators with a
base loading of 4 mega watt operating 24hours-365days. These might reach to 8 meg per sq km
eventually. Is the capital cost/return better than PV or windmills? Yes. This process also
will extract more energy per sq meter than PV or windmills? Yes. It will be of a lower cost.
Yes, after all its only glass, not those expensive photovoltaics. A gas tight greenhouse
should be a much cheaper to build.

In a greenhouse that is gas tight CO2, H20, water and heat are trapped
within its confines. It is an artificial environment that naturally
encourages plants to do their thing. This technique is ideal for desert
regions because of the water control element. Brownfields, contaminated
sites could be cleansed, with the correct ash cleaning, etc. These can be wandering
structures. You could greenify a desert or clean a site of toxins.

Temperature control - fundamental. (HEP)
The first level of thermal control is insulation. Prevent heat escaping until
you want it to escape or be stored in the ground.
A set of heat exchange pipeworks (HEP) are placed into the ground.
In cooling mode (summer) these carry warm/hot water to store the heat into the colder ground.
In heating mode (winter) these carry cold water to extract the stored heat.
So cooling at daily highs and warming at nightly lows is possible. And 1 km of ground
and water provides a lot of thermal reserve. Extra cooling facilities maybe needed.

The nature or type of HEP used depends if it is a permanent installation or not.
The ability and type of cooling engaged depends on the GH's location. Heat transmission
pipes can be placed permanently underground or not. This can be done in phases.
These pipes need to coupled with heat exchange units. These are fridges or heatpumps to you and me
that use gasses trapped in pipes to move heat energy about. Change/reverse the action of the fridge
when you need to heat or cool the GH.

Speed of growth - You can almost see it grow.
This is a description given to some plants seen in warm jungle conditions.
Each GH should be producing the correct amount of greenery or more (redundancy/contingency)
to soak up its daily CO2 load for national grid needs. With luck you really could see them grow,
as the CO2 level will be higher than any open air jungle.

No precondition on the plant type, apart from avoiding genetically modified plants.
Since most plants will have not experienced a environment like this,
we do not know which will respond well. All manner of variations will need to be tested.

One of the GENGH sub functions will be as plant nursery. That provides a
stream of maturing plants to replace those just harvested. It just an efficient use of space, iinit.

Photosynthetic efficiency (dark versus light reactions)
This is not a completely answered question. There is some real science to be done.

The photosynthetic process has a light driven reaction and a dark or thermally driven
reaction. If a plant is above a critical temperature (9c?) it will photosynthesise.
If it is below it, it won't. No matter how much water CO2 and light you give it.
The exact energy contribution of each reaction mode is not known.

Light (daylight) is not the usually limiting factor to plant growth,
but warmth, water, CO2 and nutrients are. If you increase the warmth and CO2 then they will grow faster.
Within certain biological limits that is. We do know it takes a lot of the sun's energy to
warm things up. At high temp, CO2 conditions, the light level may finally be the limiting
factor. This could be used the to answer energy the contribution provided by both reactions.
The answer to this question impacts the efficency of the GENGH project. If the dark reaction supplies
most the energy to the photosynthetic process then under the right circumstances can it
actually cool the gh. Sucking up the thermal energy to grow.

Light efficiency - Keeping the LEDs on at night, why?
There are already food product GHs that employ highly efficient blue red LED lighting
systems during the hours of darkness. These are tuned to wavelengths the plants seem to
want. As long as there is enough (cheap) warmth it will more effective to keep the lights
on at night. This soaks up the daily backlog of CO2 held captive in the GH. As long
the plants are warm enough they will photosynthesise.

Plants need a rest too
Plants need a break too. Slight cooling before 1 hours total darkness (1am?).
Keeping the plants at the correct temperature is key to the
smooth CO2 uptake allowing power delivery. You can imagine 200 mega GHs,
reaching a AM low CO2 on their daily cycle to prepare for the AM power surge.

Daily photosynthesising hours
GENGH 23
Outside 11 Note: Average from the year minus the daily warm up time. This a complete guess.

Size matters.
The GH has to be of a size that it contains/dilutes the CO2 level
and heat of combustion released within its confines to a biologically sustainable
level. Be that five times or one hundred times atmospheric CO2 levels.
It might need to be 20-40 meters high, to give it the correct/necessary
operating volume. Thus enabling it to cope with a daily power surge(s).

Why an eyesore?
The GH built should fit sympathically in its environment. And not be of size to
be an impediment to the local flora and fauna. A hundred kilometre long biological
barrier is not a good idea. There should clear breaks/paths for the unimpeded movement of
other species. A 0.5km break every after 1 km.

