The most significant change is related to the fuel. I have found that the reaction of tritium and deuterium releases free neutrons, which decay after about 8 seconds. Despite this short life, the neutrons are nearly impossible to contain, since they have no charge, and they would travel large distances due to high speed. The neutrons have the potential to cause significant harm to anything that they hit by making them radioactive. The reaction of deuterium with helium 3 produces a very small number of neutrons, therefore, it might be a better choice. However, the amount of energy required to fuse these elements is higher, and would need a more powerful reactor.

Several other ideas have been proposed to reduce net global CO₂ emissions. The most accepted ones all involve removing the CO₂ directly and storing it. Commonly proposed ideas for storing it include injecting it into dry oil wells, injecting it into saline aquifers or dissolving it into the deep ocean. In fact recently, the US government has proposed a plan to require coal power plants to remove the CO₂ and sell it to oil companies to inject into the ground. Proponents argue that it is the most convenient way to store the CO₂, as the oil wells are already there, and the CO₂ is unlikely to escape. They also suggest that companies would be able to profit from this as oil companies would be able to purchase CO₂ and inject it into oil wells, which would force out more oil. Supporters of dissolving CO₂ in aquifers insist that saline aquifers are useless otherwise, and CO₂ is unlikely to escape because saline aquifers have existed for thousands of years. Others believe that ocean storage is the best option because it could store a much larger volume than other ideas, and would be cheap because it would not require drilling.

Unlike several other proposed methods of lowering CO₂ levels, the use of biochar does not require advanced technology. Separating biochar from organic material only requires that the material be heated without any oxidizing gasses. Unlike other proposed ideas, which require new and/or complex ideas to scrub CO₂ from the air, biochar utilizes the existing abilities of trees and other plants, and uses technology that is already proven and very well understood. It also doesn’t require any complex technology to store. Since biochar is stable on its own for 1000 years or more, it does not require advanced or expensive technology to store. It can simply sit and provide a long term carbon sink, unlike other technologies which capture CO₂ directly and require immense effort to store.

Most other ideas for reducing CO₂ suggest that the CO₂ be injected into geological formations such as empty oil or gas fields or underground saline aquifers, or injected into the deep ocean where the water pressure would keep the gas in solution.  Storing it in oil fields is relatively easy and the cost would be offset by the oil that would be forced out by the CO₂, but burning the resulting oil would offset a large amount of the carbon stored, and oil fields have a very limited capacity. Saline aquifers are not very well studied so the risks are largely unknown, but the costs would be high as this would require drilling deep underground. Storing CO₂ in the deep ocean contributes to ocean acidification. Using biochar is a much more practical alternative because it uses simple, cheap technology, and can be stored with little to no cost or effort.

In addition to its ability to reduce atmospheric CO₂, biochar has other benefits including use as a soil improvement and production of bio-oil as a byproduct, unlike other methods of storing carbon which provide no additional benefit. Biochar can help increase the fertility of soil by preventing nutrient loss and reducing the need for nitrogen-based fertilizers, which are expensive and harmful to the environment. Biochar also absorbs other harmful greenhouse gasses, such as methane and nitrogen dioxide, as well as contaminants such as pesticides and metals, which would otherwise be absorbed by plants. Additionally, biochar also reduces irrigation requirements by increasing the water retention of the soil. Finally, the creation of biochar produces flammable gasses and oils that could be used to power the creation of more biochar or could be refined into fuel for use in heating or transportation. Biochar not only provides the main benefit of offsetting  atmospheric CO₂, it reduces additional greenhouse gas emissions, reduces the need for fertilizer and irrigation, both of which are damaging to the environment, makes crops healthier by reducing contaminants, and opens up the use of degraded of infertile soil that would otherwise be useless.

Biochar is nearly certain to be stable and safe for long periods of time. Biochar is very stable in nature and can remain in soil for thousands of years. Additionally it cannot release large amounts of carbon at once unless it is burned. Other methods are not nearly as reliable.

Deep ocean storage is the least reliable as the carbon will be released when it moves closer to the surface and the pressure decreases. Additionally it is possible that natural processes could trigger a massive release of carbon, which would not only reverse the effects of storing the carbon, but would also have the potential to kill people by asphyxiation.

Storing CO₂ in saline aquifers could allow it to escape easily if the aquifers connect to surface water or oceans. Since most saline aquifers are not well studied, the amount of time it would take for carbon to escape is unknown and would likely vary significantly between aquifers. This means that each aquifer would need to be studied in detail in order to determine suitability.

Storage in dry oil wells would probably be stable for long periods of time, but there is still a possibility that CO₂ could escape through geological features. Additionally, the CO₂ would be released suddenly if the well were opened accidentally or by a natural disaster such as an earthquake.

While biochar would not actually sequester any CO₂, it would effectively reduce net CO₂ emissions by preventing the carbon in biomass from being released as CO₂ when it rots or burns. This method would be able to offset the CO₂ production of a power plant much more easily and cheaply than by storing the CO₂ itself. A 600 MW coal power plant produces 3.5 million tons of CO₂ per year. In order to offset this, 2-4 million tons of biomass would need to be turned into about 1 million tons of biochar. Additionally, this would not require any energy input because the bio-oil and gas output contains more than enough energy to produce biochar, unlike carbon capture, which can use up to 20-25% of a power plant’s total output.

