Enviro-therapy: CO2 targeted
Le Parisian Hope
„Project
alias: Digging”CO2 underground
Carbon
Capture & Storage… ––– …or the Future.
There seems to emerge a vague
outline of a consensus in the camp that bends before the existence of
climate-change – though a camp of harsh denial is still on the stage to oppose
until their last breath – agreeing on the issue that continuous and
uncontrolled increase of atmospheric CO2 level has somehow
a pivotal role in it. This CO2 level is inseparably parallel and undeniably
glued to mankind’s ever-increasing demands:
·
Insatiable
and unquenchable wish for energy beyond muscles,
·
Industry
topping itself by churning out mountains of disposables,
·
Transportation
governed by nonsense.
On comparing pros and cons regarding
the far-fetched twins of mankind’s tender idiocies and the cool presence of atmospheric
CO2, a series of meditations, led by Uppermost Globalized Lawful Institutes, resulted in selecting the
latter for the role as of the final culprit. With the rolling industry and allies
left thus intact, the joint brain-and body of the human race must in a sense turn
even more industrious so as to keep the appointed airborne felon malefactor under
the closest guard to avoid it bringing in the years to come no further harm to
us. The process nowadays much celebrated and saluted to aspire for the
distinction of a crown, on ground of being an all-effective cure, is named Carbon Capture and Storage, nicknamed as
CCS.
Since CCS is at present so much in the center, there can be no good reason
to seek for evasion; thus we ought to spend some studious thoughts on
inspecting it closer. Below I venture to guide this kindling tour, to bring
light and amusement on inspecting its core elements, which together will
clearly explain why CCS’s aspiration
for the crown is destined to doom.
To turn the sour into a smile, I promise
to accompany you on the tour further, extending it until this wanted orphan
crown finds its deserved place and subject but elsewhere.
========================
A.) Brief anatomy of CCS
Paris is sighing as
in-slipped Climate-Summit. – may song a lulling entrée to the Event, with a touch of
poetic tinge; just a wee-time after the rampant shootings by new-Parisians hit the headlines,
complying blandly thus with humble expectations that prefer ruling out grand
events to coincide – and, amidst harangued high hopes, in a sealed theatre
closed for the competitive, before select people gathered from their
fortresses, the Stage is set. From where morsels of news were let dripping, at
a considerate rate, to those outside the door and eager to know and distribute
it, like ecowatch and climatenewsnetwork.
The previous source thus
repeats
on November 25 that 156 Gt CO2 should not be produced (or must be
removed, as you like) by 2035 to have the chance of remaining in accord with a
pre-calculated scenario enabling not to surpass the fatal-forecast of +2oC
increase with an odds that gives equal share to the devil. Adding, that a mere 24 Gt portion
of the full 156 Gt can only be shouldered by the trusted CCS. Topping
it with a meek clause that, to remain on the safe side, on part of CCS, there must be achieved with full
satisfaction a complete
list of suppositions, ifs, and unproven upscaling.
World Begins to
Turn Its Back on Carbon
… It warns that energy
companies must avoid projects that would generate 156 billion tons of carbon
dioxide (156Gt CO2) by 2035 in order to be consistent with the
carbon budget in the International
Energy Agency 450 demand scenario, which sets out an energy pathway with
a 50 percent chance of meeting the 2C target…
Unproven
Technology
Carbon Tracker’s analysis assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) will remove 24Gt of CO2
by 2035, but says this would require
a huge expansion of CCS, a technology that remains unproven at
a commercial scale and which many scientists doubt will work soon
enough.
|
The latter source issues an even harsher
conclusion. Their Paul Brown hails the awaking World even earlier, on July 2nd,
with a wording that artfully indicates what good is CCS worth and where it is to be placeth.
For, as he makes another push with his pen on the matter, the much-hoped-for CCS method – despite overwhelming
nursing by mighty fathers of single-wit – is rather fit to sink instead of swim.
