How capturing CO2 from air can combat climate change

www.ft.com...

Personally, it does seem really expensive. Each factory could cost tens of billions of USD. They'll have to build tens of thousands such factories and in addition built tens of thousands of power plants to power them. That's not including running costs which should be trillions a year.

a reply to: TheClimateP

Vegetables, plants, they love CO2. They require it for photosynthesis. And so with higher concentrations of CO2 within the greenhouse, the better those plants can grow. This particular greenhouse has seen an increased crop yield of 20 per cent.

The answer is staring them in the face. Plants remove CO2 and need it to survive. Instead of crazy idea's that will never be workable, they should be spending that money on restoring ecosystems around the world.

It's already proven to be economically feasible to grow trees for paper production.
Link

In North America we grow many more trees than we harvest. Forest area in the U.S. increased by 5,800 NFL football fields per day between 2007 and 2012, or a total of 14 million acres.[ii] In Canada, the forest cover has remained stable over the last two decades and, in recent years, Canada’s actual harvest has been 44% of annual growth.[iii]

Then you have lumber production.
Link

6. Black walnut. Walnut trees, like chestnuts, produce a double income, as the nuts can be harvested as the trees are growing to harvestable size for timber. Growers often call black walnut a “legacy tree” because it takes about 30 years to reach it’s prime harvesting size of about 16 inches or so for a veneer log. Along the way, the walnut stand can be thinned to provide income, but the real payoff comes at harvest, as veneer logs bring between $4,000 and $5,000 each. An average stand of black walnut is 250 trees per acre, or $125,000 at harvest time, quite a legacy for the kids or grandkids!

A Black Walnut I remember helping my father grow when I was a kid now has a huge trunk at 50 years old. It must be near 4 feet in diameter after all those years being pampered and even when I was a teen, it produced a few bushel baskets of nuts each year.

There are fast-growing veneer grade Popular's and White Oaks and Pine is fast growing.

a reply to: TheClimateP

I have a cure for CO2.

Plant a tree... 🌳

a reply to: Blaine91555

My last place was lousy with Black Walnut trees they literally grow like weeds, after cutting unwanted seedlings down in the spring, by fall they'd grow at least 3 feet. I just sold the place last year, starting from one legacy tree in 1970 we had about 10 fruiting trees that we didn't plant, they just got away from us. Infact my new place has a good sized black walnut as well...and of course I'm allergic to walnuts

a reply to: Blaine91555

Replied before I read your post. Sorry.

Yes, what you said. I dont understand how the nuts can't grasp this very simple solution... 🌳

Trees don't grow fast enough. Maybe (huge maybe) plankton might do a small dent but there have been years of industrial pollution pumped into the atmosphere. Add to it deforestation which leads to temperature increase which leads to stress against forest growth...

Sorry but trees are not the answer. I will accept industrial hemp over trees because they grow faster.

You need something that is like a sponge and that would be biochar.

Anyway, besides just letting trees breath, you are going to have to actively remove atmospheric CO2 which is a pain at 400 parts per million (a million things need to fly by so you can pick out 400 of them!). Most times, you are going to have to further process it (i.e., energy). And store it. And then dispose of it. Each step takes energy. How much are you willing to pay? I hear they shut down wind farms because they can't make enough money selling electricity... well, stop wasting the stuff and put it to good use!

The real hope is stop treating CO2 as a waste product at production and "upcycle" (the true meaning of the word: using what was previously a waste product and turn it into something useful). If you can take CO2 out before flushing it out into the surrounding air, then you are providing a service (income). Furthermore, if you can turn it back into a real useful product (short list: carbon nanotubes, carbon monoxide, ethanol/bio fuel, supercritical CO2 to spin a turbine, etc.) then you are actively contributing to a clean up.

It is the mantra of the hippies: reduce, return, reuse, recycle.

Like the plastic garbage problem, there is no one correct solution. Most likely, all things are going to have to be considered. Sitting around in our own filth ain't getting anything done...

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Well there we go then. After we are all dead the trees will reclaim the earth. 🌳

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I have no doubt that with some financial incentives, even coal power generation could be made to be environmentally friendly. In a strange bit of irony, the only reason it has not happened now is the environmentalists themselves. Instead of affordable solutions, they concentrate on highly economically destructive idea's and ignore rational solutions.