Two options for plant material use:

1. Dried plant material fed direct to standard furnace inside the GH, producing steam from water
for a turbine driving the generator. (Inefficient? Cheaper? Stage one of commissioning?)
Fly ash?

2. Dried plant material fed to a vacuum thermolysis device (VTD - possibly with H2 enrichment)
e.g. complex woody molecules get broken into simpler compounds. Which are then stored for later use
within a gas turbine. The hot exhaust from the gas turbine is used to provide the
heat in the VTD.

The fly ash (usually non-toxic metal oxides) generated would normally just be returned to the soil.
If there are pollution concerns, the fly ash should/could be treated before
returning to the soil. The methodology needed for each pollutant type will vary. (arsenic anybody?)

There is no reason not to combust other suitable waste (plastics - see oxygen burning below)
materials. The trick is to force its complete combustion.

VTD - Vacuum thermolysis device (400-800c operating temperature - take advice.)
The technical challenges are formidable. It must handle dried combustible powdered plant
material SAFELY at 12kg/sec (a guess), with absolutely no oxygen allowed. It must separate off the fly ash
from distillates that are collected. Crucially it must possible to feed plant fuel/material (slightly wet)
semi-continuously into a (partial?- nitrogen?- H2?) vacuum. It must dry it then cook it, sorry thermolysis it
and capture the gases released.

Unless cropping proves more effective it is likely the whole plant including the root will be
utilised. Which increases the energy output. Compared to a crop producing greenhouse which throws
away the rest of the plant.

More Ancient Top Gear Stuff.
Exactly what the all distillates will used for, has yet to be decided. Petrol heads.
Jeremy was piteously close to being right for once, when he towed that GH behind
his range rover. And Richard it's not 2 square miles of greenhouse anymore, its
0.4 miles, ish. Jeremy's ego could probably tow that.

Social
People can live in these heated environments. Excess heat can be piped to 'needy' locations nearby.
(Think Battersea power station). e.g. Reuse of existing brownfield sites within city and town environments
would be advantageous. It is closer to where the power will be used. Lower transmission losses.
A potential indoor warm environment for activities within a city, just needs some asking and planning.

Soil Health - humus (decaying plant matter)
Various essential plant nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, potassium, sulphur etc,
must be monitored if one seeks optimal plant growth. Putting the ash back, helps. Ask a farmer.
Unfortunately, in most jungles the soil appears threadbare of humus. In a temperate zone the
average temperature stays low enough through out the year, that all not the dead plant material gets consumed.
So it accumulates. If temperate zone soil is trapped in a high temperature GH, it may gas out its stored
humus as CO2. The bacterial, fungal growth rates may explode. This (GEN IN GH) technique is probably best used
on humus thin soils at slightly higher altitudes (cooler). It is possible import humus materials as needed into
the GH. This should make up for any stolen by the petrol heads.

Pontoons at Sea?
A 1km square floating GENGH pontoon for extracting algae and converting it into distillates or dry powder.
Situated 10-20km off the coast. Power delivered by wire just like windmills.
However the capital cost (think CO2 cost) of these floating islands is likely to be much higher.
The cost of energy extraction might eventually beat windmills. On land however...
The case is clear. GH's should win hands down.

Honey I shrunk Kielder Forest
https://www.chroniclelive.co.u...

A well documented "green" attempt was by made Drax? a UK company, which imported(s) about 300,000
tonnes a year of wood chips from the americas for use in a duel fuel system. Wood was substituted
for coal or oil or whatever to claim there was less carbon used, and thus a green subsidy might be paid.
Oh and many jobs were promised.

The amount of wood used, was/is the equivalent to the felling of Kielder Forest, yearly.
The problem with this approach is:
a) Kielder Forest is quite nice. Most of like it as it is.
b) It will take more than a year to recover after being chopped. Doh.
c) There was energy wasted in transporting wood from the USA. Doh.
d) The CO2 is still released. Doh. Doh. Doh. (Soo sustainable.)

Plants grow eight (8) ? times faster in a GH under the correct
conditions. If you are not sure ask a biologist or a horticulturist.
Thus shrinking the land area usage to an eighth or less. I have no idea
how many jobs will be created in the construction or operational phases of the ghs
That depends on the level of automation designed in. That is a political choice.
Factoring in the extra hours of light gives a potential growth rate 16 times
higher than normal. All aspects of GENGH should be monitored automatically to provide feedback
for systematic improvements.

Distributed small local GENGHs have the advantage of relocalising power supplies.
Or at least de-monolithising it. And it captures carbon dioxide.