Carbon
capture goes down the tubes
July 2, 2015, by
Paul Brown
One of the much-heralded
solutions to climate change which its supporters believe could enable the
world to continue to burn fossil fuels looks likely to be a
failure. LONDON, 2 July, 2015 – Carbon capture and
storage (CCS) is backed by governments and the International Energy Agency (IEA)
as one of the best methods of reducing carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere and saving the planet from overheating. The problem is that
despite this enthusiasm and the fact that CCS (also called carbon
sequestration) is technically possible, it is not happening. It is cheaper
and easier to build wind and solar farms to produce electricity than it is to
collect and store the carbon from coal-powered plants’ emissions. For years
CO2 has been used by injecting it into old oil wells to extract
more fuel, but the cost of building new plants just to store the gas is
proving prohibitive. Hundreds of plants were expected to be up and running by
2030, but so far none has been built.
…Another problem is that the
technology for removing carbon from fossil fuels, either
before or after combustion, uses
40% more fuel to achieve the same amount of power. In
conferences designed to promote the technology enthusiasts wonder how long
they can continue, despite the “fine promises” that it was this technology
that would save the oil and gas industry…
|
Espoused with the above information, with a
lofty neglect over both their content and chronology, the International Energy Agency
(IEA), backed by governments unspecified, are optimistic all round as to the
fate of CCS. To reflect on the
strongholds of their unchallenged optimism and to see what dubious details
their steadfast obsession relies on as well, we must have a closer inspection
on the main aspects CCS is renowned
for.
1.) Far from being invisible (see
above: climatenewsnetwork/Paul Brown),
measures and calculations have already revealed that CCS-processing “requires 40% more fossil fuels than conventional technology
to produce the same amount of energy” – due to necessary
extra-steps. [Mandatory pre-investments are in another basket.]
This price, be it measured
on whatever kind of balance or scrutinized from whatever angle, may draw a
definite sigh of awe. The block-diagram of “Post-Combustion”
CCS-version[1], the simplest of all[a], is set on the figure below:
[a] The grand bustling in CCS-circles beget other arrangements
invented, too. These – named short as “Oxyfuel”
and “Pre-combustion”[b] – are common in the following
features: Due to the necessary extra-steps dictated by their inventors, the
cost of investment as well as operation grows while energy gained is further
halved.
And this is not joke. The “Pre-combustion” version starts with synthetizing “Syngas” first, which process however
requires tremendous energy-input since the chemical reaction governed to go is
highly endothermic. The “Syngas”
sub-process adopted here has an extra feature: it requires pure oxygen instead
of readily available air – to diminish necessary energy-input mentioned above
by avoiding to heat up air’s ~80% nitrogen content. This, however, calls for a
N2-O2 separation on a continuous high scale as part of
the process, flagging a mighty encumbrance at the onset. The “Syngas” reaction (originally, to supply
households prior natural-gas era: C + H2O = CO + H2;
forced to proceed here further:
C + 2H2O = CO2 + 2H2), via a cumbersome routing, merely changes the final source of energy by converting carbon (as primary input) to hydrogen (extorted with difficulties); which latter, on its combustion, creates so high a temperature that would damage or melt the housing of the reactor unless cooled, whereby final energy gained is on a slope again.[2]
C + 2H2O = CO2 + 2H2), via a cumbersome routing, merely changes the final source of energy by converting carbon (as primary input) to hydrogen (extorted with difficulties); which latter, on its combustion, creates so high a temperature that would damage or melt the housing of the reactor unless cooled, whereby final energy gained is on a slope again.[2]
[Creative engineering, no doubt, is able to solve coolly whatever
extra-needs happen to emerge, even if minds astray find their peace in erratic
ramblings.]
[b] To properly appreciate the diminished yield
this sub-variant offers, it is better to confront it with climatenewsnetwork’s allusion that prompts a vision of a technology
that is “removing carbon from fossil fuels, … BEFORE … combustion”. A carbon removal arranged before
combustion may suggest for the innocents a burning scene which is flaming with
myths of ultimate CO2 removal, all at the mere expense of dropping
somehow carbon altogether out, leaving to meditations only where any energy
would then come from.