This evidence shows that biochar is a practical method of offsetting atmospheric CO₂ because it is the most cost-effective, has additional environmental benefits, and is known to be stable for long periods of time.  Because of this, I would recommend a pilot of this process on the scale of a small power plant. The operating costs would be low, similar to the costs of running a charcoal plant, unlike the plant built recently in Mississippi that uses direct capture and storage in oil wells and cost 4.7 billion.

My idea would use the power of trees to take carbon out of the air.  When they are alive, trees take the carbon out of co2 and release o2.  When the trees die, the carbon is typically released back into the air as co2, along with a more potent greenhouse gas, Methane, when they decompose.  My idea is to take the dead trees and other scrap wood, and turn them into charcoal.  Any scrap wood could be used, and there is plenty available.  The resulting charcoal can’t rot so it will not be released into the air.  As you may have noticed, I am not proposing taking CO2 out of the air, I am proposing taking carbon out of the air and leaving the O2 to help improve the quality of our atmosphere.

The resulting charcoal could be disposed of, or stored in a variety of safe and stable ways.  It could be ground up and used as a fertilizer, buried, or even dumped into the ocean without causing harm and minimizing it’s re-release into the atmosphere.

How it works:

Scrap wood is put into a retort and heated until it becomes charcoal.  The heat source can even come from the gas that is produced as the cellulose in wood is decomposed by heat into carbon.  Charcoal will not rot so it won’t release the carbon back into the atmosphere. This idea would stop the 86 million tons of scrap wood that people generate every year from rotting then releasing co2.

©Gabriel Bay 2010

This is to explain my new design for a fusion reactor. It would be the first working fusion reactor and would revolutionize the world of energy.

The concept:

There will be a long narrow tube made of diamond with a hole the diameter of a large atom running through it.  Diamond will be used because it has high pressure and heat resistance and it is also good for heat transfer so the tube won’t become too hot.  A heavy atom will be accelerated from one end of the tube to the other end, Where there will be hydrogen atoms near the ends of the tube.  The force of the heavy atom will fuse the hydrogen atoms.  The energy from fusion will then send the heavy atom towards the other end of the tube and fuse atoms on the other end. Then it would proceed back to the other end of the tube and fuse atoms again, and it will keep doing that until some force stops the large atom.  It would be similar to an internal combustion engine because the heavy atom would keep going back and forth similar to the way that a piston compresses air and fuel in a diesel engine, except it can produce more energy without the pollution.

Generating electricity more directly than other methods:

Unlike both fusion and fossil fuel power generation which all heat water into steam and use steam to turn mechanical turbines, this design can generate electricity in a more direct and efficient way.  The tube would be surrounded by electromagnets that accelerate the heavy charged atom.  Since a particle accelerator is a linear electric motor, you could flip the polarity of the magnets after the fusion starts and it would become a linear generator.  The magnets would convert a portion of the kinetic energy into electricity and still allow the atoms to fuse on the other side.

Tremendous improvement over fission:

There is little radioactive waste produced from the process and once the reaction begins, the only thing it would need to keep going is additional hydrogen.  The only waste would be helium and free neutrons, the free neutrons would have to be held for 8 seconds while they decay and become stable.  It wouldn’t need as much heat as other designs, such as the tokomak because it uses kinetic energy.  The fuel (hydrogen) is easily available.  You could use large systems to provide electricity for homes and buildings.    The simplicity and safety of the design could allow it to be used to power electric cars and boats, which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  It would also require less heat than tokomak reactors which need over 100 million K.  And the only external energy needed would be the energy to power the particle accelerator to start the reaction and cooling if the reactor becomes hot.

Why this idea is different:

It uses kinetic energy to power the reaction instead of heat or magnets, so it requires very little external energy.  It could be very small and could possibly be used to power cars or boats.  Other ideas could only be used for power plants.

Safety issues:

There is only one safety issue if the idea works.  That would be beta radiation released by the reaction. Fortunately it is possible to block this radiation with something as thin as aluminum foil.

Next step:

To determine the feasibility of this approach, I would first determine the minimum length of the tube by calculating the speed at which the heavy atoms would need to be accelerated in order to compress and fuse hydrogen.  Then using that information, I could determine the distance I would need to accelerate the atoms in order to achieve speed.  This calculation would be done assuming the maximum power density currently being achieved in other devices such as the CERN or Stanford accelerators.  A diamond tube would then be made with a hole in it the size of a heavy atom, and a length as determined above.  This tube would be surrounded by magnets that could be used to accelerate a charged heavy atom or to generate electricity as the charged atom passes through its field.  The heavy atom should be accelerated from one end of the tube to the other and then the polarity of the magnets should be switched so the reactor acts like a generator.  If the hydrogen doesn’t fuse, then make the tube longer and try again.  If the hydrogen atoms or the heavy atom break apart, then the idea doesn’t work or the tube is too long.  If the reactor explodes then the diamond is too thin, and if the diamond melts or burns then the idea doesn’t work.

© Gabriel Bay 2009