The largest issue is the biggest problems are not happening in the Western World, but instead in places like China and Asia. The US is actually the leader in reducing emissions and yet we are the target of people who would like nothing better than to destroy our economy. To call activist phonies would be to understate the truth.

People calling for things like carbon taxes seem to have no actual critical thinking skills. Usually, the same people who have radical political ideologies, whose real goal is to financially destroy the countries that are the only ones with the money and resources to solve problems.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes


"And the trees shall inherit the earth"

Amen! (Blasphemed both The Bible and Rush! I know where I am going when I take the dirt nap)

I think fungi have a better survival strategy (read about one that breaks down plastic!). Diamond hard spores, found all around the world, speculated that the spores can waft on the wind and reach outer space. But that doesn't do much to address climate change.

Like I said, it will probably take multiple methods. Like swapping off of coal which kind of is happening and is trending that way. One method I like but uses a lot of water, is pumping the CO2 back underground in a supercritical state where it turns back into limestone (the thought being we repurpose closed oil rigs to do this).

This all takes money, energy, and time. And effort. But we should at least try!

This topic always makes me want to "REEEEE"
The solution is use more paper.
Industrialize tree farming.
No need for some ridiculous, complex, and expensive factory.

Just grow trees (or some other faster growing thing), cut them down in, throw them in the ground to rot. IF you are feeling extra money driven, turn the trees into paper, then throw it away into a dump... that is right, a dump not recycle. Because recycling paper pollutes more, where as burying it in the ground fixes the carbon.

I have said this so many freaking times and it is like shouting into a down pillow. Nobody ever acknowledges it.



another REEEE edit to link an older post of mine
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Blaine91555
Willow is probably the best choice, grows fast, is very adaptable, and is being developed for actual tree farms.
Look up the Willow Biomass Project, Salix Consortium SUNY-ESF

linky
www.esf.edu...

a reply to: Blaine91555

They were there... for a bit then the political swing went in the other direction (no, there should not be One Direction! lol), then “everything the other guy did has to be reversed” (which is the definition of a sore loser. And both sides do it! That should be limited! #EOtermlimits) Now nobody can plan as the goal posts keep shifting. (The smart thing to do is hedge your bets on what has been trending, green (er) tech. We already have 8 years in that direction and I doubt that “politics” (money) can really change that).

And that is what is happening. If you look a bit below the surface, energy storage law is being re-written to make sense at the national level; businesses are teaming up with insurance companies to spread the financial risk; technology keeps improving in batteries... this is all heading somewhere!

Or the other side wins and doomsday happens because we could not get our crap together (totally different thread! Both versions!)

I have an opinion on this and a thread or two, but this is not my thread!

Let’s hear some more about answering OP’s questions!!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Let’s hear some more about answering OP’s questions!!

OK... it's too expensive. Trees are cheaper.

So is algae farming, and it benefits sea life.

Look, I know people think technology is always the answer, but it isn't. Nature has already given us several answers, and nature is the ultimate "reduce, return, reuse, recycle" mechanism. Want proof? Visit a man-made landfill sometime... it's nasty! Filthy! No one wants to be anywhere near it! It stinks! Now visit a natural version of our landfills... we call them "beaches" and people pay large sums of money to visit them for weeks at a time.

This is Nature's domain. Nature always has a better answer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And the question was, “how”?

How can we help nature undo what we have done?

Love ya, buddy, but you didn’t answer the question: How do we help?

My answer is technology.

We all know that the Earth would better off without us but how do we help it recover??

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

If the use of that tech is so costly it destroys economies if it's mandated, who pays for it then?

I read earlier today that it's been reported Coca-Cola will use their tech to acquire the CO2 they use in their products. Coca-Cola has yet to confirm it though, so it may be a marketing ploy by Climeworks to spread it for publicity. No way could it be justified cost-wise, so at most, they might have one Coca-Cola facility use it for publicity.

Only a rich country could even begin to pay to clean the air with a device, that to me looks like it could be built in someone's garage if they had the money to waste. Our economy is energy based, so all this could do here is chill the economy and remove the money they would need to do it.

I know environmentalists like to pretend that the money will magically appear out of thin air, just because they want it too, but when the rubber meets the road, it has to be paid for.

I highly suspect the process, in reality, creates more CO2 from the energy it uses to create the heat needed than it removes. This is nothing more than a pie in the sky scheme.

