Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
Here is my ultra-techno fix for Methane Hydrates.
Requirements:
1) Self-Replicating Nano-Robots, entirely hydrocarbon based including energy supply and material components. (With additional ability to get Nitrogen and Phosphates as needed)
2) Some sort of control system.
3) Plastic "methane hydrate shield" placed over an area 20 times the area mined.
Steps:
1) Inject some nano-Robots into Methane Hydrate field.
2) Have a Nano-robot physically pick up the Methane molecule and store it in a one way bag.
3) Have a Nano-robot refuel using Methane Hydrates for its Energy Supply.
4) Have the Nano-robots move the full bags back to a storage tank.
5) Have the nano-robot reproduce.
6) Have a control system for things such as "mining area" and "procreate" amongst other functions.
7) In case of an emergency such as a large methane release, have the nano-robots go into hyper procreation mode and convert all of the hydrates.
Storage and use: Store the entirety of Earth's Methane Hydrates in underwater containers with several layers of catches over it. Use as needed.
Of course, even using Methane is dangerous but it seems less dangerous than letting it all evaporate into the atmosphere. These are the sorts of technologies we will need in the near future to avert disaster. Anyone want to put odds on it happening? *grin* _________________ EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:28 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
What if Nanorobots get out of control and reprogram themselves?
How will you know if they are around or not?
So far we have enough problems with machines that we CAN see , thus I hold very little hope for control of this technology. _________________ Men argue, nature acts !
Voltaire
"...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
Joined: Aug 26, 2005 Posts: 1008 Location: "Mad as Hell !"
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
entropyfails wrote:
Of course, even using Methane is dangerous but it seems less dangerous than letting it all evaporate into the atmosphere. These are the sorts of technologies we will need in the near future to avert disaster. Anyone want to put odds on it happening? *grin*
I figure the odds are around a little less than zero. _________________ The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3370 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
Why place odds on nano-meth at all? Permafrost's melting, and the Japanese among others are working on extraction of seafloor methane, God help us all. Nano might take a part in future geoengineering. Scoff all you want, is artifical dimming of the sun any more or less insane than what we're doing at the moment? _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I will not abide another toe.
Joined: Oct 06, 2006 Posts: 1195 Location: was rwwff
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
Omnitir wrote:
So is it better to let the planet go to crap, rather than try and solve the problem and risk the planet going to crap?
1.) knowing when something is beyond the point of fixing is an important step in wisdom.
2.) Humans and "fixing" are often very poor bedfellows.
3.) The planet and nature will be fine. Just think of it like mother nature wanted her CO2 returned, so she created humans to go dig it all up and put it back. An unfortunate corrolary is that it will then become rather uncomfortable for those very same humans... ah well. Humans will just have to learn to live in the new environment. _________________ Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
Joined: May 13, 2007 Posts: 612 Location: Athabasca, Alberta
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
It's all in the timing. Peak oil in 2018?. End oil 2038? Global warming 2100? Global winter 2???. Go figure. _________________ Appuis ait fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae.
Alias Redneck
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
Global warming 2100? I wish.
Just read this morning that China has overtaken the US as the largest CO2 emitter, powered mainly on coal it would seem.
You have to laugh really, we've already set in motion arguably the biggest heat bomb of all time and we're still trying our hardest to increase its intensity.
The only thing holding us back from a rapid climate slide at the moment is the thermal inertia of this big old earth but that isn't going to save us, its just a matter of time.
Those nails are really being hammered down on our coffins.
Joined: May 13, 2007 Posts: 612 Location: Athabasca, Alberta
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
Congradulations, you've just explained why the ice age finished 10,000 years ago and why an ice sheet a mile and a half thick melted in less than 200 years. Publish quickly. _________________ Appuis ait fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae.
Alias Redneck
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
shakespear1 wrote:
What if Nanorobots get out of control and reprogram themselves?
How will you know if they are around or not?
So far we have enough problems with machines that we CAN see , thus I hold very little hope for control of this technology.
There is a solution to this that has been very effective for many millions of years. Nature deals with unwanted self-replicating nano-machines by combating them with self-replicating nano-machines of it's own. This system is often called an immune system.
The problem is, sometimes in nature self-replicating nano-machines (biological ones) don't stop replicating. We call this cancer. In nature it often results in the death of the host. Unfortunately in the case of nanotechnology, the host is the entire planets biosphere. This scenario is often refered to as the "grey-goo" scenario, even though in reality it would probably not be grey, or even necessarily visible to the naked eye. Though it's certainly a possibility, given that self-replication will be an essential part of functionality of molecular nanotech.
