patrick.net

I hope some idiot politician doesn't try to tax us to "invest" in this idea.

If we pull all the co2 out of the air what's going to feed the plants? If we don't feed the plants what is going to make oxygen?

You have to think things through.

What ignoramus still thinks co2 will melt all the ice and flood Manhattan?

Horrible bullshit article. NYT journalists show yet again that they should stick to transgendereds, 234221 genders, and race issues. In science, they are clueless and should remove carbon from the atmosphere by not writing anything. Or they should hire someone who has a degree in chemistry and engineering, as opposed to gender or ethnic studies.

Two sentences are the key to understanding this bullshit:

(1) The machines [that remove CO2] themselves require a significant amount of energy.
(2) The company is not turning a profit.

For tens of years companies capture CO2 in cement production plants (the reaction in question is CaCO3 → CaO + CO2), where it is economical to capture and sell the product. Now we have the same product obtained in a more expensive and more energy-consuming way. How is this good in any way, shape, or form?

How is this cheaper than planting trees?

zzyzzx says

How is this cheaper than planting trees?

That does not give company CEO taxpayer money.

d6rB says

Horrible bullshit article. NYT journalists show yet again that they should stick to transgendereds, 234221 genders, and race issues. In science, they are clueless and should remove carbon from the atmosphere by not writing anything. Or they should hire someone who has a degree in chemistry and engineering, as opposed to gender or ethnic studies.

Two sentences are the key to understanding this bullshit:

(1) The machines [that remove CO2] themselves require a significant amount of energy.
(2) The company is not turning a profit.

For tens of years companies capture CO2 in cement production plants (the reaction in question is CaCO3 → CaO + CO2), where it is economical to capture and sell the product. Now we have the same product obtained in a more expensive and more energy-consuming way. How is this good in any way, shape, or form?

lol, then apparently, they ship it to Coca Cola to carbonate drinks? So we can burp it out again?

theoakman says

lol, then apparently, they ship it to Coca Cola to carbonate drinks? So we can burp it out again?

and that somehow makes sense and removes CO2 from atmosphere...

"Do you know where to put all the captured CO2?" "Hmm, no." "I know, we'll release it into the air where all the plants can turn it into oxygen." "Brilliant! We can get the government to pay for taking it out and putting it back in somewhere else!"

theoakman says

they ship it to Coca Cola to carbonate drinks

.... and still lose money.

For tens of years companies capture CO2 in cement production plants (the reaction in question is CaCO3 → CaO + CO2), where it is economical to capture and sell the product.

So we have long had a process that takes CO2 out of the air and turns it into building material? Cool, just like the forest behind my house, which uses solar power to take CO2 out of the air and make oak, birch, and pine.

Ah the NYT. They print the grandest and most elegant lies with inimitable flowing prose. The most literary minds toil to bring us poetry in paragraph form. It’s such a joy to read, it’s often hard to remember that it’s total bull shit!

HeadSet says

So we have long had a process that takes CO2 out of the air and turns it into building material?

I think that process produces CO2 net. First in heating CO2 is released, some of it is captured, and then produced material absorbs CO2 back slowly (but less than it was evolved before).
Biggest industrial consumer of CO2 is fertilizer (urea) production.

First in heating CO2 is released, some of it is captured, and then produced material absorbs CO2 back slowly

This reminds me of a PBS Documentary on the Romans, where they heated limestone in kilns to make lime powder. Mix that powder with water (plus stones and pumice) to make concrete. Also reminds me of Hillbilly fishing, where you put lime in a mason jar, add some water and rocks to weight it down, and seal the lid.. Then throw it in the lake and let it sink. When the lime gets wet, it creates gas and the pressure causes the bottle to burst. Then you just pick up the dead and stunned fish that float up.

d6rB says

capture CO2 in cement production plants (the reaction in question is CaCO3 → CaO + CO2), where it is economical to capture....

Following the arrow, it looks like that process emits (rather than capturing) CO2. See also IPCC: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a by-product of a chemical conversion process used in the production of clinker, a component of cement, in which limestone (CaCO3) is converted to lime (CaO)."

d6rB says

Biggest industrial consumer of CO2 is fertilizer (urea) production.

I think you meant emitter rather than consumer: "Using estimates from 2005, 2007 and 2008, the researchers found that agricultural production provides the lion’s share of greenhouse-gas emissions from the food system, releasing up to 12,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year — up to 86% of all food-related anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions. Next is fertilizer manufacture, which releases up to 575 megatonnes, followed by refrigeration, which emits 490 megatonnes."

At least in California, animal agriculture is actually a significant problem. Most of the state's developed water goes to animal agriculture, while only 20% goes to households. (30% goes to plant agriculture and produces most of the world's almonds, a huge share of the world's raisins, and many other plant foods. California is a truly amazing producer of plant agriculture, and even grows coffee.) So, when we have a drought and the governor tells people to reduce domestic use, it doesn't make any meaningful difference: producing a single hamburger consumes more water than a month of daily showers.

Also, the animals produce large quantities of methane, which is (at least in the short term) a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Some countries capture bovine methane for fuel, but most let it blow in the wind, to the disgust of downwind neighbors. (Such frequent disgust might explain "conservative" opinions in such areas, and thus ironically why nobody solves the problem.)

Animal agriculture (including overuse of antbiotics, 80% of which go to animal agriculture) produces really significant pollution including drug resistant bacteria, fouled water, etc. Pig farming results in swine flu.

Personally, I feel frustrated that the popular obsession with CO2 distracts from more important forms of pollution. CO2 can be absorbed by planting more forests, but other pollutants raise much more difficult challenges.

curious2 says

process emits (rather than capturing) CO2

Yes, it is a net huge CO2 emitter. But part of emitted CO2 is captured and sold in a commercially viable way, unlike process referenced in NYT which is not viable commercially and is net CO2 producer due to its energetic inefficiency.
curious2 says

I think you meant emitter rather than consumer

No. Urea production consumes CO2 - I recall 70 M tons a few years ago. However, this is not sequestration, as CO2 is partly released when urea is broken down. Urea is mostly used as fertilizer. We are not talking about agriculture in general, just about urea production.

Personally, I feel frustrated that the popular obsession with CO2 distracts from more important forms of pollution.

+1000

This is why I hate the phony AGW crowd. Pollution and resource depletion are real and a current threats best handled by letting population stabilize to a level sustainable by renewables, and curtail importing products from high polluters like China and India. The AGW solution is always some form of vote Democrat.

Plants use solar energy to capture CO2 and produce fuel.
It uses well tested technologies, that are generally pollution free.

curious2 says

Personally, I feel frustrated that the popular obsession with CO2 distracts from more important forms of pollution.

Distraction is not the worst of it: sometimes prioritizing lowering CO2 leads to increase of other, more dangerous kind of pollution. Best example: push for diesel passenger cars which lead to increase of carcinogenic emissions in European cities. But diesels do produce less CO2, so fuck these poor saps who got lung cancer.

Hugolas_Madurez says

curious2 says

Personally, I feel frustrated that the popular obsession with CO2 distracts from more important forms of pollution.

Distraction is not the worst of it: sometimes prioritizing lowering CO2 leads to increase of other, more dangerous kind of pollution. Best example: push for diesel passenger cars which lead to increase of carcinogenic emissions in European cities. But diesels do produce less CO2, so fuck that poor saps who got lung cancer.

Actually some European countries have been cracking down on Diesels lately. However a diesel does not produce carcinogens with the exception of fine dust/particles - the actual damage is very controversially debated and nobody knows if the current output by cars is even dangerous - and a modern diesel with a state of the art fine particle filter does not emit those particles. A diesel is much more fuel efficient (I don't care about CO2 emissions either) and the real Diesel polluters are big freight ships / tankers. Also many regular engines with direct injection emit as much fine particle dust as a diesel engine. There has been a witch hunt on Diesels and it would be sad to see this successful technology go. However there should be a requirement that all Diesels must be equipped with modern fine particle filter. But as long as the ships and tankers are out there don't even bother regulating cars too much (except for in smog zones/days maybe where no cars - regardless of engine type - should drive).

Recent Dilbert cartoon on this very topic:
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-11

Hugolas_Madurez says

sometimes prioritizing lowering CO2 leads to increase of other, more dangerous kind of pollution. Best example:

Nuclear power is also a contender, e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima Daichi. Most people on the left used to oppose nuclear power for a long list of valid reasons, including the essential command and control structure that must be maintained for thousands of years while the waste decays. Now, with the priority being CO2, some on the left are embracing nuclear power.

curious2 says

Hugolas_Madurez says

sometimes prioritizing lowering CO2 leads to increase of other, more dangerous kind of pollution. Best example:

Nuclear power is also a contender, e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima Daichi. Most people on the left used to oppose nuclear power for a long list of valid reasons, including the essential command and control structure that must be maintained for thousands of years while the waste decays. Now, with the priority being CO2, some on the left are embracing nuclear power.

Yep, and mining uranium is not enviro freindly either.