Is this the answer to atmospheric carbon?

Discussion in 'Science' started by DennisTate, Oct 15, 2018.

?

Is recycling carbon out of the atmosphere the answer?

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. No.... only a carbon tax will do!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No

    1 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. I am not sure.... but I think I may watch that video again?!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    19,701
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  2. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    19,701
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reading more about this........ quite amazing really.

    http://carbonengineering.com/about-dac/
     
  3. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    19,701
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817

    B.C. company says it is sucking carbon from air, making fuel
     
  4. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    24,623
    Likes Received:
    6,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Might be an interesting experiment but almost impossible to upscale as needed. Basically creating diffuse fuel cells without the energy consolidation benefits through massive infrastructure creation.
     
    Bowerbird and DennisTate like this.
  5. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,222
    Likes Received:
    1,338
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plants already do this and much more efficiently.
     
    jay runner, DennisTate and tecoyah like this.
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,049
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they're just recycling carbon for the purpose of burning that carbon to create energy, how does this help anything?

    The scale to appreciably remove large amounts of carbon from the air is unlikely...we're talking about billions and billions of tons of carbon.

    And what is the chance of this working if in parallel mankind does not greatly reduce carbon emissions?

    Why not massive forestation and/or reforestation?

    Lastly, while we're focused on carbon is methane release going to be the evil step-sister...
     
    Bowerbird, tecoyah and DennisTate like this.
  7. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    19,701
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ioxide-emissions-reach-record-high/859659001/

    Let's imagine that this new technology within twenty years is used to take ten billion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere annually.

    That would mean that..... (assuming our present output of atmospheric CO2 is stabilized)...... then the 45 billion tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere annually is down to 35 billion...... so even if 9.9 billion tons go back into the atmosphere within a year or so as that CO2 is burned again........ you are still ahead by one hundred million tons.

    But the key factor is.... how much coal and / or oil did you NOT HAVE TO BURN..... over that next year because of the use of this technology to take that ten billion tons out of the atmosphere?

    But... in my opinion..... your idea of massive reforestation projects is BRILLIANT!

    The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans!


    https://www.facebook.com/SaharaForestProject

     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,699
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They say they will move to rely on solar/wind energy to power their factories and processes to gather CO2, break it apart and formulate a compatible fuel.

    It seems likely to me that simply using the solar/wind to replace fossil fuel use would be more efficient both in energy made available for use and in net CO2.

    They say their process is dependent on carbon pricing. If that's the case, they may be better off economically by just focusing on removing and sequestering carbon. But, I haven't heard from anyone who thinks we know how to make a dent in airborne CO2 by trying to remove it.
     
    DennisTate and tecoyah like this.
  9. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    19,701
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very true indeed!

    http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/globalW2.htm
    Global Warning
    (Continued — Page 2)


     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  10. BarleyPopGuy

    BarleyPopGuy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2018
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Op, you don't understand. It's not about the environment. It's about controlling what you and I do. We could devise a device to clean the air as it was in the garden of eden and the left would NOT like it.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,699
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your quote doesn't give anything that compares the volume of carbon being emitted by humans to carbon sequestered by vegetation.

    Let's remember that the carbon we're emitting is fossil carbon - carbon that has not been part of the natural carbon cycle. It's a new addition. So, the comparison of human production and natural absorption can only include a comparison with the INCREASE in vegetative growth.

    Plus, such comparison has to recognize that almost all vegetation that dies has its carbon returned in the form of CO2. Only a tiny percent actually gets sequestered for any period of time. Trees rot - they don't burrow underground. That decay is the oxidation of the carbon, forming CO2, CO, methane (which is far worse), etc.

    Finally, the person you quote keeps talking about "energy". But, it is the carbon and other compounds that are the issue.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,699
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cite please.
     
  13. BarleyPopGuy

    BarleyPopGuy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2018
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cite? Do you think these commies let it be known that's what they want to do? Pay attention! Hey think for a moment. We have the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. BIG government agency, a lot of government employees. They have benefits, large paychecks, lucrative retirements etc. Do you think they will ever be happy that we got the environment under control?
     
  14. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    19,701
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Carbon is not the only factor in a general Global Warming trend.

    The circulation of H2O is another factor and trees do an amazing job of circulating water.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,699
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the heck does "under control" even mean?

    We have increasing population, a fixed amount of land and an ever expanding economy.

    The chance that we would reach a point where the environment no longer needs protecting is ... ZERO!

    The very idea that someone is worried about that eventuality is ridiculous.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,699
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CO2 is not the only factor. True. One can look at the watt-hours of forcing caused by various sources as indicated by NOAA, NASA and others. Methane (such as is starting to be released by thawing tundra in Canada) is worse than CO2.

    The thing about CO2 is that humans are mining huge amounts of previously sequestered carbon and putting it into the atmosphere - fossil fuel use. And, CO2 exacerbates other factors such as moisture in the air - it's not only a matter of CO2 on its own.

    The circulation of the oceans is certainly a factor, as it is one of the methods by which heat is moved across the face of the earth. It's why the eastern seaboard of the American continent isn't colder.

    Vegetation does help maintain moisture locally as well.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  17. BarleyPopGuy

    BarleyPopGuy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2018
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CO2 being essential for the survival of all life on Earth, that humans exhale it as they live, that those on the left want to declare it a toxin means the left needs to be eliminated.
     
  18. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,198
    Likes Received:
    804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    methane is stronger GHG but it has very short life in the atmosphere in comparison to CO2 ...we put CO2 into the atmosphere with machines we can take it out as well with machines and reforestation would help but getting improvised nations to give up their new farmland will be a chore, whose going to feed them?...eliminate emissions and machines that remove the excess will work just don't expect quick results, it took centuries to cause the damage it'll take centuries to undo it.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  19. BarleyPopGuy

    BarleyPopGuy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2018
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What damage?
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    22,699
    Likes Received:
    3,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is NO biological need for more CO2 than we have had for a very, very long time.

    And, the fact that life does need some CO2 does NOT mean that more is better or that more would have no detrimental affects.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.

Share This Page