Virgin’s Richard Branson along with Al Gore is launching an open initiative to find new approaches for reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The goal is to find an efficient way of removing one billion tones of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually - for ten years. Innovators have 5 years to make a submission. The winner will receive $5 million up front with another $20 million after the ten year period.
Branson and Gore’s Virgin Earth Challenge seeks to leverage the innovative capacity of the entire world to solve this truly global problem. Their open approach has been validated in successful initiatives such as the Ansari X Prize, an effort to build a private space vehicle that became the catalyst for space tourism. It is also reminiscent of Rob McEwen’s Goldcorp Challenge which successfully sought to find new methods for finding gold.
The high profile of this issue is bound to attract the best and brightest minds. If successful, their efforts will literally change the world.�
Comments RSS
| TrackBack URI
I read the article linked above “launching an open initiative”. The article is compelling and hopeful. However, the article provides, in my opinion, an alarming solution to the CO2 problem, akin to the solution that is used for waste from nuclear power plants. To quote the article:
“They are looking for a method that will remove at least one billion tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere…….Carbon capture and storage is already a key area of research. Scientists have been looking into removing the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and storing it in oil and gas fields, injecting it deep into the ocean, or chemically transforming it into solids or liquids that are thermodynamically stable.
However, these methods have raised concerns, notably because of the possibility of leakage from the storage sites and fears that C02 dissolved in large quantities in the ocean might harm marine ecosystems.
Other scientists are also looking at schemes that might “scrub” the air of CO2, collecting the gas for safe storage; but many critics say the energy required to achieve this would make such an approach self-defeating.”
This is scary to me. This does not fix the problem, it just moves the problem from one location in the earth’s ecosystem to another. A real solution would be to find a way to get rid of the CO2. What about finding a way to use C02 as an energy source? How about releasing it in outer space? Or what about some type of benign bacteria that would eat the CO2? I recall hearing about bacteria being used to clean up oil spills. I am not a scientist but it seems like with the technology and brain power we have available a better solution could be pursued than storing the CO2 in “safe storage” (in this case an oxymoron).
I read an article in the February, 2007 issue of “Inc. Magazine” by guest speaker Ray Kurzweil called “How to Predict the Future” (pgs. 71-72). I like what Ray has to say in this article: “The economics of solar power are poised to change dramatically, however, as a new generation of solar panels made with nanomaterials comes of age…… Most discussions of global warming make no mention of the ability of nanotechnology to solve this problem within 20 years. Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ never mentions nanotechnology, which in my view is a rather big oversight.”
Blogs, wikis and other socially collaborative tools provide a mechanism for humans from all over the world to work together to solve the problem of global warming. We have the technology to solve the problem of global warming. I hope we also have the will to solve the problem.
Comment by Jeannine Ransom - February 9, 2007 3:20 pm
Our company specializes in getting hard-headed people to agree on long-term goals and then become aligned on starting toward the goals together. We have a proprietary software product to assist us in this process.
If anyone is interested and willing to fund the process, please let me know by email.
Comment by Daniel Thompson - February 9, 2007 5:15 pm
Jeannine,
I agree that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is inferior to actually cutting back on emissions but it seems that the goals of the project are more “damage control” than looking for a long term solution. As far as I know the solution to the challenge does not need to be economical, it just has to work. If it is a one time cleansing of the atmosphere it might buy us enough time to figure out economical ways of cutting back on emissions.
Comment by Paul Artiuch - February 14, 2007 3:24 pm
Jennine:
Do not get discouraged by the one or two examples given in the article as solutions to the run-away CO2 issue. There is hope so it is better to think positively as there are many people working on truly sustainable solutions. For, as you imply in your comments, the answer does involve thinking on a total systems basis rather than piece meal. This is often referred to as Ecology.
I am involved in a newly formed Wiki-workplace to bring together professional Engineers, manufacturers, and University Professors around the world who are attempting to solve the problem of removing CO2 from the atmosphere… at the same time as we significantly decrease its generation. Note that the Virgin Challenge Prize would be nice to receive, but not necessary to justify our involvement. Have hope, the model being formulated is economical (to address Paul’s concern), simple, and fully self-sustaining over 10, 20, or 100,000+ years.
We are tackling this effort using the open architecture approach to involve as many people as possible around the world and the Wiki format to accurately keep track of each individual’s contributions. It is all out there in the open for all to see….and to contribute. Thus, this is clearly a new and most critical application of the technologies and modalities mentioned by the authors of this book. We are all genuinely about openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally…just not for corporate profit.
Daniel, we would be interested in hearing about your software…I assume it is open architecture so that we can adapt it to our needs.
Comment by Tom Kruer - February 18, 2007 7:27 am
Tom Kruer,
First, thank you for your comments to Jeannie. As you and she realize, the fundamental obstacle to saving our planet from climate change is human nature. Although there is some evidence that human nature has and is changing, we at AMCi have developed a way to work now to help people and organizations find the best results for all.
As said in my comment of 9 February, Our company specializes in getting hard-headed people to agree on long-term goals and then become aligned on starting toward those goals together. We have a proprietary software product to assist us in this process.
Nevertheless, thanks for the interest in this software. It is written in C++ language and for current Windows operating systems.
Although the code is useful, I hasten to add that without special training in its use, the desired results in real-world setting cannot be attained yet.
Because we want our methodology to be effective not only now but in the future, we conduct training in its use and license qualified persons and organizations.
Further, we see that technology is moving forward to the point that it may become possible to have a software package that can be used reliably without prior training. We are very interested in any source of funding toward that end.
I sincerely hope this helps!
Dan
Comment by Daniel Thompson - February 19, 2007 11:16 am