Want To Make 25 Million Dollars?

branson gore

We could all use a little walking around money, and 25 million would fit that bill. So if you want to make a cool 25 million simply develop a way to remove C02 from the atmosphere and then call up Richard Branson, the head of Virgin.

British tycoon Sir Richard Branson Friday announced a US$25 million (€19 million) prize for the scientist who comes up with a way of extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The Virgin Group chairman was joined by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and other leading environmentalists as he announced the challenge to find the world’s first viable design to capture and remove carbon dioxide from the air.

A landmark report by the world’s leading climate scientists and government officials, published in Paris last week, warned global warming will continue for centuries, creating a far different planet in 100 years.

“Man created the problem, therefore Man should solve the problem,” Branson said.

“Could it be possible to find someone on Earth who could devise a way of removing the lethal amount of CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere?” he asked, adding his wife Joan inspired him to make the challenge. (via)

We have already put enough greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that even if we stopped today we would still suffer drastic consequences from global warming. The logical option seems to be to remove these gasses before that happens. This will not be easy, there are as of yet no ways to recapture C02 once it has been put into the air. But hey if you have got an idea, it could be worth a lot. Not to mention the fact you would be saving the earth.

The most effective way to keep C02 out of the atmosphere is not to put it there in the first place. Perhaps Mr. Branson’s next prize will be for a super cheap electric car, or better wind turbines, or how to make cheap solar panels. Don’t get me wrong, if someone can figure out a way to remove C02 from the air (why not just use plants…hmm maybe I should go for that money) it would be great. I just feel that there are other ways to effectively solve global warming that we already have the technology for.

40 thoughts on “Want To Make 25 Million Dollars?”

  1. Removing CO2 from the air is easy — plants do it when they grow. Any plant will capture CO2 when it grows (and then release it when it decays or is burned). So if you find a fast growing plant that you can sequester underground before it decays and releases your carbon then you can have the $25 million.

  2. I thought the same thing when I read this Dan, but you have to wonder if it was that easy why hasn’t someone done it yet? And now that its worth 25 million why are you and I not teaming up to do so! I think the devil may be in the details.

    How do you trap the carbon in the ground, how do you keep it from all leaking out 50, 100, 1000 years from now (imagine what would happen if you removed all the carbon and then it all escaped somehow?) What will growing all those plants and then sequestering them do to the phosphorus and nitrogen levels on the planet. How many plants (most likely some form of algae) would you need to grow, how much water would this use, how much space…

    You can see that the list of questions quickly grows longer and longer. I think it could be done, and will be done, but maybe its not as easy as we would like to think.

  3. liquid: I checked out your site, I must say its not the most convincing argument you could make, use nuclear energy to turn coal into a liquid fuel?

    Seems to me that a more renewable less, fossil fuel intensive, model that doesn’t produce nuclear waste might be a better option.

    Plus not to sound mean, but if you wish to convince people of your argument hire a web designer and update the site. Your credibility is further tarnished by your insistence that global warming is not caused by humans, you are at odds with the vast majority of the worlds top climate scientists, and my own opinion.

  4. While it is commendable that Al Gore has done so much to popularize the science of global warming, and that Sir Richard Barnson is willing to spend a fortune on the problem, they both need to examine more critically what is to be done to head off this unfolding disaster.

    Yesterday’s press announcement by them and a group of scientists offering a $25 million prize to anyone who could propose a “commercially viable” means to remove billions of tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was either the product of cynical mendacity or abysmal ignorance. As any student of physics who paid the least amount of attention in Thermodynamics class or who was even awake in Classical Statistical Mechanics would know, there is a huge increase in the entropy of the carbon dioxide when it is released into and mixed with the earth’s atmosphere. To reverse this increase in entropy, as would need to be done to gather the carbon dioxide together again, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, requires a great deal of energy, even using a perfect process. This is an unalterable fact that cannot be overcome by any amount of technical cleverness. Indeed any practical process to remove the carbon dioxide is likely to be much less efficient than the theoretical limit of efficiency.

    My own calculation of the minimum energy required to remove one billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and I invite any student of physics to verify the result, is a minimum of 2 trillion kilowatt hours of energy. To get the job done, even using a perfect process, would utilize 35% of the energy equivalent of all electricity produced in the US in 2004 – 17.15 trillion kilowatt hours according to the CIA Fact Book. If electricity were used to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it would be self defeating, as much of the US production comes from the burning of coal and natural gas, and additional carbon dioxide would be being released even as it was removed.

