It sure does look good to me? https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2123268237703397 https://www.facebook.com/carbonengineeringltd/ Carbon Engineering Ltd. So.... is recycling fuel itself..... directly out of the atmosphere the best possible answer to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide? My initial impression is that this is certainly one of the most encouraging developments that I have seen so far.
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
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.
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...
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
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.
Very true indeed! http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/globalW2.htm Global Warning (Continued — Page 2)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually I excelled in science before it was polluted by liberalism. I learned how CO2 was absorbed by plant life and in turn the plant life "exhaled" oxygen. Pretty amazing isn't it? We take care of each other. We are a part of nature and as such our life on earth compliments other life forms and they compliment us. We are on top of the food chain, get over it. The life forms on this earth are there to support OUR lives, FACT of life! If you want a commie to cause you to feel guilty for your life MERELY for the fact you exist is just ridiculous. Eat more cows! Drive your SUV's, burn up those fossil fuels! I for one believe I am enjoying life using the gifts provided to me by God. You who want to deprive me of a great life can burn in hell.
So, you got the rudiments of photsynthesis, maybe. Congrats! But, then you went totally off the rails. The existence of a cycle that includes some molecule does not mean there is no toxicity level for that molecule. And, concentrations of a molecule obviously affect more than the two cycles you heard about.