the old ones don't care because it won't have much of an impact on their lives which; the young ones recognize it will

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=49205

Nanotech will be pulling so much carbon out of the atmosphere to build things like roads, houses, etc... by 2050, we may have to worry about the reverse problem.

Start the video around 9m52s

There's been lots of predictions of amazing new technologies. They very frequently don't work out.

Could we develop effective scrubbers? Sure. Will we in time? Much more difficult to say.

Not linear as your intuition would have you assume. Expect about 20,000 years of progress this century.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

See: Battery capacity. Linear at best.

Technology will advance, but technology does not always advance in predictable ways. Some problems turn out to be harder to solve.

For example, we were supposed to have fusion power plants decades ago. The problem turned out to be much harder to solve. OTOH, there's lots of technology we now have that nobody ever predicted.

Many other technologies that will form the base for sophisticated nanotech (battery tech may or may not be a part of this) are indeed on a exponential tract (see below).

The important variables in molecular manufacturing is our ability to manipulate matter on a smaller and smaller scale - which IS happening. Merging of genetics, microbiology, and nanotech ensure we will have the ability to use solar power to grab carbon atoms out of the air and use them to construct objects. A decade or two of variability doesn’t change the big picture. Unless you can point to a specific item that will stop progress in our ability to manipulate matter on a smaller and smaller scale, (short of some black swan global calamity) I feel very comfortable assuming things will remain on track.

It may very well turn out that mining, refining and producing the materials for your CO2 scrubbers releases more CO2 than those scrubbers can consume.

We're working against the energy gradient - CO2 is lower energy than free oxygen and carbon bonded to something. Working in that direction greatly reduces the number of options, and it could very well turn out that there isn't one that can work quickly enough to make up for what we're putting into the atmosphere.

While there's reason to hope, we should not bet everything on it.

Scrubbers imply items put into place with the specific intent of removing CO2 as a method of reducing pollution, which isn't what I am suggesting (although it's a side effect). I referred to devices put into place that would explicitly pull the CO2 out with the intent of using it to build things. There is a massively larger incentive for the latter than the first. Once it's possible to assemble items in place without having to transport tons of material from some remote site, the economic advantages will be obvious.

Also, I'm not sure how or why a solar powered nanobot who's job it is to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere with the intent of building things would release more CO2 than it's taking in... exactly what would be the point of that?

As for the energy requirements, obviously every active entity requires energy. We have loads of it in the form of solar and in a few decades will be far ahead of the efficiency we have now, so again, I don’t see any problem here.

The purpose of the device is to remove CO2 from the air, and either as the goal or side-effect, climate change goes away.

That's a scrubber. Whether you make something with the resulting carbon or not.

Your nanobot does not appear out of thin air. Something built it. And it will not be 100% carbon.

Mining the raw materials, refining those raw materials and then assembling them into a nanorobot will release something into the atmosphere. If it releases more CO2 than the nanobot will consume, you're net negative and your plan to stop climate change will fail.


CO2 is more stable than oxygen and carbon bonded to something. So shorten the typing, I'm gonna call free oxygen and carbon bonded to something "the result".

When you produce the result, it's going to keep trying to get back to being CO2. CO2 is more stable and lower energy, so left to it's own devices the result will degrade back to CO2. Because of that, what you can do to produce the result is much more limited.

For example, if you apply lots of heat, the result will burst into flame and go back to being CO2. That greatly restricts the options for how you produce the result. Which makes it much more likely that the overall process to produce the result will not be carbon-negative.

Also, sunlight striking the Earth's surface has 164 Watts per square meter per day of energy. That limits how much CO2 you can turn into the result - you can never do better than 164 Watts per square meter, and that assumes 100% efficiency. So if we use an existing technology, such as this one, we'd need to cover about 14 million acres of the deserts in the Southwest with mirrors in order to offset CO2 produced by our consumption of oil. Not all fossil fuels, just oil.

That then gets to the problem of the CO2 supply. If we pretend your super-efficient nanobots exist and could be produced carbon-free, they have to get the CO2 from somewhere. The atmosphere doesn't actually have that much CO2 - 400ppm is not a high concentration when you're talking about making stuff from it. And since your nanobot is consuming vast quantities of CO2, the concentration of CO2 in the local atmosphere is going to be much lower, making the problem even worse. Either we slow the reaction way down, or we have to concentrate the CO2. The process of mining, refining, building and operating the systems to concentrate the CO2 could themselves release CO2.

So there are very large problems to overcome. We may be able to overcome them. But it is nowhere near guaranteed. Much less guaranteed in any reasonable timeframe.

