Me and My Friends - Our Lean Green Carbon-converting Machines (sort Of)




Me and my friends have , over the past few years occasionally challenged ourselves by seeing which one could come up with a cure for global warming.... or something like that.

There is 3 machines :

Mine - it converts smoke from biomass fuels (burning wood and coal , etc) to useful substances

Mine again - This removes methane from the ice in Siberia. Mehtane is 23 times worse than CO2 , so i think that using a little to get rid of methane is good. This is a growing issue - search things ilke 'permafrost' , methane and siberia together to get some google results

JP's - This is to do with hydrogen for Hydrogen fueled cars. It also produces O2 - no more chemical factories to produce pure oxygen for operations , factories etc - and salt. It also helps keep the North Atlantic Drift in balance . Anyone who has watched The Day After Tomorrow will understand the importance of this.

N.B: These are not proven , must-work things. They are just useful ideas that might give someone a good idea - i know that one guy is trying to combine co2 with something , maybe salt to create baking soda instead.

Images on the steps...

Also , pic below is for next step... explained then.


Step 1: Biomass Convertor - Mine!

Sorry about the Paint drawings but i've spent 2 days getting the quality good (in a sense). Yes , i know it's in Paint , but i can't exactly take a picture of it if it does'nt exist , can I ? And no , i can't amke a model . Anyhow , it works like this..

You put whatever you want to burn in the chamber and then , well ... burn it. This produces heat , which kaes steam , which drives turbine blah blah blah but what about THE CO2? Well, the gases that this produces will be sent through filters that remove :

. Ash particles (visible)
. Ash particles / dust (not really visible)
. And hopefully , carbon .

Now , this isnt supposed to be foolproof , but hey , i though of this when i was 10 and people said it was a good idea and no-one had made a serious entry for this competition yet. I know that Carbon and Iodine stick together , that might be a starting point, but these filters would have to be properly invented. Also , the smoke can be run through a condenser , to help it react.

Then these remaining ash particles , and ash from the fire and the filter residue... in essence , all the ash , can be used as fertiliser... yes , it works in small amounts. These would have to be very few, as there would be ash to spread over a large area ... 1/2 per city , maybe. Perhaps more.

See what you think of it.

Step 2: JPs Idea - H2 Fuel , O2 and Fresh Water

Right , let me explain the diagram first. You should be able to see the dam with the water behind it on the top. The grey box at the bottom is a turbine to generate electricity , like any other hydro-electric dam. The water is then terraced into steps. These are individually electrolysised ( This is when you run electricity through a solution to get certain things out of it. It's used in aluminium and copper production , and in hairdressers, but when used on water it splits it into O2 and H2 ). This breaking the water up makes it shallower , with a greater surface area - it will electrolysise better. Once any remaining water reaches the bottom, it will be dragged through filters in a 2nd dam by gravity , which can then flow into a reservoir .

Alos , the electrolysis has other effects on the system . Good & bad . Good - it will help to seperate the water from certain impurities , and help to reduce the risk of contamination for water treatment companies. Bad - this will produce lots of chemical scum that was already in the water . This will be seperated and reguarlly have to be removed from the electrodes before scale occurs. However , it should be full of minerals and other useful substances , so it could be seperated for chemical use. If not , it should still be useful as slag , for road-building and some concrete.

The Hydrogen generated will power hydrogen fuel cells and be used in the chemical industry. The Oxygen ... I am not saying that all of a sudden there is a miraculous demand for O2. Remember , the ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen in water is 2:1 - H2O - so most of the produced gas will be Hydrogen anyway. This will simply mean that when pure o2 is needed , for metalwork construction , chemical use or hospitals , etc, that these will not have to be produced by another factory in an un-enviromentally friendly way .

Step 3: Mine - to Eliminate Methane From the Permafrost

Now look at this picture .

The bubbles are of methane . This is 23 (or is it 24) times more dangerous than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The permafrost , a layer of soil that covers sub-arctic / tundra areas like siberia / russia , is full of rotting vegetation , which produces methane. This becomes trapped in the ice.

As global warming melts the ice , it releases methane , so the world gets hotter ,so more ice melts, so more methane is released ... it's a chain reaction. This is very detrimental to the earth and is , of course , a quite literally growing problem. Now the apparatus on the top is to try and remove this methane ... or at least some of it.

