After watching a terrifying documentaryQuestions

  • Thread starter physics2
  • Start date
In summary: If we're not responsible for the majority of CO2 production, shouldn't we focus on reducing our energy consumption and finding alternative, sustainable sources of energy rather than trying to capture and store CO2?In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of creating a giant tree to absorb carbon dioxide and the purpose of desalination plants. It is mentioned that growing trees overall take in more CO2 than they give out, but it is not a simple solution. Other methods such as algae and industrial carbon sequestration have been proposed, but they are costly and pose potential risks. The conversation also touches on the importance of reducing energy consumption and finding sustainable energy sources instead of solely focusing on capturing and storing CO2.
  • #1
physics2
14
0
I just saw a documentary on global warming called six degrees to change the world and it was talking about the consequences of global warming which i found devastating.
Now i was wondering, would it be possible to create a giant tree that would absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen?
Another question, what exactly does a desalination plant do?
thats all for now and sorry if these questions are all very general and sort of off topic
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
physics2 said:
Now i was wondering, would it be possible to create a giant tree that would absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen?
Dangerous - the vikings tried that and found it became infested with a giant serpent.
ps. They only release oygen during the day, at night they also release CO2.

Another question, what exactly does a desalination plant do?
Removes salt from seawater to turn it into fresh water. Takes a lot of energy but if you live in the middle east/australia it's your only option.
 
  • #3
physics2 said:
Now i was wondering, would it be possible to create a giant tree that would absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen?

Sort of, there are some ongoing projects (on e.g. Iceland) where they are trying to capture CO2 from the air, the CO2 is then mixed with water and is made to react with a type of rock (I don't remember the name) to form a stable carbide. Splitting the CO2 into carbon and oxygen would require far too much energy.
The "trees" in this case are just big scrubbers, i.e. the same type of the device that is used to remove CO2 from the air in submarines.

That said, it is highly unlikely that this will every be a viable solution, mainly because it would be incredible expensive; it would be far better not to let the CO2 into our atmosphere in the first place. But maybe it could be used as a last resort.
 
  • #4
mgb_phys said:
Dangerous - the vikings tried that and found it became infested with a giant serpent.
ps. They only release oygen during the day, at night they also release CO2.

:rofl: Thank you!
 
  • #5
physics2 said:
I just saw a documentary on global warming called six degrees to change the world and it was talking about the consequences of global warming which i found devastating.
Now i was wondering, would it be possible to create a giant tree that would absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen?
Much better is to use what we already have- lots of small trees- and not deforest the world.

Another question, what exactly does a desalination plant do?
thats all for now and sorry if these questions are all very general and sort of off topic
It takes salt out of water.
 
  • #6
mgb_phys said:
Dangerous - the vikings tried that and found it became infested with a giant serpent.
ps. They only release oygen during the day, at night they also release CO2. Removes salt from seawater to turn it into fresh water. Takes a lot of energy but if you live in the middle east/australia it's your only option.
Do they release as much CO2 as they absorb or less?
thanks for the desalinate plant

f95toli said:
Sort of, there are some ongoing projects (on e.g. Iceland) where they are trying to capture CO2 from the air, the CO2 is then mixed with water and is made to react with a type of rock (I don't remember the name) to form a stable carbide. Splitting the CO2 into carbon and oxygen would require far too much energy.
The "trees" in this case are just big scrubbers, i.e. the same type of the device that is used to remove CO2 from the air in submarines.

That said, it is highly unlikely that this will every be a viable solution, mainly because it would be incredible expensive; it would be far better not to let the CO2 into our atmosphere in the first place. But maybe it could be used as a last resort.
It would be costly but not doing anything would be waay more costly, i remember seeing that there would be more storms like katrina and it said something about el nino's patterns reversing and affecting more of the world, this would mean more storms, flash flooding and so on.. and the repairs would be very expensive no doubt?
HallsofIvy said:
Much better is to use what we already have- lots of small trees- and not deforest the world. It takes salt out of water.
once again, tree give out less CO2 or give as much CO2 as they absorb?
 
  • #7
Growing trees overall take in more CO2 than they give out - that's where the wood comes from. But it's not as simple as just planting trees.
Where are you going to plant them? Existing woodland releases a lot of CO2 from the leaf litter when it is disturbed. Trees grow ery slowly and then you have to find something to do with all the timber, any that rots or burns releases CO2 back to the eniroment. The more efficent way is to grow something like algae.

There are a few industrial carbon sequestration schemes to turn CO2 into hydrates andstore them under high presure in disuesed mines or oil wells. The trouble is that this is expensive (=lots of energy = more CO2 ) and generally requires building new power stations onto of unused salt mines. There is also the worry of what happens if the CO2 was suddenly released for some reason, not just for it's greenhouse effect - CO2 kills you and most people killed by volcanoes are killed by clouds of CO2.
 
  • #8
Note that humans are only responsible for a small part of the total amount of CO2. Most of CO2 production is natural. However the total amount of CO2 present has been increasing because of an imbalance between production and consumption of CO2. Also note that water vapor is the main cause of heat retention on the Earth not CO2. Also, even if all human related CO2 were stopped, there may still be an imbalance. There's no way to really know, so some are taking the cautious route and want to minimize CO2 production. It's one argument for ramping up other forms of energy production, including nuclear with it's waste issue.
 
  • #9
man made global warming is a hoax by Al Gore and those supporting a world government to control everything and everybody...but we ARE experiencing yet another natural cycle of warming...and at some point there will likely be another ice age...which we will also be unable to affect...remember we have gone from past periods when a thouand feet of ice encircled the plant...thank heaven there was global warming after that!

A desalinization plant removes salt and impurities from water...reverse osmosis is one method...
 
  • #10
ok so i understand that it takes a lot of energy and that by using all this energy a lot of CO2 is produced but what if solar power was used to provide the energy?
 

1. What was the scariest part of the documentary?

The scariest part of the documentary is subjective and will vary from person to person. Some may find the visuals to be the most terrifying, while others may be more affected by the information presented.

2. Is the information in the documentary accurate?

Documentaries are meant to present factual information, but it's always important to do your own research and fact-checking to ensure accuracy.

3. Did the documentary offer any solutions to the issues presented?

Many documentaries offer solutions or suggestions for change, but it's important to note that not all solutions are feasible or effective. It's always important to do further research and consider multiple perspectives before taking action.

4. How can I cope with the emotions I'm feeling after watching the documentary?

Documentaries can often evoke strong emotions, especially if the subject matter is disturbing. It's important to take care of yourself and seek support from friends, family, or a mental health professional if needed.

5. Can watching a documentary like this have a negative impact on my mental health?

It's possible for watching a terrifying documentary to have a negative impact on mental health, especially if the subject matter is triggering or if the viewer is already dealing with mental health issues. It's important to be mindful of your own mental health and take breaks if needed.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
976
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • DIY Projects
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
924
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
0
Views
732
Back
Top