Your nanobot does not appear out of thin air. Something built it. And it will not be 100% carbon.

Mining the raw materials, refining those raw materials and then assembling them into a nanorobot will release something into the atmosphere. If it releases more CO2 than the nanobot will consume, you're net negative and your plan to stop climate change will fail.

The implication of nanobots are they are capable of replicating - ala Von Neuman replicators. I never said the nanobot's themselves were to be made of 100% carbon (or even the end result of what they build). I said nanobots would use carbon in the production of roads (or other items).

Nanobot directly "grab" molecules or atoms to do their work. If they are recycling trash to acquire the needed components to build more replicators, I have no issue with that. No need to "mine" additional atoms when we already have plenty to work with. If they break apart molecules that contain carbon, obviously they wouldnt just release it to the air, but sequester it for more building material - just like they would with any other atoms they interact with. You toss them into a landfill and come back a day later, you have a pile of graphene, a pile of gold, a pile of iron, etc...

For example, if you apply lots of heat, the result will burst into flame and go back to being CO2. That greatly restricts the options for how you produce the result. Which makes it much more likely that the overall process to produce the result will not be carbon-negative.

Well I guess your right if the nanobots were constructing charcoal... probably not so right if they make graphene or diamond.

Again, it really sounds like you haven’t read much on molecular manufacturing at all. It sounds like you keep referring back to current production memes.

And thus you have to make that other stuff somehow. Bringing that other stuff into your carbon budget. If the other stuff is as carbon-expensive as say, making cement, then you will be producing more CO2 than the nanobots can absorb.


And the entire point is we don't have plenty to work with in the atmosphere. Which means you have to mine, refine and haul the materials to the construction site.

It does you no good to sequester a ton of CO2 in your new construction when it cost you two tons of CO2 to make and transport the raw materials.


No, you have a mix of all of those, unless your nanobots spend an enormous amount of energy hauling the materials into separate piles. That pile 2 feet away is a million miles to a nanobot. The time hauling the carbon there is time not spent fixing CO2, limiting the rate of your reaction.

Atmospheric raw materials fix your hauling problem, but limits your raw materials.

And now you have to haul your piles to your next construction site from the dump. Spending CO2.

These are the kinds of problems you are glossing over when you claim it is right around the corner and easy.


Graphene and diamond are both combustible. Diamond burns at about 1520F. Graphene also burns, but the temperature is more variable - it depends on the shape of the structure you are building with it.


I'm referring to the basics of physics and chemistry. Molecular manufacturing still obeys those basic laws.

I'm only going to respond to the points there where I think you were genuinely trying to think though the process. Obviously, when your reaching to points like "Diamonds burn" your outside the range of normal everyday road construction - and is simply you trying to be "right" instead of an honest conversation.

And the entire point is we don't have plenty to work with in the atmosphere. Which means you have to mine, refine and haul the materials to the construction site.

Recycling trash... enough said. Recycling is good. Pulling additional carbon in as needed it good.

It does you no good to sequester a ton of CO2 in your new construction when it cost you two tons of CO2 to make and transport the raw materials.

How does one produce two tons of CO2 from a solar powered nanobot as it moves a CO2 molecule?

"That pile 2 feet away is a million miles to a nanobot. The time hauling the carbon there is time not spent fixing CO2, limiting the rate of your reaction. "

And yet your body does fine pulling in oxygen and transporting it at least two feet away to your feet with ease. Not sure why nanobots couldnt use similar approaches to moving material. It could build and remove structures as needed, much like your body does - but with vastly superior speed.

A lot of these technological advancements are far more plausible than I thought it might be.

Google up nanotech roadmaps. There are a lot of smart people out there making VERY educated (much more than you or I) guesses on timeframes. Even if they are off by a factor of 2 decades, it wouldn’t change the outcome much.

If the changes require refinement of existing technology, such as making better microchips, then it's relatively easy to make a decent estimate.

The changes here require several new things to be invented. Just like improvements in battery capacity require inventing new materials. Or the fusion power plants I keep referencing.

We can't make a good estimate about how long it will take to invent something brand-new.

Moore's law does however have implications for nano-production. Again, no reason seen or given to assume that we wont continue to get better at manipulating smaller and smaller structures.

(Yes, I know Moore's law was originally stated in relation to transistors, but the application of the idea of control of micro-structures doesn’t just stop at transistors)

"Nanotechnology" is nothing new, life on earth has been doing it for billions of years.

Our current high technology high energy society is a sad, destructive stunt we've accomplished with fossil fuels.