2.) CO2 captured by CCS (and kept under pressure, liquefied)
must then be sent to places destined for final storage, since the CCS-story is about carbon capture and storage,
but with a vital step of transportation
in between. This 3rd silent-partner, which adds colour and feeling
to life at large, is to accept as normal, because the traffic needed to
transport the huge amount of pressurized CO2 over great distances
should neither abhor nor dismay anyone capable of pointing out how effectiveness
of CCS is weakened further via
amounts of CO2 emitted by this uncalled-for and
swept-under-the-carpet phase of transportation, until others, in
conference-parlors, packed with explanations reeking with false benefits,
proclaim it otherwise. Therefore, a deep bow of epidemic scale and a concerted
applause the rate of which recalls memories of bygone one-party systems must in
hurry accompany the coming escalation of transportation triggered by CCS, before a desperate thinker tempts a
sanity-check by asking: Why common goods are always on a tour around the Globe,
shipped once hither then thither, losing slowly color, taste, and remembrance
of origin. Otherwise there is no guarantee a fine day one comes up with a
dream:
All CO2
attributable to the transportation related above
could at no cost
effectively be annulled
by an ancient technology
almost forlorn,
by consuming the
goods where they have been produced.
3.) As a final pirouette, CCS makes arrangements to clear off its
filial CO2 nursed through tortuous rendezvous. How? Via pumping it triumphantly
underground; that is, into the unknown bowels of the beneath. In a belief it remains there.
For a long term [c].
|
…Although CO2 has
been injected into geological formations for several decades for various
purposes, including enhanced oil recovery, the long term
storage of CO2 is a relatively new concept…
…Storage of the
CO2 is envisaged either in deep geological formations, or in the
form of mineral
carbonates.
Deep ocean storage is no longer considered feasible
because it greatly increases the problem of ocean acidification. Geological formations
are currently considered the most promising sequestration sites.
…A general problem is that
long term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are very difficult and
uncertain, and there is still the risk that CO2 might leak into
the atmosphere…
|
[c] Oceans were targeted, too, by ambitious groups, in efforts to
sink CO2 somehow, for CO2 is ready to dissolve in water.
Time elapsed since enriched these teams with the following empirical
observations as settled:
· Solved CO2 turns water
acidic by the simple chemistry of H2CO3 thus produced,
which, by an induced shift in pH
toward acidic, disrupts the basic harmony of life that exists in the Oceans.
This is so because every living cell is a tiny aquatic environment, where life
is normal only under strict pH
value-range, which is mostly common for all forms of life on Earth. (A perfect news for those who slept over the
last 100 years.)
· To aim at lasting results, the
pumping of CO2 must be carried out by targeting an introduction at
the depth of several 1000 meters, since closer to the surface the flip between H2CO3
and CO2 would turn act and effort futile. (The ease of this flip is long reckoned again; part of curriculum in
secondary school as well. The reversal flip is an everyday experience before
the very nose of drinkers of either beer or champagne, too, about which no
contemplative observer needs further explanation between his gulps.)
· There are innate workings, however,
which destroy the believed lasting result extorted by pumping CO2
real deep. One should observe that the incessant wanderings of the currents of
Oceans turn deep-waters into surficial as they bump to continental shelves,
whereupon the previously indicated flip inevitably happens; that is, great part
of CO2 gets back to the atmosphere, despite all efforts. (Though,
through the wee while beneath, it is capable of bringing to marine-life as much
damage as it can.). (The turnarounds of
streams is again not a fresh novelty.)
[These modern studious aberro-efforts may permit a bit of reflection: I am not to say that
the backpack-treasure of the education of late ‘60s surpasses that of present
days’, nor wish I suggest that all those who once had that treasure have lost
its last morsel together with common sense, but it is certain a factor is working strong in the behind.]
