[tasmodevil44]

I think that super-strong graphite fibers added to concrete could potentially sequester a lot of carbon while not depleting atmospheric oxygen in the long run and also providing all sorts of other benifits and spin-offs.

      In my previous post on focus fusion,I mentioned how it could possibly supply heat for large-scale pyrolysis of hemp,switchgrass,genetically-modified algae or whatever other kind of biomass.If not,then more conventional nuclear power or even the more controversial blacklight process energy source discovered by Randall Mills.By using some carbon-neutral energy source for pyrolysis,you don't contribute to global warming,and you don't have an uneconomic situation of dimminishing returns due to burning fuel in order to make fuel.

      This process produces renewable oil and gas that can make gasoline,diesel and jet fuel.But it also produces lots of leftover charcoal as a byproduct.What do you do with all of it?

      A long time ago, some Japanese inventor had already patented a process for cheap mass production of graphite fiber from coal.After all,they're both comprised mostly of elemental carbon.So it should not be too difficult for a variation of this process to be modified for graphite fiber production from pyrolytic charcoal,which is also mostly carbon.

      So,after renewable car and truck biofuel is made from switchgrass,what do you do with all the carbon graphite fiber made from the remaining carbon residue? Plenty of things.Although it will find use in things like ultralight car bodies and tennis rackets,by far the best large-scale sequestration purpose should be graphite-reinforced concrete.This can not only build stronger dams,it can also repair and shore-up old and existing aging infrastructure.It can make concrete buildings and bridge-spans more earthquake resistant.

      By far the biggest potential use however,is graphite fiber reinforced composite roads and highways.Such roads could potentially last hundreds or even thousands of years without cracking or wearing-out.Although the initial construction cost would be higher than conventional petroleum-based asphalt,in the long-run it would be cheaper due to less repairs.No fossil-based oil would be necessary to pave roads anymore,conserving petroleum resources.And the higher cost of these graphite-reinforced roads could be partially offset by the fact that valuable biofuels are being created along with it as a side-product.I think that this kind of sequestration of carbon could permanently remove an enormous amount of it from the atmosphere.Just bury it beneath the wheels of your car that's emitting it.

      The only major problem with most of these potential solutions is the lack of willpower needed for large-scale mass production and implementation and the daunting task of investing in things on the scale of China's Great Wall.They would have to be gradually scaled-up over a period of many years. 

[Borek]

Don't get me wrong, but with your imagination you should try your hand at SF writing 

[enahs]

Such roads could potentially last hundreds or even thousands of years without cracking or wearing-out.

No no no. We need jetson type flying automobiles stuff. Not better roads!

[billnotgatez]

I would think that making coal into carbon fiber would be favored energetically while making it from carbon dioxide would not be favored.

[tasmodevil44]

borek stated that:

      "Don't get me wrong,but with your imagination you should try your hand at SF writing."

      Thanks for the wonderfully good compliment.Virtually all real technology in practical implementation today started out as SF fantasy before undergoing further refinement.And like I stated before,(go back and read again)a lot of it is not my original ideas,because a lot of other people think along the same lines as I do and the technology potential for most of it is already there and developed by others.And like I also stated before,it can be hazardous to have such an arrogant and blinkered mindset,for you might have to eat crow one of these days.

      Like I stated before, the only real big obstacle remaining for implementation of most of these things is willpower to get it done and the enormous scale-up(like on the magnitude of constructing China's Great Wall) and investments required...not so much technological capability.This seems true for most methods of solving future energy and global warming problems.For example,the very thought of constructing thousands of new nuclear reactors to replace fossil fuels on a large scale seems very daunting of a task.Or to scale-up algae farms on a scale big enough to put a dent in the problem.

      By the way,speaking of nuclear power,more carbon could also be sequestered as graphite fiber inside all the reinforced concrete containment domes of all the new nukes we plan to build in the future.I'd like to see one of Bin Laden's crazy kamikazee pilots try to hit that.

[tasmodevil44]

billnotgatez,I think you're correct for the most part about what you said about how the energy economics of graphite fiber from coal would be more favorable than charcoal from pyrolyzed biomass.It probably would not require anywhere near the thermal energy for pyrolysis.That's one reason I suggested some other energy source that is non-carbon emitting to supply the required energy.

      I was sort of thinking more along the lines of carbon sequestration from the atmosphere as switchgrass,hemp, or whatever else grows.The commercial value of the renewable biofuel might at least partially offset the greater cost of graphite fiber made from the remaining charcoal side-product of pyrolysis ..(if not,what else could you make from the remaining leftover carbon in the form of charcoal after biomass pyrolysis? Make zillions and zillions of outdoor barbecue grill briquettes ! ! ! LOL ! ! !     .. a little sense of whacky humor makes being a mad scientist more fun )