http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/10165091-mqPsuD/
We'll cut right to the chase:
The United States Department of Energy, itself, herein clearly states, that, in an economically-feasible way, materials composed of up to 90% of reclaimed Carbon Dioxide can be synthesized; materials with a variety of physical qualities which would allow us to use them in place of concrete, plastic and wood in building and construction applications.
And, they also clearly propose such use of Carbon Dioxide as an alternative to Cap & Trade taxation.
In the USDOE's own words, as will be repeated again in our excerpts:
"With the probable imposition of a fuel carbon tax in industrialized countries, this alternative would allow beneficial use of the carbon dioxide and could remove it from the tax basis if legislation were structured appropriately."
Further, and very importantly, the uses, according to the USDOE herein, to which reclaimed and recycled Carbon Dioxide could be put, would, as we have intimated in other, earlier posts, dramatically reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide being emitted from other, non-Coal related, industrial sources.
As we attempt to emphasize, following excerpts from the opening and following links to:
View Document or Access Individual Pages; DOI:10.2172/10165091
"Title: Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in Industrial Polymers
Date: June, 1993; System Entry Date: June, 2008
Report Numbers: PNL-SA--22528; DE93016087; OSTI ID: 10165091; DOE Contract AC06-76RL01830
Authors: P.M. Molton and D.A. Nelson; Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA
Sponsor: USDOE, Washington, DC
Abstract: This study was undertaken to determine the possibility of developing beneficial uses for carbon dioxide as a key component for a large-volume building product. Such a use may provide an alternative to storing the gas in oceanic sinks ... as a way to slow the rate of global warming. The authors investigated the concept that carbon dioxide might be used with other chemicals to make carbon-dioxide-based polymers which would be lightweight, strong, and economical alternatives to some types of wood and silica-based building materials. As a construction-grade material, carbon dioxide would be fixed in a solid, useful form where it would not contribute to global warming.
With the probable imposition of a fuel carbon tax in industrialized countries, this alternative would allow beneficial use of the carbon dioxide and could remove it from the tax basis if legislation were structured appropriately. Hence, there would be an economic driver towards the use of carbon-dioxide-based polymers which would enhance their future applications.
Information was obtained ... on carbon dioxide polymers which showed that the concept (1) is technically feasible, (2) is economically defensible, and (3) has an existing industrial infrastructure which could logically develop it. The technology exists for production of building materials which are strong enough for use by industry and which contain up to 90% by weight of carbon dioxide, both chemically and physically bound. A significant side-benefit of using this material would be that it is self-extinguishing in case of fire. This report is the first stage in the investigation. Further work being proposed will provide details on costs, specific applications and volumes, and potential impacts of this technology.
This study was undertaken to determine the possibility of using carbon dioxide rather than burying it in the oceans ... .
Polycarbonates containing up to 90% weight of carbon dioxide ... (and) strong enough to be used (as a) major component in building and manufacturing have been made ... .
A 100- to 1000-fold increase in the use of carbon dioxide-based plastics ... could result in a very significant benefit to industry, which is faced with shortages of wood and high energy costs to produce concrete ... .
The organic co-monomers which are reacted with carbon dioxide to form the (needed) copolymers can themselves be made directly or indirectly from biomass rather than from fossil fuels. 25 Pages."
------------------
All well and good, but:
What happened to the "further work" that was, as herein, very nearly two decades ago, "being proposed", which would have enabled the "beneficial use of the carbon dioxide and", thus, which "could remove it from the" punitive and exploitive, Cap & Trade "tax basis"?
Did Big Oil catch wind of this, and - - eager, through Cap & Trade Taxation and Mandated Geologic Sequestration, to have us Coal Country hillbillies finance his secondary petroleum scrounging in depleted natural petroleum reservoirs - - exert his considerable influence to have it all quietly euthanized?
Don't miss the point:
Carbon Dioxide, from whatever source, can be reclaimed and recycled in the production of building and construction materials that can serve as direct replacements for many of the things we now make out of concrete and wood.
We wouldn't have to make as much concrete. And, if you have followed our posts, you know that the calcination of limestone, to produce lime for Portland concrete cement, generates astonishing quantities of Carbon Dioxide that is simply released, from the cement kilns, into the atmosphere.
Any reduction in cement usage would significantly reduce our total Carbon Dioxide emissions.
Further, since the USDOE's CO2-based polymers could replace natural wood in many applications, with a plastic material that would be "self-extinguishing in case of fire", not only could our buildings be safer, but, we wouldn't have to cut down so many trees for lumber; and, thus, forests could be left standing, growing, and, photo-synthetically sequestering Carbon Dioxide - - naturally recycling it into wildlife habitats.
This study was published within the US Government very nearly two decades ago.
And, it clearly indicates that additional work targeted on the productive recycling of Carbon Dioxide should, and would, be performed.
Where is the further report of that work?