Despite observations gathered already, and all
taken during a relatively short time, CO2 pumped underground has a
fate of being only a transitory visitor beneath unless it is somehow bonded
chemically there. Which, by rewording the cautious statement of the source cited
above, boils down to the warning: There is a definite risk the
molested Earth would react to the ritual of pumping CO2 downward
with farting back the total in-pumped on a fine day. A
lie-in-the-dark technology that works unfailing even at its very first debut
would then urgently be called for, should to our surprise that fine day come
along.
Any hope for long-term safe disposal
of CO2 in geological layers is tenable only if CO2 is
bound irreversibly, that is chemically. Earth crust’s chemical structure offers
practically no other alternative for free CO2 than to meet with and
bond to active metal oxides. Unfortunately,
metal-oxides that would serve the purpose went through this same process eons
ego[d], and thus presently are at a sweet lull in
Nature as forms of metal-carbonates, like limestone (CaCO3) and
dolomite (Ca & Mg carbonate).
[d] Forms of ferric-oxide minerals,
accessible at relatively low cost and in sufficient quantity, might come to
rely on, though. Were this oxide sacrificed at large, however, there would be
resulting an embarrassing aftermath: Once an iron-ore is carbonated at this
altar, its later use as source for iron-industry is handicapped, as it would
annul every CCS efforts done so far,
since on reduction the carbonated-ore would fling all bonded CO2
back into the atmosphere.
Not to retire, the untiring diligence is
reckless in search to find an appropriate mineral and, behold, surprises us
with a fruit: a mineral named olivine[3] was found over the oxide-chase to
hope suiting the case at last. This ore by structure is a magnesium-silicate
that contains the magnesium in a kind of (untypical) oxide-form: available in
sufficient quantities, and worthless otherwise in every regard as to the
present. The magnesium-content of a mineral of such composition is liable
indeed thermodynamically [i.e., in
regards of energy-levels] to change
into a usually more stable carbonate-form by reacting with CO2.
Investigated kinetically however
[that is, for magnitude of effective-speed],
this special reaction is extremely slow, even at elevated temperature and high
pressure. [Small wonder Nature has kept it in an “oxide” form.]
Now, if the Great-Plan is about
·
mining
olivine out first,
·
then
transporting it to CCS premises,
·
where
it needs previous pulverization to feed reactors,
·
then
to bubble a slow-rate stream of CO2 through,
·
while
ensuring both high temperature and great pressure,
·
very
probably in a stirred heterogeneous mixture (see [e] below),
·
then
re-transporting the refuse to a place thought fit for,
·
where
it is to be buried…
A day-dream of such elaboration would for the
sane be uneasy to swallow and even more difficult to digest.[4]
[N.B.: The point of the hampering kinetic limit is
said to have already been addressed [e]. To
address the other points remained, CCS community needs an onrush of
electrifying scientific papers to lessen or eliminate burdens accrued by
mining, transporting back-and-forth, re-cultivation…]
[e] Alertness is always paying,
however. If one takes the pain and reads the cited
article’s summary[5], he may be somewhat confounded
after finding therein no mention of olivine at all, in sharp contrast to naming
calcium explicitly instead. A special facet of this catalytic reaction is
however clearly set: it is to be carried out in stirred aqueous solution, since the reactants happen to be in heterogeneous phases. Which particular
detail packs on the difficulties that are to govern decisions whether any
perspectives in elaborating the olivine-route belongs to the realm of classical
dreams or otherwise.
All in all, the list of difficulties to
overcome for the self-congratulated CCS
is probably no longer than indicated above – en route to targeting preset numbers engraved on papers, which
claim the method to be sound for removing 24 Gt CO2 by 2035 from the
156 Gt total that were necessary to handle. [f]
[f] Despite combined effects of stumbles
and mishaps, somersaults, and irrecoverable illnesses that have no cure for, steering
infallibly towards a final stage of mature crippledom, CCS mirrors itself still as virulent to rule. Its main functions remain:
· Devours at an admirable rate the
capital allocable to finance any other research & development,
· Pushes back while stomps on
competitors so as to appear defiantly at the top.