Those entities you mentioned have one goal in mind... survival. Design of nano-entities with the purpose to build complex things we need is entirely unprecedented.

Show me a virus that can build a road that can capture solar energy, or a bacterial that can build a car. By 2050, you’ll see nanobots that can do exactly that (along with removing that pesky carbon from the air too).

There's a reason roads aren't built from 100% carbon. Actually, several. The first accident that caused a car to catch fire would be extremely interesting.

Who said anything about it being 100% carbon or carbon in a burnable form? Even adding in a small percentage of carbon into current roadways would make them practically indestructible and require huge amounts of carbon.

See here:
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=154964

This doesn't even count the possibility later of designing the nanobots to create (grow!) the roads using carbon structures that were not only practically indestructible to impact, fire, and chemicals (as well as self-healing) - but also to add the ability to gather solar energy as well as change the surface to display various patterns of information. Want to change the lanes on a nanotech highway? It's a programming change with a command or two - instead of repainting the lines.

http://www.solarroadways.com

You did. You were claiming nanobots would be making roads out of carbon, and only carbon.


Then they aren't made out of carbon structures. Those are black. And not solar panels.

If you want to do what you describe, you now have to add other materials that aren't carbon.

I don't debate with people that call me a liar, or those that deliberately say untrue things. Stating that I said 100% carbon is completely non-factual. It's obvious when one has to reach to dishonesty to present one's argument, the conversation can proceed no further. Good day.

You claimed the nanobots would make stuff from CO2. You provided no other source of materials, leaving us with oxygen and carbon for construction.

Since O2, O and CO are gasses, you won't be getting solids from those. Meaning anything constructed by your nanobots is made from carbon and only carbon.

If you meant to say the nanobots would use other materials, you'd have to bring those materials in from somewhere. And add their mining, refining and manufacturing to the CO2 budget. Overlooking that is a very large potential problem with your plan.

Heck, I hate cars now, and I resent every minute I have to drive. I hate roads too. The ideal form of transportation is walking. Following that, bicycles and sailboats, maybe electric rail.

The real magic of this world is how I can plant a seed in my garden and make food from sunlight, carbon dioxide, and compost.

I can make building materials the same way. The entire upstairs of my house has a bamboo floor, and the downstairs floor is stone. (We have dogs, including a husky who sheds incredible amounts of hair, so carpet is a nuisance.) Building panels can be made from hemp. Lumber is made from trees. Pex water supply pipe and plastic drain pipe can be synthesized from plant derived materials.

In my utopia I see pedestrian and bicycle friendly cities built of non-flammable materials that last centuries. That, combined with a decreasing human population (owing to universally available birth control and sex education) would decrease humanity's environmental footprint.

Why look for some nano-technology miracle to replace what we already have, or worse, to produce more of what we don't need?

Maybe there are uses for nano-technology in medicine or catalyst design, more efficient batteries and the like, but I'm not seeing anyone growing cell phones in a tank of nano-tech soup anytime soon.

I'm a science and technology positive Luddite, if that makes any sense. I think modern models of economic "productivity" are destroying both the earth's environment and the human spirit.

Fine if you have a couple months and are perfectly fit... not so good if your disabled and need to get there tomorrow.

You want to grow a car because it's efficient use of time, energy, and materials - thereby being more eco-friendly. If I can go out into my garage, and tell my "replicator" to dissemble my household trash and waste down to the atomic level, then recycle it as a car, or TV, or steak, or apple, and have the entire thing powered from my solar panels on the roof, I don't see a whole lot of eco-impact there. Every house could be independent of the power grid as well as Wal-Mart.

This replicator technology isn't far off either. We can already 3D print using multiple materials with today technology. 35 years from now, you can print pretty much anything you want using recycled atoms.

It's the automobiles that make such a trip truly terrifying.

I have taken Amtrak.

There is never any good reason to be in a hurry unless someone is dying.

Vacations ought to be long enough to enjoy the ride, and the times between high school graduation and work, and in retirement, free enough for leisurely world travel.

No part of the world ought to be boring "fly over" country.

15% approval ratings for Congress but 80% being okay with *their* own Representative

on this issue, for example, we have a party that *chants* "Drill here, drill now," and the other party--which only *believes* in "Drill here, drill now," and points to the fact that two-thirds of its congresscritters vote no (which wouldn't affect the floor vote until there's 74 Dem senators--it's simple division): same thing as the IWR

Isn't too hopeful. J/k

Their parent's and our so-called free press claim he was some kind of grandfatherly saint.

Reagan was actually the nasty venal meat puppet of fascist America.