by ohomen171 ➕follow (2) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
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?
So we have long had a process that takes CO2 out of the air and turns it into building material?
capture CO2 in cement production plants (the reaction in question is CaCO3 → CaO + CO2), where it is economical to capture....
Biggest industrial consumer of CO2 is fertilizer (urea) production.
process emits (rather than capturing) CO2
I think you meant emitter rather than consumer
Personally, I feel frustrated that the popular obsession with CO2 distracts from more important forms of pollution.
curious2 saysPersonally, 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.
sometimes prioritizing lowering CO2 leads to increase of other, more dangerous kind of pollution. Best example:
Hugolas_Madurez sayssometimes 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.
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,190,138 comments by 13,851 users - AmericanKulak, Ceffer online now