Anyway, this nano-immune system that we must develop if we achieve molecular nanotech must be fail proof. Not only must we copy nature, we must improve upon it.
As always, the next level of technology offers ever greater risk and reward. Molecular nanotech really could restore the natural environment (and also solve our energy problems). But it could also destroy the natural environment. And don't think that PO or any powerdown dream is going to stop attempts to develop it. _________________ "Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
AgentR wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
So is it better to let the planet go to crap, rather than try and solve the problem and risk the planet going to crap?
1.) knowing when something is beyond the point of fixing is an important step in wisdom.
2.) Humans and "fixing" are often very poor bedfellows.
3.) The planet and nature will be fine. Just think of it like mother nature wanted her CO2 returned, so she created humans to go dig it all up and put it back. An unfortunate corrolary is that it will then become rather uncomfortable for those very same humans... ah well. Humans will just have to learn to live in the new environment.
1.) When something is beyond fixing people generally throw it away. Not an option.
2.) We've made mistakes - we are only human. But when we really work at it, we can get things right. And past failures are no guarantee of future failures.
3.) Wrong. Completely, totally wrong. The planet has always been in a constant state of change. Human civilization has evolved during a temporary climate that we happen to find ideal. But we appear to have tipped the climate over the knife edge that it once balanced on, and no amount of garden planting and wishful thinking will magically revert the planet back to the ideal conditions for humans. Just think of nature as a complex system that doesn't strive for any particular outcome. Nature doesn't care if the planet is good for humans, microbes, or inhospitable for all life. I can guarantee, with 100% certainty, that left on it's own, the planet Earth will become inhospitable for human life at some point in the future.
In the past the natural massive carbon releases (that we are mimicking) resulted in feedback loops that wiped out much life on Earth. Humans may not be able to survive in such a world, at least without advanced technology. Alternatively, there are a many great number of all natural ways for humans to get completely wiped out.
Nature doesn't seek to make the world ideal of us, nature just exists. At some point, it is inevitable that nature will turn on humanity, even if we led the ideal eco-friendly lifestyle that is often discussed on these boards. For humans to survive long term, we must seek to make nature the way we want it to be, rather then leave it be and hope that we get lucky. _________________ "Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
Joined: Sep 14, 2004 Posts: 6466 Location: Rural Virginia
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
I read posts like yours, Omnitir, and I get the most amazing vision of our abject craziness.
Clarifying this vision is the absolute seriousness with which you spin such proposals.
You sound like the mad scientist in "Night of the Living Dead." _________________ "Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predict
Heineken wrote:
I read posts like yours, Omnitir, and I get the most amazing vision of our abject craziness.
Clarifying this vision is the absolute seriousness with which you spin such proposals.
You sound like the mad scientist in "Night of the Living Dead."
Oh believe me, it scares the crap out of me too. I mean people are concerned with nuclear weapons, and to a lesser degree bio-weapons, and to an even lesser degree, nano-tech. But that's all backwards. Each technology I just listed raises the level of danger. Nukes most likely won't wipe us all out, unless it's an all out war as feared in the cold war. That's unlikely to happen. However bio-tech has so much potential for misapplication. But like nuclear technology, it can also be used to great good. Same deal with nanotech. Such massive potential for misapplication, but in the right hands it could potentially do wonders for us.
Anyway, there's not much that can be done to stop it now. If we are still around for another decade or two, and we are still fighting resource wars, there's a good bet that nanotech will come to be. But as with the development of all new and potentially dangerous things, the worst approach is to try and stop it - that will only push it underground and ensure we end up with it being developed by the wrong hands. The best approach is to have an awareness of the science and strive for it's development in an intelligent way.
Don't confuse advocating the careful development of a technology with pursuing a technology at any cost. Personally I believe this technology is very likely to be developed one day, and I think we all need to make sure it's done right. Opposing the development of such a potentially dangerous technology, as counter-intuitive as it may sound, is possibly the most dangerous course of action we could take.
I believe I understand the position of less technology. However I believe this position to be short-sighted - not because we need the technology (though I'd argue that we do), but more so because we are going to get the technology one way or the other. _________________ "Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
, thus I hold very little hope for control of this technology.
"