    Perhaps Gore and Branson can be forgiven their lack of scientific understanding, but that Jim Hansen and Tim Flannery, both reputable scientists who should know better, signed onto this ill- conceived competition as judges begs explanation. They must know that there can be no practical “new technology” for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The old technology of planting vast new forests covering much of the earth’s land mass is the only real option. And to do this would require resources and global cooperation on a vast scale. Billions of years of evolution have produced a near perfect method of capturing carbon dioxide – the natural process of photosynthesis which utilizes the universal and freely available energy of sunlight.

    Frankly, I find Al Gore’s stance on global warming disturbing, as I do that of nearly all US politicians. They are engaged in Denial Two, this is the denial that comes after acceptance of the scientific facts of global warming. It is in the notion that US economic life can continue without radical change, and that technical fixes will be discovered to solve the problem. I have never heard Al Gore utter the words “cap and trade” or “carbon emissions tax” or “carbon entitlements”. These words carry with them an end to fossil fuel use and justice to the people in developing countries.

    I feel like the child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

  5. Russel: I would be very interested to know in how you came to your numbers, as for using energy to reverse entropy you will get no arguments from me on that point, you do however assume that they are going to use a mechanical method, biological methods may also work.

    I assume this will be accomplished (if it can be) by biological methods. Only large amounts of plants in my opinion would be able to do such a thing, the secret I think will be in then finding a clever way of keeping that co2 from returning back into the atmosphere.

    I do agree that the best way to stop carbon from getting in the air would be to quickly move ourselves away from the use of fossil fuels. Do not take my comments as an argument against yours, more of something else to think about.

  6. russel sent me this fantastic email with this great calculation. Here it is.

    Thank you for your interest in the calculation. The
    entropy of carbon dioxide increases when it is mixed
    into the atomsphere, and a reduction of atmospheric
    entropy by the same amount would be the result of
    removing it. The minimum amount of energy needed is
    the product of the entropy change times the
    temperature of the gas. The calculation is simple,
    just substitutions in two formulas:

    (delta)S = entropy change from mixing gases

    n = number of moles of gas in earth’s atmosphere
    = 1.7573x10exp20

    This figure I derived by dividing the mass of the
    atmosphere by the average molecular weight of its
    constituents. I used the figure for atmospheric mass
    published in “Handbook of Physics and Chemistry” which
    is 5.14x10exp21 grams, and an average molecualar
    weight of 29.25

    R = the gas constant = 8.314472 Joules/degKxmole

    T = ambient temperature in degrees Kelvin.
    = 273.16 = 0 Celsius [I deliberately used a low
    figure to make the calculation conservative]

    c1 = molar concentration of CO2 in atmosphere
    = .00383

    c2 = molar concentration of remaining constituents
    = 1-c1
    = 0.99617

    formula for entropy of mixing:

    (delta)S = -nR(c1(natlogc1) + c2(natlogc2)

    Substituting in the values of the variables:

    (delta)S = 3.6726x10exp19 joules/degK

    The second formula gives the minimum energy needed to
    remove all the CO2:

    (delta)E = (delta)ST
    = 3.6726x10exp19 x 273.16
    = 1.0032x10exp22 joules

    and to convert this to kwh, divide by 3.6x10exp6

    (delta)E = 2.787x10exp15 kwh

    Wikipedia gives the total atmospheric loading of CO2
    at 2.996x10exp12 tonnes. so, to remove just one
    billion (1.0x10exp9) tonnes would require an energy
    minimum of:

    (2.787x10exp15 x 1.0x10exp9)/(2.996x10exp12)

    = 0.93x10exp12 kwh or roughly a trillion kwh

    The figure I am stating here is less than the amount
    in my original estimate, as I had used a lower figure
    of the tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in the first
    calculation. I trust the Wikipedia figure better than
    my first source.

    Also, I’d like to amend my statement about Al Gore not
    favoring carbon taxes and capping emissions. I have
    become aware of a very strong speech he made urging
    these measures at NYU last September. Here is the link
    to this speech:


    Thanks again for your interest

  7. The question I have come to is: Would someone recognize an actual solution to global warming if such were presented to them? Another
    question I have formed is: Will the bottom line determine whether or not the future is saved from global warming?