The central pillar is a drill. This can be hand-worked or can be powered by an engine , biomass if nessecary . Yes , CO2 , i know , but methane is A LOT worse , so a little for a lot . Now there is a furnace nearby ... it could burn wood (no shortage of that in the Siberian forest) or frozen peat which collects in nearby bogs , whichever is less polluting. Unless there is some other plentiful , usable , less polluting substance nearby , which could be useful.

The heat from this melts the ice , which is run through a turbine to generate electricity. This could ither just be used commercially , or as an electric heater to help melt the ice. Also , the mehtnae that is released by the drilling will be burnt to help melt the ice ... in the end , not much wood , etc would have to be used.



    • IoT Challenge

      IoT Challenge
    • Arduino Contest 2019

      Arduino Contest 2019
    • Woodworking Contest

      Woodworking Contest

    68 Discussions


    1 year ago

    Garbage or anythinh with coal that could be mixed and prevent the production of methane (22 times) a greenhouse gas as CO2 could be the bonus. Less CO2 from Coal plants while being more efficient and less methane from waste.


    1 year ago

    I really like your ideas on using Lean Green machines of carbon but you would have to condense and pressurize the pollution 10-20 millies underneath the ground which could cost trillions of dollars. Biomasses could be burned and mixed with coal to provide water that splits into oxygen and hydrogen burning the coal at a more efficient process. Biomass can be in terms of heat be 30-40 percent more efficient so in theory you could use 30-40 percent less coal.


    7 years ago on Introduction

    Hi ,
    Can any one help me out in some calculation work its really very urgent , please help me out ..... i need to consume 1932.3kg/hr of CO2 with the help of Algae in a pond (water) for example Raceway pond , so i need to know the specific area to construct that pond and its sizing and dimension (length,etc) and the quantity of water needed and amount of algae used so that it easily consumes the mentioned amount of CO2 rate per hour..... please help me out soon you can also drop your suggestion and questions if any my email id is : ....i will be waiting for your reply soon and i'll be highly thankful to you, if someone can help please do tell me its very urgent....

    Thank you


    9 years ago on Introduction

     Great instructable - however... the news media is trying to cover this up big time - but a Russian hacker broke into the University of East Angolia Climate Research Unit in the UK.  He broke into their computers and published, on the web, the data he found.   Included were over 1000 emails source code, and other documents (over 2000) that were concerning climate research from 1996 to 2009.  The emails included talk of how to fight against climate change skeptics (how scientific is this?! - scientists are supposed to report data - NOT fight political battles and opponents to their theories!).  These emails also slandered skeptics, and gave discussion as to how to shut out people/scientists who did not share their point of view.  There were discussions of adding to the collected data in order to make it appear as if global warming was legitimate.

    The US media said that they thought the emails were legit - but that the science was still sound.  The thing they did NOT mention was that the so-called science is based primarily upon the this very data that was altered to support a politically hot topic.  

    In reality, global warming was brought out by the UN in 1988 as a way to work toward globalism.  The Copenhagen conference this year was hurt by this info.  One of the primary goals of this conference was to put a large tax onto countries who had, supposedly, added the most to global warming.  It was a way to get a worldwide policing of all the nations started.  

    Do your own research on the web.  When you start reading the Wickipedia page, be aware that you need to get into the article and not just the beginning part as they originally appear to be holding this in doubt (surprised?  Nah!).  B/c so many people on the web have heard of this - the facts are listed there on the page.

    Folks - we have been duped!

    But at least one good thing is that the green concept has probably brought about less waste - which is always a good thing. 

    Politics disguised as science will alter data and approach research with an attitude of, "I need to find a way to prove my point."   Real science takes no sides and collects/reports data.   The very fact the emails from this place were discussing how to silence other points of view automatically shows what they were doing is false - and they were one of the largest kingpins in this whole farce.

    6 replies

     This is an opinion. Try not to say things like 'global warming was brought out by the UN in 1988 as a way to work toward globalism,' as this is just your interpretation of evidence and assumption. Are you saying that Mi6's instructable is useless as there is no such thing as global warming (More Professionally 'Climate Change')? If so it would be best to make this obviously an opinion because in my eyes the instructable is very good, and does show ways to combat what I believe to be a real threat to my generation. Sorry, Mi6, to hijack your instructable.


