61–70 of 133 posts
I'm a fan of the Climeworks concept, but the article and the Climeworks website fail to address the obvious question: what's the net sum of CO2 collected to CO2 created in creating the energy needed to power their plants?
I find that the idea of "climate engineers" and "geo engineering" has markers which will make it appeal to the same people currently peddling climate denial. My running bet/prediction is that 1) the imbroglio in America on climate denial will continue, 2) most of the world will feel happy that they are doing less than it should, but more than the stat 3) Eventually someone will sell the idea of !!GEO ENGINEERING!! to…
And what's exactly wrong with that? Assuming that technology works, and it is possible to reverse the environmental damage — why not do just that and keep our life satisfaction? Looks like win-win-win for me.
It makes no sense to first burn coal and then try to suck out the 400 PPM CO2 from ambient air. And where are you even going to store it?
dumb question: say they take xxxx tons from somewhere in Switzerland. How long does it take for the air to mix with the rest so the co2 is averaged worldwide? This looks like a great thing. The state can tax emissions and force emitters to pay such carbon gathering companies to become carbon neutral. You release xxxxx tons a years, show that you sequestered at least the same or pay a tax. You could also have a Bill G…
I visited NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii last month. It's one of the key global sites where carbon dioxide is monitored. The scientist giving the tour answered this, and I believe it was on the order of a few weeks for mixing to occur.
Here's a visualization that starts to answer your question: https://amp.livescience.com/48798-carbon-dioxide-global-comp...
I would love a more detailed answer to this question as well.
(I visited the Mauna Loa Ovservatory because of our open source project to track carbon dioxide worldwide: https://gitter.im/giving-a-fuck-about-climate-change/Lobby http://carbondoomsday.com)
Wouldnt it be cheaper to first capture CO_2 from the output of coal plants and other industries where it is in concentrated form? Also, economies of scale. Once we bring those down,we would still have to deal with decentralized sources like cars(electric cars and renewables can help), container ships, and the meat industry.
Would be relevant to get Climeworks' perspective on the question of point source vs atmospheric carbon dioxide.
I find that the idea of "climate engineers" and "geo engineering" has markers which will make it appeal to the same people currently peddling climate denial. My running bet/prediction is that 1) the imbroglio in America on climate denial will continue, 2) most of the world will feel happy that they are doing less than it should, but more than the stat 3) Eventually someone will sell the idea of !!GEO ENGINEERING!! to…
And what's exactly wrong with that? Assuming that technology works, and it is possible to reverse the environmental damage — why not do just that and keep our life satisfaction? Looks like win-win-win for me.
There are basically two approaches to geo-engineering, and they both have unpredictable consequences: * reflect sunlight back into space through "albedo modification", either by spraying sulfates high in the stratosphere to mimic a volcano, or by conducting cloud whitening. complication: it will affect precipitation patterns, and allows the CO2 buildup to continue, meaning a sudden cessation would produce wrenching w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the last few months I have read a few articles on hackernews about converting carbon dioxide into usable fuel. My hope for the future is that we come up with a way to capture and convert carbon dioxide even if doing so requires electricity as this would make renewables cheaper and stop more carbon output.
So be forewarned - spending more energy to clean the system is just adding more heat to the system. Any solution must somehow be a net negative in the long and medium term - and must also not have complex unpredictable knock on effects. To give you an idea of how often mankind tries this - before the internet there was a time where london's dogs were so Onerous they felt that it would be a good idea to pour oil over…
Have been wondering about this sentence since I read it, it seems there must be multiple typos in it for it to make sense...eg "London's docks were so odorous..." (makes a kind of sense, during the Great Stink chemicals were dumped in the sewers to reduce the smell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink ... not oil I think though?). Is that the incident you meant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's exactly wrong with that? Assuming that technology works, and it is possible to reverse the environmental damage — why not do just that and keep our life satisfaction? Looks like win-win-win for me.
Oh, you broke an egg. Well, the next guy can probably put it back together. It should be as easy as breaking it, right? It makes no sense to first burn coal and then try to suck out the 400 PPM CO2 from ambient air. And where are you even going to store it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's exactly wrong with that? Assuming that technology works, and it is possible to reverse the environmental damage — why not do just that and keep our life satisfaction? Looks like win-win-win for me.
You can't undo all the damage. For example coral reefs are gone for a long time once they're dead. It's also unclear whether we haven't set off, or will set off, any feedback mechanisms that make it much harder to revert the climate to preindustrial times, for example because millenia old permafrost released massive amounts of Methane.