Political
There will be a rush of private companies which will cause land
and glass prices to soar uselessly. It will need government planning and
regulation to stop the gold rush effect. Because as we have found with windmills
any idiot can do it, if they command the resources. I have second hand
windmill, I can sell you. To be fair windmills can coexist with
greenhouses.

Starting to develope/cultivate the skill sets in these areas might pay dividends.

Ask these guys: http://www.thanetearth.com/ They even generate electricity.

Part II - Oxygen enriched (internal or external) combustion

High density living pollution, diesel particulates ,nitrogen oxides
Combustion using pure(er) oxygen. Why? Because things burn better in pure oxygen, even diamond.
At 100% O2 there is no nitrogen, so there would be no nitrous oxides products to worry about,
except what is in the fuel reactant. Under most circumstances the amount of
O2 far exceeds that of the fuel, which ensures it is completely consumed to
100% C02. Incomplete combustion of carbon based fuels gives rise to the
classic petrochemical smog bedevilling a lot major cities. It also causes
the diesel particulates which would be reduced or potentially (testing please) eliminated.
This is highly compounded by vehicles sitting in traffic queues, where the engine is
required to operate very inefficiently. This would be 'fixed' by 100% 02 input
where 100% use of the fuel product should occur. It is thermodynamically more efficient
as a higher combustion temperature is obtained. Shock. And there may be more power.
A negative is your catalyser in now useless.

It also provides a safer methodology for destroying single use plastics. (Done the correct way.
Pulverise it and stick in the thermalyser, then burn with high 02)

A large freight ship needs about 3kg of oxygen per second. Modern
oxygen distillation systems can cope/ be engineered (safely) to meet
this challenge. There is a capital cost. But also huge savings.

What the fuel/CO2 saving might be? All non aviation forms of transport,
using internal combustion might save 30% (a guess) on fuel costs. That is
shipping, freight, trains, energy generation and personal transport or anywhere
a fuel is burned for power. The cost of adding this technology to
various engines depends. Will it pay for itself? In CO2 pollution reduction
terms alone. Yes. In purely capitalistic notions of return of costs.
Even more so.

Kinetic Energy
If one considers the proposed freight shipping speed limit of 15 knots (? Good. Remember
that the kinetic energy is half M times V SQUARED, guys. That's a 25% saving right there)
and the use of 100% oxygen, there is potential for a 50% reduction in shipping fuel use
on the table right now. With a commensurate reduction in CO2 output from human use.
A customer might complain that it takes three days longer to ship, but paying 50% less due to
improved fuel use is a commercial winner.

It is recognised that the design of the current generation of engines may force
the use of some atmospheric air. e.g. 100% oxygen combustion may not possible
without engine replacement. However, just being able to run at 40% O2 should
tidy up a lot of older engine's dirtiness. A lot of older diesels could be unscrapped.
Their engine management software will have to be upgraded to understand the new O2
levels.

It is a pity that the VW diesel engineers wasted their time innovating how to cheat
the emission test, instead of researching and perfecting a safe micro liquid oyxgen still.

Oxygen distillation Micro (still)
You probably only need 8-10 peltier coolers and 1m pipe length with a series of folds (20 cm).
The liquid 02 gathers in the final fold for use. The chilled de-oxygenated air is directed back over
the hot side of the peltiers to expel their heat. With suitable insulation, it might fit in a 30cm
by 30cm box. And there is the standard gas expansion cooling O2 condensation process.
Active distillation of 02 should be safer in the case of accidents. The volume of liquid 02 stored is small.
Just enough produced to meet with demand. A small delay in starting might be needed.

A culture of engineering innovation has been killed by something. Is it short termism?
So that big risks must be avoided for this quarter's return? Bonuses? Secrecy?

I am sure there will be a lot of safe conversion kits, even for petrol engines.
Inner city air pollution could drop considerably. A guess. But it should.

With the two technologies explored above; Gen in GH and Oxygen Enrichment (GENGH, OE), there
is a potential drop of 40% in human related CO2 output across the planet.
And it is probably doable within 10-15 years.

I repeat: Starting to develope/cultivate the skill sets in these areas might pay huge dividends.

My sincere apologies to all, for NOT saying this out loud, ten, fifteen years ago.
The only new to come along in the last fifteen years are cheap growth LED lights.

Oh I forgot, then there is the Cloud Chimney. Anyone? 2km high, 300m wide spewing
water vapour collected from the Atlantic ocean. Creating thick storm clouds on the
west coast of Africa. Water vapour (18g/mole) being much less dense than dry air (28.5g/mole)
should make it gush. Bring a raincoat, hopefully.