141–150 of 349 posts
how about trees? just a thought.
It seems like we have not yet done the full circle, but we are close.
Direct air capture imo can’t escape the scaling problem - when the feedstock has CO2 at ~400 ppm the economics simply won’t work out despite various oil companies backing one off systems around the globe. Capturing CO2 at the source (power plant, etc) would be simpler to reach economic viability but without incentives it’s dead on arrival. I believe the IRA infra bill had put a price ~$50/ton of CO2 captured.
I agree, plus were would one store the CO2 ? To get back to "1980", I really doubt puling CO2 from the atmosphere will ever work. Another concern, who will pay for maintenance ? See this for why you cannot let CO2 escape from underground storage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster If stored near a populated area, hundreds of thousands could be kill, including all animals and insects, in a matter of minu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any links on research on that? Serious question.
Yes. For example: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805794105 Peter Kelemen has written a lot of papers on this topic. Here is a more recent paper that I wrote together with Peter and others currently in review: https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/9651/ This is more about the mechanics of how the rock breaks to allow fluids to move around. And here is another paper currently in review that we coauthored about…
I think it's worthy of its own submission as well (besides being very on topic on this subject here too).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sequestering CO2 where it's highly concentrated, e.g. at power plants or cement factories exhausts, would be one way to emit less.
I've wondered if capturing carbon emissions from industrial-scale compost facilities would be a net positive. It would have the added benefit of the carbon initially being captured by natural organic processes (i.e. growing food), so it avoids the problem of the energy requirements from trying to just pull carbon from the ambient atmosphere. I don't know if this is feasible but I haven't seen any research on it.
I am not against doing research in this area, please do, it is interesting and likely has many applications but global CO2 removal isn't one of them. Nothing proposed, including this, is within any orders of magnitude of a viable solution. The only solution we have is put less in the air in the first place. This tech looks interesting for transporting CO2 but that doesn't mean it sequesters it and even if sequestrati…
This may be part of the solution … or maybe we find a way to make a utopia where we can all agree to just stop polluting. Historically, the utopia has no precedent that I am aware of.
Well, instead of repeating myself manually, I'll paste in a comment of mine here from a past discussion on carbon capture: It's easy to forget why there is a bit of a challenge to getting C02 out of the air: there's so little of it, comparatively. In order, air is, broadly, made up of the following: Nitrogen: %78.084 Oxygen: %20.946 Argon: %00.934 CO2: %00.042 The stuff is essentially beyond a rounding error - it rea…
So then, is it really the CO2 that produces the cognitive impairment, or is the CO2 here just the proxy value that we are measuring, and the real reason for the cognitive impairment is low oxygen?
Well, instead of repeating myself manually, I'll paste in a comment of mine here from a past discussion on carbon capture: It's easy to forget why there is a bit of a challenge to getting C02 out of the air: there's so little of it, comparatively. In order, air is, broadly, made up of the following: Nitrogen: %78.084 Oxygen: %20.946 Argon: %00.934 CO2: %00.042 The stuff is essentially beyond a rounding error - it rea…
So then, is it really the CO2 that produces the cognitive impairment, or is the CO2 here just the proxy value that we are measuring, and the real reason for the cognitive impairment is low oxygen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Wow, I try to keep my place at 500-600, without that much effort.
I find it extremely unlikely that homes are routinely at 2000-3000 ppm. That is extremely high and would mean multiple people in a small area with no air exchange for a long while. I monitor my indoor co2, but don't take any action because it's extremely rare to be above 700 or 800. I can only remember a handful of times its reached 1k ppm. And my house should be prime candidate for co2, it was built during the era o…
This seems like the actual work of the article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c13908 And the superbase is 1,5,7-triazabicyclo [4.3.0] non-6-ene It is an anime based technology. Other amines in water-based solutions also get regenerated at about <200C. It is great to find new molecules to do this work but as I usual, these marketing articles sensationalize the actual work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Economics rules everything Physics rules everything, once you start trying to run at scale. The density of carbon per unit volume in solid materials of interest doesn't vary that much, whether you sink it in trees or in exotic materials like diamonds. That means you can calculate the volume of material required so sink a desired amount of atmospheric carbon. If you want to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere,…
> you're talking not about making a pile of stuff but about making a mountain range that's a mile high and hundreds of miles long. Just to put it into numbers, wikipedia has the total amount of CO2 on the global warming page, if we assume it's in a 2 kg/l substance it totals to around 180 km^3.