    I am an inventor who has spent 16 years with no job working full time
    on an invention I named ‘Hydristor’. Google the word. See it on Wikipedia. Simply put, the Hydristor is a totally variable hydraulic pump/motor, a pair of which can be packaged as a torque converter replacement in any vehicle already on the road. The Hydristor utilizes
    the engine usually running at idle to charge pressure storage tanks to
    an upper pressure limit and the engine is then shut off until the tank pressure reaches a lower limit when the Hydristor directly restarts the engine to make more pressure. The braking is fully accomplished by the Hydristor and the energy is directed to the tanks. The engine is usually idling or turned off so the energy use is
    more than cut in half while CO2 greenhouse gas emissions is quartered. If every existing vehicle on the road were retrofitted to
    the Hydristor technology (in 5-6 years at a US cost of $200 billion),
    not only would the national fuel economy average would double to
    40+ Mpg allowing the remaining Earth’s oil reserve to last 75 years instead of the 25 years now predicted, but the 10 year tipping point prediction of Dr. James Hansen of NASA could be met and we wouldn’t have to junk all our vehicles (that alone will take 20-25 years!) and spend huge amounts of personal money buying questionable hybrid technology. In my opinion, the sum total of all the efforts will not meet the 10 year prediction of Dr. Hansen.
    I plan to install the Hydristor in a Ford Expedition weighing 7,000
    pounds. The fuel economy will jump from 16 to 40+ and the acceleration will be greatly enhanced in the package. The Hydristor retrofit turns virtually any vehicle already on the road into a full hydraulic hybrid which will soundly outperform the new crop of hybrids. CO2 emissions are quartered in the bargain.

    Another form of the Hydristor is a super Freon heat pump recovering 10 times the environmental heat energy from the air or water and then sending this heat to a Stirling heat engine which converts the applied heat into direct shaft horsepower. The addition of an electrical generator converts the shaft power into electrical power
    and the overall gain is 400%. Once the Hydristor heat pump is started, the wall plug from the power company is pulled and plugged into the output electricity and the system runs by itself, as
    long as the Sun continues to supply heat energy to the Earth, example being Niagara Falls, NY power generation. Underwater heat exchangers could be sited all along the US ocean and lake shorelines
    and localized power grids could be established to harvest excess heat from the oceans and lakes (caused by global warming) to make free electricity having true zero emissions. This would allow for the shutdown of existing air burning power generation and preclude the need for nuclear generation by fully utilizing our ,nuclear power plant in the sky, the Sun!’. This is, in my opinion the only technology which has the capacity to save the future. Want to help? see my website;
    regards Tom Kasmer, inventor 22 Fedruary, 2007

  8. instead of creating new machines to remove CO2, why not modify existing machines and vehicles to greatly reduce the EXISTING CO2
    generation. That can happen a lot sooner in time.

  9. Instead of limiting the carbon dioxide find ways to reflect more heat from the earth’s surface. Change the colour of ashphalt from black to a more reflective colour or product.

    Thinking “outside the box”, the enemy is heat, not carbon dioxide. Alternate fuels will be developed. In the interim, reflect more light.

  10. Steven: I think what you are getting reflecting heat mixed up with reflecting light, reflecting heat back into a co2 heavy atmosphere would only trap that heat. I we reflected light back (without any of it being absorbed as heat) that may help. Interesting idea none the less.

  11. There is a practice called Homa Therapy (Agni Hotra) that heals the atmosphere and reduces greenhouse gases. It also stabalizes pathogenic bacteria and helps to reset the balance of the atmosphere. There are thousands of web sites that you can find information of how you can do your part in “saving the planet”.

  12. hey everyone think about removing co2 not conserving nature. we want a fast and reliable way to remove co2… try to break co2 into c(carbon)and o2(oxygen)
    i know this is practically impossible….. but there is always a way….
    try reacting caron dioxide with some salt , acid any compound which results in release or either of them…
    eg CO2 + 2[H]->H2O+ C [solid,can be stored away]

    this equation may not be right but its just an eg
    here we got c and o2 is with hydrogen
    we can remove O2 by electolysing h2o in hoffmann’s voltameter
    therefore we are competely free from co2
    the released o2 helps in rebuilding the ozone layer……..
    try to reduce o2 this way

  13. vasanth: your equation may very well work, but how much energy would you need to make it all work? Where would you get this energy?