With half an eye on the august principle of
equal-opportunities routinely over-applied elsewhere, a few observer beyond the
line would be glad to see CCS’s prima-donna
role diminish somewhat.
========================
B.) Linkages
Relieved of analysis of CCS, let’s take now a fresh breath and follow another calculus, but
along a DIFFERENT
scheme.
Century’s wisdom has settled in a
Hungarian saying, which a man of wit, or of certain maturity, or of experiences
of his own, must hail with a somber nod, that claims:
“There is little
sagacity in building a fortress BASED on top of a heap of poop”.
[The previous
analysis proffers a nice live exemplar.]
Below we show for the curious, how
the unquestionable conclusion packed in the above maxim alters for its opposite
immediately by a single change of substituting fortress
for removal of CO2. To digest relations,
one must keep in the forefront that the link between carbon
and poop is nothing else but that
the latter is a moist mixture of large molecules
made of CARBON-skeleton. Which material is nowadays doomed to be
destroyed by forced oxidation nicknamed as Sewage-treatment,
releasing thereby quite an amount of CO2 as an offspring into the
atmosphere, without ever trumpeting the sore fact wide or analyzing this
feature publicly in the media that grinds untiringly over climate-aspects,
including gatherings like Climate Summit – where CCS is plonked as an unchallenged star. And who is the sinner
committing this crime? The Wastewater-management
as a Corporate Body. They do this job in a torpor spell-bound by their self-applauded
technology, rigging the public by multifold techniques at their left-hand via
enlarging fears planted deep in civilization-coated hygiene-conscience set on false-alarms,
while desperately wriggling amid self-flattering eulogy and an inextricable net woven of secrets about how to conceal their
own prodigal wastes.
Apart with the sinner
for a while, below we show through clear facts what else instead of fortress can be built on human
dejecta at large. For this, we ought to make a rough calculation to estimate
the amount of CO2 present-practice wastewater-managing flings with a
blind eye into the atmosphere.
To start, let us fix
that 1 person produces 500g dejecta per day. (Skeptical theoreticians are
allowed to retire for a cozy self-control and introduce their own factor for
correction.) Approximately half of this amount is water, leaving thus only the
fate of 250g solid carbonaceous material to follow. Sewage-industry by its
forced oxidation turns roughly half of it to inorganic CO2 gas and
leaves the rest-half un-wrestled but slightly altered, for their own baffle,
naming this remnant as sewage-sludge
and calling for urgent business to get rid of, before it buries the
parent-industry in whole deep.
At this stage of our calculation we better halt
for a little digression.
One can be curious to see where the value of
50% stated above comes from. All the more so, because carrying out close
studies on poop is not fervently embraced by any faculty of Academy, leaving us
sadly without concrete percentage to rely on. Despite this irking hiatus, the
following statements are absolutely sure:
· reactions go by oxygen take-up;
· carbon-chains suffer breakage;
· N&P-containing functional-groups
convert (sooner or later) to inorganic
nitrates & phosphates.
Subtleties as to which structural part of any
molecules present suffers only partial oxidation (and thus its carbon-content will
go to be part of the sludge) and which structure is “soft enough” to undergo
total oxidation (that is, its carbon-content flies off as CO2 gas)
is, as mentioned cursorily, has not yet been brooded over to satisfy scholarly demands.
[A survey on present trends of academic research bespeaks for a disastrously
stagnant interest in peeping deep in poop.]
Thus, we follow course using the arbitrary 50% value after returning
empty-handed by fathoming academics, except that the train of thought will be
split. One of the 2 scenario outlined below is sure to ensue, validating thus
connected conclusion. It is then up to your taste to choose which one is to be
loved more.
1st version: Here we take granted that 50% of 250g organic-bound carbon disperses
to the atmosphere in form of CO2 gas. The carbon-content of 125g dry
dejecta thus “evaporated” is somewhere in between 70g and 100g. [The exact value
depends partly on what type of macromolecules dominate the mixture (fibrous
materials made of carbohydrate-like structure lessens the value because the
molar ratio of C:O therein is roughly
1:1) and partly on their differences
in ease of oxidability.] To remain on the safe side, let’s fix that 85g
carbon-content gets oxidized to the final fate of becoming CO2.