It's been almost ten years since we learned that not only are the tropical rainforests regenerating themselves in as little as 15 years, a group was able to replant an area successfully. Something the so-called experts said would never happen or could not be done. Ever wonder why that debate suddenly disappeared from the conversation?

Paper production has all but disappeared from the conversation because of the industry finding a way through fast-growing trees to create more forest than they use. The same is now being done with lumber. You can have your cake and eat it too.

This sounds like the start of a disaster movie.

a reply to: Blaine91555

It's already proven to be economically feasible to grow trees for paper production.

and weve been doing it ever since our country was established 48 years ago, although we live in a desert country, our government decided to plant trees, not only that, locals started planting trees, and we went from dessert to forestation, talk about change and im glad that we're part of it.

now can someone point out the issue of deforestation that is happening around the world.

a reply to: Dr UAE

Managed forests are beneficial to the environment without a doubt.

Environmentalist are both for and against technology and industry. That tells the story.

We in the US have more standing timber now than when Europeans first started coming here. That is just a fact.

While traveling across Yukon, Canada I once had an interesting conversation with a young lady who was flagging on a road project. We got stopped for a half hour or so due them working on a road next to a lake. While my wife walked our dog the young lady started asking me about the US.

She told me that all of the forests in the US were gone and the US was just a wasteland. When I asked why she believed that, she said it was because CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) told her so. No lie, she actually said that to me. When I explained that much of the US was still untouched forests and that places like Montana, Idaho, and Washington still had their forests, it was clear in her eyes she had been thoroughly brainwashed. She literally thought that all the trees were gone in the lower 48 because environmental propagandists had told her so.

Can't blame her though. I doubt she had ever been outside of the Yukon area.

Around the time the environuts where spiking trees in Northern California I had the opportunity to fly over the area and the clear cuts were so rare, they were hard to spot in the nearly pristine redwood forest there. It was all one giant lie that many Americans still to this day believe.

The problem is in China, the southern parts of Asia and in India. The world ignores that we are the world's leaders in reducing emissions. So now we are supposed to bankrupt ourselves to remove China's pollution from the atmosphere. Give me a break!!!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Trees don't grow fast enough. Maybe (huge maybe) plankton might do a small dent but there have been years of industrial pollution pumped into the atmosphere. Add to it deforestation which leads to temperature increase which leads to stress against forest growth...

Sorry but trees are not the answer. I will accept industrial hemp over trees because they grow faster.

This is ridiculous. Different species of trees grow at different rates. Sure if you are talking about a white cedar or something like that then yes you can say they don't grow fast enough. But some types of poplars can grow more than 8 to 10 feet a year. Planting more vegetation is always a good idea, for everybody and everything.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

(sorry for the delay; been busy)

Love ya, buddy, but you didn’t answer the question: How do we help?

Many times, the best way someone can help is simply by getting out of the way. Carbon dioxide simply is not a pollutant. It never was and never will be, unless we continue to try and fix nature.

My answer is technology.

All technology pollutes. All technology. Even the electric cars that are so touted release huge amounts of pollutants when they are built. Batteries are highly toxic to the environment. Heck, do you remember the concern over acid rain (H2SO4 in the rain) from a while back? Do you know where it actually came from? SO2 emissions from worn out/clogged catalytic converters, which were legislated to improve air quality.

We all know that the Earth would better off without us but how do we help it recover??

No, we don't all know that. Humans are part of nature, not intruders into nature. What the planet would be better off without is us trying to mess around with the basic ecosystem because it might bring in some new taxes. The Earth would be better off without governments, maybe... but that is even disputable, because then there would be pollution from industry.

But I digress into philosophy, and I assume you expected practicality...

So here's what you do: plant trees. If there are already trees around you, care for them... that means cutting diseased trees and mature trees so young healthy trees can grow. Grow a garden instead of buying plastic packaged produce. If you can't grow a garden, buy from local farmers or farmers' markets. Re-use what you can; many things can be reused in new and novel ways. Don't pollute... keep your car running smoothly, cut back on the long drives what you can, and combine trips where possible. Pick up trash when you see it. Point out the beauty of nature to others to help them see what they have.

There is nothing the government can do to help the Earth. Nothing. Every time they try, they mess it up worse; that was the point of my post. They'll mess it up again if we give them power to regulate carbon dioxide. We're going to change the environment; no lifeform exists that doesn't. We need to accept that, and accept that we're a part of this world and not invaders.

TheRedneck