    Any solution to this problem basically has to be solar powered (in some way), or maybe nuclear powered but you can’t create more carbon while you are trying to get it out of the atmosphere.

    Keep coming up with good ideas though, maybe you could win the prize :)

  14. I believe I have an idea that could likely be the single most significant impact on co2 REDUCTION. The impact would be a global effect and would probably save hundreds of millions gallons of gasoline annually. the most ironic thing is it would cost NOTHING to anyone In fact QUITE THE OPPOSITE!!!

    IS IS AN ASTONISHING REVELATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. Mr Naib
    i am very glad that you have considered my equation.
    my equation meant to destry co2 meaning brekaing it down………
    carbon in solid form like coke or any other solid form can be stored and used if necessary
    the carbon stored cannot convert into co2 as it needs some energy…
    sir me being a 17 year old boy now going to 12 in june cant tel you how much energy needed unless i can perform this experiment manually… i cant perform this experiment due to lack of finance and equipments………. sir maybe you can try out this expeiment and send me the results. i know how to do.. but cant do..
    to get nascent hydrogen..so2 + h2o-> [h] + other products
    by isolating [h] and bringing it in contact with co2… and providing a good amount of energy will give us h2o and c… h2o can be split byhoffmann’s voltameter..
    thereby releasing o2 in air can give us a better environment…
    hydrogren can be stored or released in air..
    therefore we are free from co2 and free o2 helps us a lot..
    the solid carbon can be stored in huge tanks …
    sir please try out this experiment anyhow..
    and do reply me sir … i am counting on you sir please take my sincere request

    sir solid carbon is stable for eg. coal it doesnot react to form co2 unless we do it……

  16. You could put small solar panels top of lampposts to save electric it might cost a lot but it could help the earth and would pay for it’s self eventually

  17. Hey, I dont really know who you are or what you do, but I was searching in general for the place to put my idea. I do realise that this isn’t the official place but i saw some feedback from you and thought it would be a good place to start.

    My idea is that, reverse the laws on the Government.
    Or more simply change the hand of power around. This could be achieved by producing an argument that puts foward the idea that it is the people with the power (gov.) whose fault it is for Global warming. For not putting a strict set of laws of CO2 out put. And therefore causing damage to the environment, and in particular National and State parks. So in a sense because they are the cause of the CO2 and it is harming something that has been put under special conditions for conservations (the parks) they are breaking their own rules by damaging these sites.

    This will then force them to do something because, 1. The government can not break the law, 2. They don’t like to be proven wrong and 3. We all know why they do anything…for votes, so if thats what the “people” want then that’s what the people will get.

    Well that’s it, I know that it won’t remove CO2, but it will stop it. It probably won’t be the one recieving the 25 million but it does feel good typing these last few letter and knowing that i’ve helped the world (If my plan is used and works, you know only the minor flaws in the plan)

    Ben Quick, 15

  18. Why don’t we try to stop producing emissions in the mean time while we are trying to find ways to remove the existing gasses.

    I am not a scientist, however, am of Metis decent, and we are using up the earth in astronomical wastful ways, all the while, trying to find a way so we can continue to live in our selfish, spoiled, and entitled fashion.

    STOP, producing gasses! Simple ways, but will never happen, because big business runs the world. NO MORE DISPOSABLE DIAPERS, IS ONE WAY. If every person who uses them had to dig a hole in their back yard and bury all the diapers their children use, they would re-think their habits. 3 years of diapers is a big big pile!!
    NO MORE PAPER WIPES OF ANY KIND, paper towels, napkins, kleenex. O.K. you can use toilet paper, but only 5 squares Ha Ha.
    The amount of energy to make paper products to take a tree from wood into paper, then into a product, then to package it, then to truck it to the stores, just to wipe up a spill is simply rediculous.
    We are heading toward a stone wall just like the crash test dummies, and we are not putting on the brakes.

    What is wrong with us. Start solving in the simplest ways!!!

  19. To Al Gore & Richard Branson,

    Yes, there is carbon capturing technology available today! This may sound lame to you (or perhaps you have already heard about it) but I saw a documentary on TV chronicling a european engineer’s invention of a “mechanical tree”, which takes in great quantities of air into it’s grid (branches), and as it passes through the system, a chemical reaction takes in the Co2 and changes it into hydrogen and water (I believe). Sorry, I do not remember on which channel it was broadcast, or what the engineer’s name was (due to toxic build up in my body, my memory is faulty, among other things). The thing about this mechanical tree is that it converts such vast quantities of Co2, that it would only take about two dozen or so of them, to take care of all of the earth’s air!