Since the molar-weight ratio of C:CO2
is 12:44, this translates to 311g CO2
per person a day. Meaning 114 kg CO2 per person a year. If 6 billion[g] inhabitants is taken, this extra-CO2
burden climbs up 0.684 Gt for a year, which sums up to 13.7 Gt CO2
over the 20 year period till 2035. [h]
This calculated 13.7 Gt CO2 is now
something to ponder, in order to tincture the blessings of the present
sewage-handling concept – had a Body
conferencing with vigour on the hows
of reducing atmospheric CO2 level had ear, eye, and brain to
perceive and confront the told.
[g] Counting with Earth’s presently
living 7.5 billion inhabitants, or even taking into account the increase
expectable till 2035, would certainly give a higher value. With a moderation
that counts only with 6 billion participants, we chose to make a compensation partly
for the infants and partly for the starving millions, both subclasses being a reduced
contributor of the primary.
[h] 2 factors may play a further role
in modifying this value.
Down-correction is
justified if we admit that Wastewater-management in its present form is far
from being ever-present in the most densely populated underdeveloped regions –
though a forced march to close the gap is perceptible there, too, under the ever-fascinating
name of progress.
Up-correction is justified when manure of
livestock-farming happens to mingle with municipal wastewater. Documentation, authenticated
by statistics, on such arrangements is unavailable officially, though. One
thing is sure, however: 1 cattle excretes nonchalantly as much as 10 ambitious
men. Further up-correction comes from the scrapping sent down the kitchen-sink,
soap & body-care products as well as detergents & cleansing chemicals
used in the bathroom and kitchen, because all these sent-offs are in chemical
sense mixtures of organic compounds, which have one thing in common: an
oxidizable carbon-skeleton.
2nd version: Here we regard all those complementary cases where direct CO2
formation as a result of sewage-treatment is below 50%, including a slope down to
nil. This, due to the balance of matters, translates to an elevated amount of
sewage-sludge. Which needs handling. The most celebrated method that lately
came to hand and spreading fast is the so-called Biogas-industry, which converts the sludge, preferably on the
premises, and feeds back the energy gained from the biogas produced into the
main process. The gain as communicated is twofold: first, it acts shining on
the profit-side by decreasing electricity-bill of the sewage-plant; second, it waves
vehemently a green-profile outward, to cheat sympathy from the manipulable
crowd. At the pardonable price that CO2 release practicably may double:
Since, by turning all the sludge first to biogas, then by combusting the latter
to energy, here all carbon-content meets its fatal final CO2 fate.
Which boils down to an easy doubling
of CO2 spent to the atmosphere, as compared to the amount calculated
under “1st version”.
[To mend a loophole uncovered: Suppose, during a
specially led wastewater-treatment process, direct CO2 release is
marginal and the sludge produced thereby is left intact. But then, where to
deposit the sludge? Agricultural use would seem natural, were it not poisoned
by heavy-metals, process-chemicals like polyelectrolytes (applied for nothing
else but to decrease transportation-costs via lessening the enormous water-content
of the sludge somewhat)
, and other dangerous wastes emitted by diverse industrial processes, whose
effluents are all sent to the same pipe whereto otherwise harmless household
end-waters are emptying. So, if Wastewater-management of the said type clears
itself from sly CO2 release, it still commits sufficient other
crimes. Only one thing remains to ponder for the meditative: whether
Wastewater-management is the felon and CCS
is a cheater, or vice versa.]