    No - this is not just my opinion and interpretation.  This is what some news sources were also claiming back in the late 80's when all of the global warming theory came about.  It just became politically correct to ignore those who were of another opinion - scientifically based or not - sine the PC way made for just another way for corrupt politicians, etc. to line their pockets with more tax dollars.  

    Climate change because of man's influence is a falsehood - always was.  Non-politically influenced scientists have known this from day one.  And, just like the leaked emails said, the people who were actually pushing the global warming theory were discussing ad implementing ways of quieting the influence of those who were not agreeing with them.  This is part of the emails that were leaked and confessed, but by the global warming researchers caught "with their pants down" to be their emails.

    Actually the word "climate Change" came about as a result of a lack of the temperatures actually rising more and more, year by year, after 1988 when the whole theory was brought out.  I remember the year well b/c, having Earth Science classes to teach (among other sciences and math) I was very concerned about what was going on and what I would be answering to people/students who would be asking me questions.  So the heavy duty research began. 

    Back in 1988 when this concept was first dreamed up, it came about b/c of the record high temps we were experiencing that summer.  There were several weeks during which the temp in Baltimore was not getting below the 100 degree mark.  The outdoor pool at the place I worked did not cool you off b/c the water was body temperature!

    The news reports of the day were saying average temps were going to rise a few degrees each year (sometimes the news reports were saying up to 6 degrees a year - good scare tactics!) until by the year 2000 when we would be growing palm trees in the Great Lakes area.  These were the very first reports we were getting about global warming from news on the radio.  When the predicted warmer and warmer years failed to happen, in fact cooler temps were being recorded, the need to somehow say global warming would actually cause global cooling was born.  Hence the new buzzword"climate change" was born and became the PC term to use. since people were experiencing record cooling temps during some of the winters.  The global warming crowd had to save face somehow.

    During the early years the media was first debating the issue (had to lead into it and make it look legit somehow).  The reports of the theory being just the first UN step toward making globalization a reality was reported, but became less ad less heard - never disproved.  Global warming was promoted as fact by media pressure and repetition (if you repeat something often enough - the people WILLL believe it as fact).  Grants were given to prove the theory real - rather than research to see if it was (see the emails - they said they were altering the data to prove they were right - it is their own words!), rather than to perform actual scientific research.  The fudging got bigger, the media reported it more, the pressure to conform became more and more overwhelming.

    The more fudging and ridiculing of people who were investigating and finding no proof of the theory, the more people conducting "scientific" research were making their findings fit the false theory.

    It took very little common sense to realize it was all a sham anyway when a person, at the start of this, did a little research.  The US Navy, had kept records of water temperatures for the past 150 years (referring to being in 1988).  Their simple collection of actual data revealed NO RISE in average water temperature over these years.  Simple logic/physics loudly shouts that if the earth warms up, the water has no intelligence to be able to find a way to keep itself from getting warmer!

    But, again, these were the kinds of facts that were never seen/heard in the mainstream media.  Over the years National Geographic went from being a good reporting magazine to a work where almost every article has to somehow tie in with global warming.  

    This 'ible IS a good 'ible from the concept of people learning not to be so wasteful.  But the scientific facts of the matter are that worrying over a carbon footprint is nothing more than a position where politicians of the time were hoping to brainwash all of us into accepting.  their theory was a vehicle for them to gain not only recognition, but it allowed for the allocation of tax dollars to line their own pockets.  The US has contributed over 50 million tax dollars to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  AS of recent there is a movement by theUS's Energy and Commerce Committee to halt any more money being put towards this waste and make the UN Panel give an accounting for US taxpayer support of this panel.

    Why is this not on the front pages of newspapers?  The mainstream news media has not been too vocal in actually reporting how deep and serious this scandal is.  Just like they buried the reports of people back in 1988 who were saying all of this was politically based by the UN.

    And - one more thing - I do believe in climate change - all natural.  The scientists who have been studying sunspot cycles have shown there is a cycle with them that directly reflects our weather here on the earth.  


     So how would you explain the correlation between carbon dioxide levels and average temperature. This evidence can be found very easily using a variety of different, and reliable sources. You also claim that:

    "The news reports of the day were saying average temps were going to rise a few degrees each year (sometimes the news reports were saying up to 6 degrees a year - good scare tactics!)"