  20. Ah yes, I just read another post suggesting this same reaction, and it was indeed that with the addition of salt or acid, the resulting components would be oxygen and carbon, revitalizing the Ozone layer, as well as removing the Co2. These mechanical trees would be solar powered to boot.

  21. It’s funny, humans have been aware of the solution for thousands of years. HEMP happens to be the most versatile crop available to us. Hemp stalks can be used for thousands of textile uses from paper, rope, clothing, medicine, paint, food, and perhaps most importantly, bio-fuels. What makes hemp even more special is its adaptability and growth cycle. It only takes a few months to produce an 8 ft stalk of hemp while it revitalizes the soil underneath it. For all you anti-drug advocates, salvation is still possible because only the female plant buds marijuana. If we can genetically modify the plants to be male only (entirely possible), as well as speed up the crop time to 2 months or so, we can have full crops pop up every month. I’m not an advocate of drugs, but let’s grow up people, the solution is ALWAYS around the corner… The only thing stopping us is the hundred of industries that are in danger from hemp, i guess its up to us to decide whats more important…

  22. …or plankton… better battery technology, photovaltic paint… theres tons of people willing to work on all these technologies, they just need support and exposure

  23. why don’t we break carbon into atoms, and then regroup them so that they are oxigen?is this possible?or why don’t we transfom carbon into diamonds for example….i mean, capture the carbon, and make the atoms arrange that way so that they become solide…get it?my request is….could u please tell me if it’s possible or not?

  24. Sir Richard Branson wants to give an inventor $25 million dollars to produce a device which will eliminate 1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year?

    Well, if this brilliant individual finds a way to convert CO2 into it’s basic ingredients of carbon and oxygen or maybe scrub it out of the ambient air, then how are they going to dispose of a cubic kilometer of carbon?

    By definition, a cubic kilmeter is 10 to the 9th power or simply put, the size of a mountain!!

    Will this carbon be recycled?

  25. well…in nature everythings transforms so u could say that the carbin will be recycled…

  26. Kewi: The problem with your plan is not that it wouldn’t work, its that because of the laws of physics (specifically the bit about entropy) it would take A LOT of energy to do what you describe (I mean A LOT!!!). This energy would have to come from some place, if we use oil/gas/or coal to do it well we are right back where we started. Only solar power is abundant enough to accomplish what you describe, and well we just aren’t that good at capturing solar power yet. That is not to say its impossible, just impossible the way you describe.

    Eddie: carbon is useful, we could build a space elevator out of that much carbon, think of how much carbon fiber space ships you could make with that, carbon fiber high rises? Heck the possibilities are endless.

  27. I like the idea submitted earlier using a “mechanical tree” to convert carbon dioxide into harmless substances

    We would then start a funding program to set up a “forest” of these trees in arid regions with plenty of sunshine to power the solar cell “leaves”!!

    Where can we find this TV documentary?

  28. got a question about the mechanical tree….how does it work?how can it transform CO2 into H2O by putting it to a rection with another substance? I knew that plants, by photosintesis(i dunno how it’s called in englush cuz im from romania) break CO2 into carbon and oxigen, and put the carbin into the ground, and then they eliminate oxigen. Now, another question of mines is, how can plants break CO2 into 2 different elements. What substance in their structure is responsable for that?Clorofile?

  29. Mechanical trees, real plants using photosynthesis, etc., play a major role in removing CO2 in atmospheric air. CO2 comprises 0.038% of ALL components in our atmosphere. We have spent countless hours researching how we can remove it but I have come to the conclusion that we should be looking at the greatest CO2 sink on Earth; the oceans.

    Wikipedia, (Carbon Dioxide) noted Deep Ocean storage as a possible solution to locking up CO2. I quote this article, “At sufficiently high pressure, around 500 m depth, CO2 + 2 H2O forms an (apparently) inert compound, C(OH)CO4”.

    Ocean water takes in CO2 like a sponge and holds on to it like a magnet. In fact, atom for atom, ocean water holds 50 times more CO2 than atmospheric air!! At 50 times the amount of CO2, extraction and conversion to C(OH)CO4 would allow an ocean process to work in an area concentrated 50 times smaller than ambient air.