========================
C.) The Foundling
Suppose now
for a split-second,
·
city-dwellers
and people of the land,
·
ombudsmen
and legal objects otherwise,
·
academics
and people of the street,
·
housewives
and Shining Stars of Hollywood,
·
protesters
and arresters,
·
demonstrators
and those without monsters,
·
lovers
and killers
that we can abandon this present wastewater-treatment
process that generates so many problems, among which only one hidden trick is
CO2 production “from the depth of a hat”: because ways are open to devise and even to
implement a method that is devoid of ALL problems presently-ruling Wastewater-management
is infamous for. [i]
Were such a method existing, the
stealthily released ~14 Gt CO2 sent to the atmosphere by traditional
wastewater-treatment (see 1st
version above) would come to nil – which amount is straight comparable with
the 24 Gt amount CCS’s commissaries
vow their methods assumedly would remove.[j]
[j] In case of “2nd version” a double amount is at stake: the total
carbon content of the sludge in this case equals 28 Gt CO2, whereby
the gap is closing fast. Because the 24 Gt CO2 peak-performance of CCS, backed by bold calculations set on
soft paper, must at the same time be back-corrected; knowing that CCS uses up for its own needs 40% more
fossil fuels, that subsequent transportation of liquefied CO2
together with diverse “pumping-down” techniques consume significant further
energy: all translatable to CCS’
inseparable CO2 “footprint”.
[i] Though criticism of helpless lamentations that
hallmark Climate Summit after Climate Summit is well earned, we hereby wish to
step further to direct and focus the beaming public’s attention on
Wastewater-management as kind of an Enviro-Tragic HUB: Honorable Unbelievable Bullshit.
Beyond having illuminated above CCS’s
pretenses as the object in focus, we call below a brief attention to a natural replacement
for wastewater-treatment. In short: An almost Unbelievable medication for this HUB
of too many sins can smoothly be effected by throwing its Honorable part in a trash-bin; while handling with tender care the Bullshit-part, without ever letting it
come in close-touch with water, in a composting-bin.
Now, let the GLAD NEWS be announced, and allowed to share and race
around the World:
·
Tested
and trusted.
·
What’s
more: it practically neither requires nor consumes any energy.
·
Horribile dictu: other benefits accompany it
prodigiously, as a bonus exempt of any charges.
Yet, when the method is put to a
public test by rubbing shoulders with crowds of ideas of extravagances to
compete with, it suffers from a twofold drawback. First, because it plain and
bold declares to be on a friendly term with our poop – a matter even those
rumoured to be the most open-minded are reluctant to grasp. Second, because the
solution comes from an “unknown”: it
is the lifework of Joseph Országh, by
profession a chemist, a 1956 Hungarian émigré to Belgium, whose ideas and works
thus are unhappily rather confined by his 2nd-tongue to the
ever-diminishing and marginalizing French-speaking world.
Driven by a mind and conscience of a
scientist who prefers understanding and solution instead of churning out
papers, he soon worked out himself from the publish
or perish type career that is widely employed for a smooth climb towards
the safe heights of Academies. He thereby became known among his
fellow-scientists as a creature of peculiarities better not to be in common
with, if for no other reason than for seeing him work relentlessly even without
the usual support, finances and moral included.
He names his system Eutarcie, for it declares water to
be in the center, but the system grew so wide that it practically covers the
health of the whole Biosphere. It is only a single yet pivotal aspect of his
system that the poop, in sharp contrast to ruling Wastewater-management, is not
annihilated.[k]
[k] Not even by throwing the unhappy material to
the bottomless receptacle of “Biogas-industry”.
Which is the newest celebrity unrecognized as yet for devouring our future with
a ghastly appetite. A prudent composting arrangement may at the same time offer
utilization of the heat produced, leaving all the value the compost at the end may
have intact. [The “compost-boiler”
chapter is however rather in its infancy.]
Instead, carbon and other content of our wastes
gets bound: thousand-times more effectively and million-times safer
than any CCS pump-down method would
make us believe. And, at the same course, it brings about billion-times more
benefit to strengthen Nature – among which only one side-effect is that contributes
administering automatically atmospheric CO2 level. [l] How?
An easily achievable arrangement allows
Nature to work for itself:
·
Poop
turns by way of composting into humus.
o
By
an indigenous trick that eliminates the nauseating odor-effect, well below the
level usually tolerated in the solitude while riding the flush-toilet.
