Carbon Engineering

[NevadaNick]

Why has there been no talk about this anywhere ?

https://carbonengineering.com/

[move on]

It's based on false science, that's why.

[ArcticGabe]

I suppose cost is a big factor. It takes a ton of energy to do what they are talking about. They propose 2 uses for the captured CO2, storage (which is effectively sequestration in pressurized caverns underground) or converting it into some other form of "fuel". They talk about selling some of the pressurized storage for industrial use, but the demand for industrial CO2 is only a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to make a difference in the atmosphere. The other proposed use is to convert it into some kind of "fuel" which I doubt would make economical sense because it will cost more in energy for the conversion than what they could sell the fuel for.



Sure it's a noble cause, but in general, it is cheaper to not put the stuff in the atmosphere in the first place than try to suck it back out and do something useful (i.e. profitable) with it.

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by move on

It's based on false science, that's why.

I agree but would say it differently.

There is a 40 year old theory that burning fossil fuel will change the climate in the future. This based on models that have not been validated.

When I was working on a masters degree in environmental engineering, I looked at proven technologies that would help with local and more serious environmental such as dairy farm manure and forest heath.

Life cycle analysis shows the lowest ghg emissions for making electricity is anaerobic digestion of dairy farm manure, gasification of forest waste, and nuclear power.

With a few exceptions, those concerned about climate change reject these proven solutions.

My theory on human nature is that is easier to understand the concept of solar panels and wind turbines.

[sirtate]

Originally Posted by followingsea

I agree but would say it differently.



There is a 40 year old theory that burning fossil fuel will change the climate in the future. This based on models that have not been validated.



When I was working on a masters degree in environmental engineering, I looked at proven technologies that would help with local and more serious environmental such as dairy farm manure and forest heath.



Life cycle analysis shows the lowest ghg emissions for making electricity is anaerobic digestion of dairy farm manure, gasification of forest waste, and nuclear power.



With a few exceptions, those concerned about climate change reject these proven solutions.



My theory on human nature is that is easier to understand the concept of solar panels and wind turbines.

Yup...
If we really wanted to drop GHG emissions, nuclear and bio-waste energy are the quickest and most effective way to do it...

But nuclear is 'scary' and bio waste smells bad...
(Or some other reason is equally good enough)

[CecilD]

I guess I look at things a little differently. Maybe we should be thankful the atmosphere is a little warmer and the CO2 concentrations are higher. If it were cooler with lower CO2 levels The Earth may not be able to produce enough biomass to feed 7.5 billion people. Say hello to massive famine and death.

The Earth has been warming and cooling since the beginning of its time and has survived. It is pure arrogance to think we should be pumping plant-loving CO2 out of the atmosphere to achieve the so-called perfect temperature of fifty years ago.

Man thrives in areas of extreme cold and equatorial warmth. To suggest we will all perish in 12 years due to climate change doesn't make sense. The oceans rise and fall, always have, always will.

[tuffr2]

What until the earth is on the other side of the galaxy and goes thru another ice age.

[nvs4602]

What's funny is we would be better off planting the 40 million trees they talk about.

Also a study was done that shows that American farm land when planted converts more CO2 to oxygen then the Amazon rain Forrest.

It's all just another power grab. Let China and India cut back their CO2 emissions to the USA LEVELS. Then come talk to me.

[NevadaNick]

There is probably more than 40 million trees that need to be removed.

[kdauto]

[Moderator Edit] are you guys smoking? Trees that need removing? Climate change is fake? CO2 in excess concentration is good? Global warming is good?

We should all be planting more trees. We are killing this planet. More trees will save it some in my opinion.

Without being some extremist greenie I try and do my part in prolonging this beautiful earth. I just cannot understand the selfishness of those stating they'll keep doing what they do (polluting) as there's nothing anyone can change. I mean, the answer is literally staring in your face. That's all...

[move on]

I think some people are unaware of the role that CO2 plays in photosynthesis. Without CO2 in the air there would be no life on earth. Presently there is not enough CO2 for life to thrive at its maximum. We would need 3 to 4 times today's concentration for that. But the good news is that ever since humans began burning fossil fuels and the atmosphere's CO2 concentration went from 0.03% to 0.04% there has been a significant greening of the earth. Some estimates are that plant life grew by 25%.

[NevadaNick]

Overgrown forests due to man is why 40 million could go away.

[kdauto]

Originally Posted by move on

I think some people are unaware of the role that CO2 plays in photosynthesis. Without CO2 in the air there would be no life on earth. Presently there is not enough CO2 for life to thrive at its maximum. We would need 3 to 4 times today's concentration for that. But the good news is that ever since humans began burning fossil fuels and the atmosphere's CO2 concentration went from 0.03% to 0.04% there has been a significant greening of the earth. Some estimates are that plant life grew by 25%.

I think most of us know some CO2 is needed to sustain life and that it's a natural byproduct of human life. I really can't understand the false theory of needing even more co2 in the atmosphere. Would you suck your tailpipe for a few minutes and come back to us on that?

[move on]

Change in net primary productivity of vegetation 1982 to 2010. The driest
regions, such as Western Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, western India and the Great Plains of North America, show the greatest increase in plant growth.