    This may very well be true but as we know the media is possibly the least reliable source there is, as they are just trying to make money. You also comment on the media again when saying:

    "Why is this not on the front pages of newspapers? The mainstream news media has not been too vocal in actually reporting how deep and serious this scandal is. Just like they buried the reports of people back in 1988 who were saying all of this was politically based by the UN."

    Why would the media be interested in burying this - as a publication company the media would be dying to release the scandal, are they not always trying to reveal government blunders and conspiracies. Yes - you can support your thoughts, but when looking at the majority of information you can really see that most scientists have huge amounts of reliable evidence to support the climate change theory. I do also think that it is happening but as a member of a younger generation I am willing to fight to do anything I can to help the country which I am to 'inherit' improve and if, after reviewing sources, I believe that human pollution may be involved, I am willing to fight to stop it.


     I really do admire your attitude of, "as a member of the younger generation I am willing to fight to do anything...improve."  You are unlike a lot of non-caring people out there.

    The main problem in all of this is, as you and I agree, the media is unreliable.  The root of all of this is that they have been politically slanted toward the left for a long time now and have been supporting the leftist agenda to a great degree.  When they retreat from this is when they think the people they continually attempt to brainwash might have the sense to figure out that the media is actually, for the most part, trying to push a socialist agenda.  Why is this?  The owners are of the socialist mindset.  The more they slant the news, the more their causes are promoted.  This is why the huge, close to 2,000,000 people rally against healthcare last Fall was first reported by the mainstream as being around 100,00 or so.  Anyone willing to look at the aerial pics etc on the web from that day knew they were lying.  However, they were promoting this small of a number to promote the ridiculous power grabbing healthcare proposal that is being crammed down our throats.  Then, when it became more common knowledge that the numebrs the media were proposing were so very slanted to make it look as if this had been a small resistance movement of radical right wingers - and more and more left wingers were saying , "hey, I was there too," the media backpedaled and quoted larger numbers.  it appeared they were trying to save face.  This concept of backpedalling has become all to common now that the internet is around and people have a way of sharing what actually happens in this world.

    Keep up your attitude of wanting to improve.  Carry this torch and influence the people you come in contact with.  We need more of this.  However, also realize, since you are, as you say, from the younger generation, you must realize that the people who have been around for awhile have seen a leftist takeover of educational institutions, media of all sorts, etc.  Not being stupid, at the very start they knew they had to get the youth.  As soon as they had educated the youth the way they want them to be, then their agendas can be more easily passed.  Then is when personal freedoms go out the window and the ones in power have all the control.

    From experience, I have seen this over and over.  One specific instance I site is when i lived in MD.  I moved out of the state because the calming down on personal freedoms.  It is insane that in a free country, the state can arrest an individual for trespassing if they find this person walking on land (non-public).  The state literally told all land owners that their land was posted (whether they wanted it to be or not).  Just a couple of years ago, MD made it illegal if you step off the established path in a state forest!  This is insane control.  No more just being able to meander in the woods or the sheer pleasure of enjoyment.  I knew a man (average Joe - not a trouble maker) who was stopped by a MD state police officer for speeding.  The man was guilty of this - but the officer saw a tire iron sticking out from under the man's seat.  The man had gotten done changing a flat a half hour ago (or so).  He was fined for having a concealed weapon!  He appealed it telling the court he simply had shut the trunk, walked up to the front of the car and saw he had forgotten to throw the tire iron in the trunk.  The court wanted its money though so he was still fined 10k!  THIS is what happens when the liberal mindset is allowed to take over.

    Watch, sometime, BBC's news on America.  You will find the facts and figures they normally report are very different from our own media.  The BBC has very little reason to be liberally slanted (US term liberal - not their liberal party as i do not know what the Brit Liberals stand for but I believe it is very different in nature than over here).   