·
This
trick is achieved by use of another waste-material available in abundance from
agriculture etc., via adding a shovelful of it to cover the excreted.
o
Turning
thus these agriculture waste-materials from problem-source into an added value,
too.
·
Accumulating
thus the carbon-content of both, built at the end into the topsoil.
o
Whereby
its structure, health, water-retaining power and fertility all increase.
How-how?
Because this humus is inherently
rich in N&P still organic-bound,
due to nothing else but poop’s and urine’s organic-bound N&P content, which
eluded thereby the haughty fame of being oxidized to inorganic by Wastewater-specialists at the dubious altar of
hygiene.
[To compare: The inorganic N&P “fertilizers” – churned out at great
expenses against good senses; to compensate for the lost value obliterated by
poop-ostracizer environmental-hygienists clad in scaphanders via intricate technology – are much less accessible for
plants. Instead, the huge amount of these “fertilizers”
scattered yearly over the fields is an obvious source of poison, which turns ground-waters nitrate-ridden underhand and
promotes soil-erosion to soar – to name only a few consequences.]
[l] And this brings us to the core: While
herds of luminaries are rummaging their dedicated brain for solutions to cover
the
·
worries
regarding CO2 hysterics,
·
mishaps
around sewage-treatment,
·
nuisances
about freshwater resources,
·
nightmares
of soil erosion,
·
depletion
of phosphate reserves,
·
and
many a sinister offspring accompanying our “life
as normal” attitude to bother about,
Ø Each as Separate items,
Ø Only to raise innumerable new conflicts
between each other including the target itself – steering in the meanwhile
costly cumbersome curtailing arsenals…
Ø All in a joint Body, whose bland
efforts spreads to the uttermost for evading recognition of the sheer fact the
humblest creature may discern:
Principles
organized
to work
hand-in-hand with Nature
offers a solution
without conflicts between whatever domains.
|
The
greatest merit of Országh’s lifework Eutarcie
is about planting this recognition into the focus of workings. |
========================
D.) To
Sum up:
A.)
We have dissected a method (CCS) that holds itself a prospective
claimant to efficiently deal with the nagging level of atmospheric CO2
– to reveal the candidate bound for life to remain in its cradle.
B.)
We have then touched upon another method (Wastewater-management),
which stealthily emits CO2 at large while scatters many other nasty
problem around – that aspires to make us believe it standing erect and beaming
benignly as a caring Father of all orders.
C.)
Whereby we arrived to a neglected method (Eutarcie) put officially
and otherwise into inflexible if not draconian confines – which offers natural
solutions that handles with ease all those problems and aftermaths the previous
two method generates.
This tortuous story was set to paper
to demonstrate again: The 2015 Climate-Summit in Paris closed
just as the 1970 Club of Rome did: Solutions that work did not ever happen to come even near
the far vicinity of their agenda. Which – endorsed by a lapse of half a
century without a step ahead – might call an ineluctable attention to
scrutinize and digest Eutarcie.
(Translation of the Hungarian original,
born December 6, 2015)
(The original is part of a book
“Fuggerth Endre: Szenny és Víz”, available through
http://www.konyvmuhely.hu/konyvek/szenny-es-viz)
April 28,
2019
[2] See „Table 3-2 Pre Combustion Energy Losses and RD&D Needs” and
introductory lines above the item, in http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/pre-combustion-co2-capture-%E2%80%93-challenges-future-direction#fnr_3
[4] Further facts in „CO2
Mineral Sequestration Studies in US” https://web.archive.org/web/20031207120418/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/6c1.pdf, especially under „Technical Challenges and Program Goals”
and „Rapid Progress” subtitles.
[5] Nickel nanoparticles catalyse
reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and
storage, Catal. Sci.
Technol., 2013,3, 1234-1239 (http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/cy/c3cy20791a#!divAbstract
)
[6] EAUTARCIE: How to Become
Independent of Public Water Supply and Wastewater Networks. Prospects on
Keeping Climate Change in Check http://www.eautarcie.org/en/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment