Talk:Virgin Earth Challenge

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Reference to the "one billion metric tons / year" requirement ? It is often quoted, but I don't find it on http://www.virginearth.com/terms.html Where does it ome from ? --Goulu (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think growing plant for burial may not be a sustainable solution. I am curious whether it is possible for such practice of monoculture to continue indefinitely. And again as suggested, agricultural land is limited on a global basis. I wonder whether some sea-based proposal can be developed.Paladinhk 09:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter section of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the challenge, it seems to be just a write-up one particular carbon sequestration technique. It should probably be split to its own article and replaced with a quick summary of top contenders in the challenge. 208.54.14.13 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People! No original research! Novac3 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part on "A Possible Contender: GRT Air Capture Device" sounds rather like advertising, but again the problem is we only have one single example. Is there any way we can pool together more contenders?Paladinhk 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone verify whether the article on iron fertilization of ocean should be valid to this article?Paladinhk 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution already exists - in the public domain

There are two existing projects (at least) to extract hydrogen from sea water, one in Iceland by means of geothermal power, the other in Patagonia by means of wind power. Either approach could produce massive amounts of carbon-free fuel that could be shipped (by hydrogen-fueled tankers) world-wide to shore-based electric generating plants. This could be suplemented by developement of a road-based electric power grid to directly power automotive vehicles. All of this is in the public domain. Too Old (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this award is to take already existing carbon out of the air and not stop it from being produced in the first place. Catprog (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trees do this already. lol, could i have my 25million dollars please.Mike Babic (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once you produce electricity by the method described, you could then use the electricity to remove carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Therefore, the proposal could meet the requirements of the challenge. (Removing carbon dioxide using conventionally produced electricity would not work, because the carbon dioxide consumed in creating the electricity would exceed the carbon dioxide removed using the electricity.)71.109.156.114 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could eliminate the intermediate step of the hydrogen and just use the wind and geothermal power to generate electricity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.71.109.161.119 (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Note: comments added 3 June and 25 July from same person. My IP address changes.[reply]

Is Cloud reflectivity modification a contender?

Is Cloud reflectivity modification a contender? (from recent Reader's Digest Quick S+udy) 99.29.186.157 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Geoengineering? 99.109.124.90 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Energy Islands" Seems to be Self-Promoting

Unless I see significant consensus that the "energy islands" idea has some merit in being included in this article I'm going to delete it. Wikipedia is not the place to promote commercial ideas, especially irrelevant ones.

Include all ... Portal:Renewable energy, Portal:Energy, and Portal:global warming

{{Portal box|renewable energy|Energy|global warming}} 99.35.14.165 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not related to the other ones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of date

The article is slightly out of date. In particular, Kilimanjaro energy is no longer in business. I believe it's been replaced in the finalist list by Carbon Sink, which has inherited its moisture-swing technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4E01:6348:35AA:F4EE:8532:B1D5 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some reference what Virgin said about the case would be very welcome here. --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]