Philandes

Thanks for all the responses; this one reply is to all: Passing tremendous amounts of co2 as a catalyst into soil in an attempt to aid the processes which would make it arable and useable has not yet been comepletely debunked by a chemist so I am still optimistic that the idea may yet prove to have some validity. The radioactive elements and other contamination filtered out by the soil may themselves be a tiny bit helpful to the environment if all the dirt did was acted as a filter to make the exhaust cleaner by preventing such contaminants from becoming airborne in a city near you. However, that would also open up the problem of what to do with the radioactive dirt. Converting such dirt into construction materials such as bricks, or other end product, may then be an option. But, since these elements are being released into the air anyway right now, thinking about controlling the contaminants in another way is worth the calories burnt in thought. Chemists at Rice University have found a way to remove co2 with a material made from pyrolysed waste plastic which holds 18% of it's own weight in co2 at room temperature. The cost of capturing carbon dioxide from a point source with this method is estimated at $21 per tonne, $60 to $140 cheaper than traditional methods. https://www.agro-chemistry.com/news/capturing-co2-with-pyrolysed-waste-plastic/ The carbon seqestration via tree farms specializing in the fastest growth species is meant to keep the co2 locked up for decades in the form of useable board feet. Worrying about the co2 being released during decomposition, I believe is a moot point, for a product meant for long term usage on the scale of a decade or more. Reducing the need to cut down old growth forests and leaving more standing trees to absorb carbon from the atmosphere being a major objective, if the farms produced timber profitably using PARTIAL co2 sequestration, and reduced by percentage points the felling of old growth trees in forests, it would serve two fantastic goals of DECREASE co2 released into the atmosphere, INCREASE co2 being taken out of the atmosphere.

Cool photo of Mars; a telescope focused on our solar system and just past its outer limits would be cool to. Capturing images of every single object in our solar system, to the point of identifying every asteroid in the asteroid belt, will be a super landmark in human civilization.

Neither proposal would make power from coal MORE EXPENSIVE. They are both meant to be profitable ventures or break even ventures. Only the up front captitol and expenses until these hit the black in terms of revenue would be needed which is an investment in the land, infrastructure of diversionary lines from exhaust towers to, facilites built to operate either proposed plan of action, and all support areas, equipement and resources to make the whole functional. But, the breakdown of raw elements into the dirt, with water and carbon (along with other chemicals) being pupmed under pressure into the churning mix is basic science, whether it will work in the way I am proposing will be up to the expert opinion of a chemist, which is why I signed up to join this forum. I am NOT a chemist. My major two sources of science that I respect the most in the world are two people I follow on YouTube, Neil DeGrasse Tyson great astrophysicist/teacher/public science enthuser and fantastic explainer and Yuri Kovalenok, a brilliant Russian physicist and I believe one of the smartest guys in the word in his ability to attract attention to science for people who aren't scientists or otherwise big science people through turning his physic notes into cool T-shirts and other items. I was hoping a professional chemist would glance over the idea and vet the idea on the merits presented as to the likelyhood of success. Just presenting the idea, if not viable in either instance helps juggle the collective brain to think outside the box and find some other variation or go in a compleety different path. However, I would more rather that it work without my seeking a patent myself for the system or claim it as mine. I would like to clean coal. many peole are against it the way satan is against Jesus Christ and they will have no talk or discussion on any clean coal idea. But, coal is abundant and the nations that have it would benefit greatly from being abe to use it safer if at all possible and I support that side of the argument. Balance is needed because we couldn't stop the planet from colling through any of our efforts and we humans may never be ab;le to stop it from warming if it wants as it continuously go through cycles of cooling and warming and people, places and things in between just hace to live with it and watch earth do what it do. Turning trash into money is an endless bucket of money just as long as the endless buckets of trash. And it is responsible, guilt-tfree profits in terms of effect on the environment, community in the way of wages anf job not to mention fresher air and cleaner skies.

The clarity in the second photo is amazing. Has the JWT taken any shots of mars surface? Seems it could take the best shots of every planet in our solar system first, then look out yonder.

The two ideas of using coal plant exhaust co2to produce arable land and aid faster growth of the fastest growing species of trees in a commercial tree farm are ideas independent of each other and are not tied to the other. These two ideas were simply my off-the-cuff suggestion for possible solutions to dealing with coal plant emissions. I don't see a bottleneck of light and nutrients as an issue as the seedlings will be re-planted outside in an orchard-type fashion with co2 releasing piping laid on the ground in the most efficient pattern for feeding the co2 to the trees. The trees themselves will be planted in nutrient rich soil. To infuse the dirt to make arable soil, I was thinking of pits or trenches, rectangular with the pipes running the length, that would force coal plant exhaust into the soil. Vegetation/fertilizer could be added to provide the proper balance of nutrients. A churning and watering system would also have to be designed to aerate/mix and moisten the product. If a good product of arable soil could be produced, it could be simply trucked in state to distributions centers, nurseries, farmers or any other customer. As many states have coal-fired plants, this would produce an opportunity for a private international company with company owned and or franchises in most states and countires. Or most likely an add on division of the company which owns the coal fired power plant. The CLEAN COAL DREAM will be that much closer to fruition; and any reduction of carbon emmisions into the atmosphere at profit, or worst case scenario just pays for itself, is good for the coal industry in public relations and community goodwil. If arable soil could not be produced using coal plant exhaust, I feel the increased production of board feet in a commercial tree farm venture would be the best viable option.

Is it possible for a coal plant to pipe some of it's exhaust into a greenhouse-like structure filled with worthless mineral deficient dirt and infuse it with carbon to the point it turns into valuable soil capable of growing food with? Or if the greenhouse-like structure was filled with fast growing trees, as part of a for-profit tree farm, would this aid, stunt or be neutral to their growth?