    Back to global warming -- true science has always shown it to be false.  Back in the 70's they were claiming we were heading for an ice age.  Then 1988 hit and the liberal mindset found another way to line their pockets with all  sorts of "research" projects etc. while trying to promote globalism.  The scientists themselves, upon which the very basis of this theory was founded, were caught with their pants down, admitted these emails were theirs, and admitted they altered the data to make sure it looked like global warming was a fact.  What more proof do we need?

    besides that, another scientific fact is that a higher CO2 lever, if we even could produce one artificially (????), would actually be beneficial.  The reason why is because the harsh, colder weather is what kills food production.  If we had longer growing seasons, we could produce more food.  Productivity would go up b/c colder weather is harder for things like transportation/shipping, etc..  I used to live in the Lake Erie snow belt - if you see reports of what Buffalo NY gets - you know how hard our winters were - relatively speaking.  No, two feet of snow falling overnight does NOT mean you get a snow day off of school and no businesses will close for the day - we used to laugh that 2 or 3 feet would stop anything from going on.  A lot of the businesses have been moving south over the last 20 years to get into warmer climates and have a higher productivity rate.

    CO2 production is much higher from natural sources (volcanism, animals - do some research into termite mounds - it will amaze you the amount of CO2 they collectively produce) and has always been.  Our part we put into it is not having any effect (remember the bit about the water miraculously being smart enough not to rise in temperature despite its surroundings - and it STILL has not raised even 22 years after the first time this was being reported).  Try putting some water in a container, sitting the container in the hot sun, and see if the water can keep its temperature to down to what it was when you put it into the pan initially.  Despite what is politically correct to say, the water is not intelligent.  The laws of physics (former physics teacher here) dictate the temperature of the water will rise in proportion with its surroundings.

    No, there is no actual, valid, non-politically prejudiced science that shows global warming is actual.  There never has been.  People will set out to prove something if that is their original intent.  Scientists will have no initial point to prove, they will observe, not have to alter their data as the global warming crew was doing, and then report what they see.

    And, truthfully, I have to chuckle at the generation that was around, when I was, and this all started up.  only in America was the general populace dumb enough to believe that global warming actually meant temperatures would be getting cooler!  The liberal media got their no-lose situation where whatever they said - hot or cold - they were correct.  And a god deal of the masses believed them.  Your generation was brought up by a bunch of people who had swallowed their information from a source that had a win-win situation on their side.  This older generation was either to dumb or too lazy (more likely) to see the reality of the situation was that their news sources/politicians were saying that hot is cold.   The younger generation became the victims of the lack of effort of the older generation and now it is even harder for the truth to come to light (well - until that hacker broke into the research labs and dumped the cover-up onto the web!).

    And, one more thing.  I have cited scientific proof.  I have not offered just theories.  In order to take an educated stand on anything - a person needs to be able to do this.  Don't just dwell on what side of the fence a person is on.  instead, look into the basis for that person being on their side.  Right now, the facts are people on the global warming side of the fence recently had their foundation pulled out from under them.  not the recent studies that were done assuming global warming was a fact - hence their experiments (subconsciously or not) were conducted to try to find support for their theories - but the very foundation on which these studies were founded has been proven false by the admission of the people who were some of the key factors in the starting of all of this!

    Can you imagine being a "scientist" who finds out 10 years+ of his life has been done (givernment grants etc) showing why global warming is true and then learning that, in reality, there was no such thing to begin with?  You are forced to realize your work has been influenced (if you did not know this already as the framers of this falsehood did but realized it would get them financially ahead - as well as fame) by con men.  The ego would surely fight against this one!


     I'm afraid we may just have to agree to disagree, although I can see were you're coming from. I am just going to wait this one out. In the mean time I am going to keep cutting my waste, as a good, and morally stable principle, while keeping watch on the whole thing. Thanks for your information, but as you imply, I have grown up being force fed with the Climate Change issue as well as broccoli. I am definitely going to keep looking into this so thanks,
    and thank you Mi6 for hosting this debate,
    Ari :)


     You know, I can really respect you for your position and positive attitude.  You are a person who seems to understand what real debate is about rather than resorting to ad hominem, and/or other useless prattle.

    Whether or not we agree is, in my opinion, a secondary issue.  Your handling our discussion in an intelligent way is a rare thing to find nowadays.  You obviously are a person who will go far with the character/attitudes you posses and I wish you well.  

    I am just going to wait this one out

    Again, a wise decision - the wisest choice to take in any situation - simply to study and observe.  

    And I  loved the comment about the broccoli - although - oh no - I happen to love broccoli!