    Let’s think about designing a conversion process to sink this carbon to the ocean floor and let the ocean “sponge” soak up more CO2 to “replace” its now lost CO2.

  30. This question is really difficult but truly has an easy answer. I can’t tell you how to do it, but i can give you a clue. The planet earth’s survival needs all of its components including carbon dioxide. However, if we could find a gas that has all of carbon dioxide strenghts but none of its weakness the earth would perge it self of the deadly CO2 itself. We do not give the earth nearly enough credit for it’s ability to clean itself. Now do we make this gas ourselves or do we seek it from other planets. Always remember, man cannot solve earth’s problems, the earth won’t allow it. Man can however point the earth in the right direction and the ACO2 (ALTERNATE CARBON DIOXIDE) will evolve and we will see a complete change in a couple of decades. Hint >: BLADE THE MOVIE HE WAS A DAY WALKER, YES THIS IS FICTIONAL BUT OF DNA RELEVANCE, HE COULD SURVIVE BECAUSE OF HIS DIFFERENCE. FIND OUT WHAT A IN ACO2 IS THAT COULD CHANGE ITS TOTAL EFFECT ON THE EARTH. YOU CANNOT REMOVE WHAT IS MEANT TO BE THERE, YOU CAN ONLY IMPROVE UPON IT WHEN ITS PURPOSE BECOMES OBSOLETE. FIND OUT WHAT THE A IS IN ACO2 AND YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER TO EARTH BIGGEST SECRET

  31. I propose Mechanical “PERPETUUM MOBILE” – BURANLO, not contradicting is invented
    To fundamental laws of physics, and the opening new physical law-
    « Transformation static нагруженности (springs, magnetic fields and others
    Springing materials) in dynamics{changes} of rotary movement on the basis of planetary
    Systems of tooth gearings. For the first time an energy source are not spontaneous
    Forces of the nature, and force of statically loaded spring acting on dividers of forces
    Infinitely in time. The engineering specifications under a heading « MECHANICAL
    Self-propelled – BURANLO (БУРАНЛО) » is to the address of:

  32. I am a scientist. I am retired. With over 20yrs in projects and creations I can never tell about. With nothing to show for it. Nothing.
    I struggle now to survive and pay bills. For this reason I dont not desire to give one more moment to helping and trust no one to reward me for doing so.

    The book worms on here are flawed in thinking. They have confined themselves and thier thinking to what is known and what of that they have learned. So foolish…
    I will say only this:
    It is simple to remove Co2.
    You have only but to STOP thinking on HOW to reverse the processes. For it is not practicle. You should be ahsamed of yourselves for even taking the time to calculate such things. You dont need to calculate anything to know that. The simple law of conservation of energy answeres that question for you. This is why I say you have no sense of how to use what you know. In short , it will take the exact amount of energy to reverse any process as it took to create it. The amount of energy expelled in creating the CO2 over the many decades is astronomical. Think of all those combustion processes. Why be so foolish to calculate the part of that energy that was delivered to creating the CO2 that came from it. More than CO2 came from it, but even so. You should have known that it would be enormous.
    Why indulge yourself in foolish calculations that will only reveal the ans you already know. It is for this reason NOT one of you are capable of handling this problem. Or many problems. Your thinking is flawed.
    Before I help you, let me say this about me. I have a IQ of over 188.
    Once I was given a einstein problem that Mr. Albert said before he died only 1% of all the population of the world would ever get the solution right. I was given this problem as a office joke and did not know. Fellow scientist were trying to stump me. I solved it in under a minute. Needless to say, they never tried that again.

    I prefer to be unknown, as knowledge is a curse.

    Now to help you….at least only enough so you can help yourselves.

    You have only to think in the other direction. Do NOT reverse the process, or even attempt to. Quite the opposite, go forward. There is but a small amount of energy needed to bump CO2 to a dorment state. Insignificant by all other comparisons. You have only but to use your imagination to determine what it is.

    This should be quite a challenge for you. You have already proven your imagination is weak at best.

  33. @JFK: It must be a real downer to learn that not only did Einstein not create that problem, but way more than 1% of the population can solve it.

    Knowledge isn’t a curse, egotism is.

Comments are closed.