    Kind of figures huh?    ;^))

    Take care and thanks again. And, as you said, thanks to poster of this 'ible!

    rc jedi

    11 years ago on Introduction

    co2 is not pollution. We exhale it. Green plants must have it. Volcanic eruptions produce far more and diverse gasses than humans do. In the 70's, our teachers preached endlessly about "the coming ice age". In 5 years we won't hear anything about "carbon footprint". Just like these other examples: 1 WIN Whip inflation now buttons from Jimmy Carter (1978) 2 Nuclear war is inevitable with USSR, 3 The oceans won't last 10 years before they are so polluted, sealife will all die. (1970) 4 Population explosion will cause a crash by 2000 5 Y2K will collapse the economy Hey, there is always someone trying to save the world. And others cashing in on someone saving the world. Just name the things that man has "saved". The list will be quite short. 0 I am more than skeptical about anything the media or government sez. History is my teacher. I gotta go, we got some tires piled up and I gotta burn 'em while the wind is down.

    9 replies
    MI6rc jedi

    Reply 11 years ago on Introduction

    Oh , and i do see your points (certain plants an despecially VOLCANOES DO give off a lot of CO2) . But we cant control those . And let's face it , you can't say that there is no point in reducing man's carbon output.

    rc jediMI6

    Reply 11 years ago on Introduction

    I don't accept the premise that we need to reduce carbon emissions. You cannot demonstrate the negative effects of c02. Recent studies have shown temp leads co2 in cause and effect. That is, the temp actually is higher before the co2 is measured as increased. Evidently, we don't understand the relationship. If co2 is the cause, it should be higher before temp increased. But we won't see this reported because it doesn't fit the template of media and politics. Anyone who rejects the notion of man (read American free enterprise) induced global warming is an ignorant redneck brute, or "big oil. The politics have tainted any science we may stumble upon. The truth will not be known for years, at least until the next world crisis make the popular headlines.

    rc jediCharles IV

    Reply 10 years ago on Introduction

    Global Warming will soon become a common joke line. Just like bigfoot and ufo s. The government is slow to respond to the trend for the theory, and will be the last to abandon it. Mark your calendar. At this time in your life you believed in something completely wrong, But, it's ok, everyone is wrong now and again. I used to be a moderate. now i pay taxes and realize gov creates problems but cannot solve them. Make a list of things the gov SOLVED. I could only think of 1. REA. Electricity to the farms. That worked. My advice for G. W. advocates is to look for a new disaster to freak out about. Maybe the destruction of our youth from a godless education system. Walk through a high school sometime and see if you feel like your in a prison.

    markowiczrc jedi

    Reply 9 years ago on Introduction

    How ironic that this comment was made just a few short months before the free market destroyed $10 trillion in wealth through completely legal malfeasance and the government basically saved the system from itself. So much for the theory that the government creates the problems. Oh, and there you go. "Government saves entire US economy from self-destruction." Thing is, history is actually on the side of those of us who value fact over ideology. It seems that what I'm hearing is that if we had a God-based education system, more deregulation, and no focus on the environment when it's to the detriment of the bottom line, we would have a great nation. Seems we have a recession after each time a new generation tries these things. Oh well. I guess some people just like to keep repeating the same failed experiments. Anyhow. Nearly all evidence points to human influence on the climate cycle. Almost no one disputes this at this point. Except on, like, talk radio.

    mrxaviarc jedi

    Reply 10 years ago on Introduction

    The ONLY good thing that MIGHT come from the Global warming fear, is the introduction of electric cars, and building of new nuclear power stations. Because no matter whether cars & coal/gas power stations are causing global warming, the pollution is not very nice anyway... I'd rather live next to Sellafield nuclear power station, than a gas powered station... Much safer

    catprogrc jedi

    Reply 10 years ago on Introduction

    All that shows is higher temperatures cause increased CO2. It does not say anything about if CO2 is increased what will happen to temperature. (IE It shows temperature affects CO2 but nothing about if CO2 affect temperature)


    Reply 10 years ago on Introduction

    If you look at isotopes studies of CO2 then you will see that all the CO2 increase can be allocated to 'OLD' carbon (I.E Fossil fuels)

    A good namerc jedi

    Reply 10 years ago on Introduction

    After re-reading, I see that you're right. There isn't direct proof of the CO2 thing, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't contribute... it IS proven that if you have a lot of CO2 in the air, it makes the air quality bad though...