How contrails are affecting climate and contributing to Global Dimming

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Afterthought

 

Why even have contrails unless they are chemtrails? The technology exists to eliminate them.

Notes on the Subject of Contrails

In 1994 the government awarded a $16 million contract to the Northrop Corporation to fine-tune stealth bombers in a number of ways. One retrofit involved the installation of five “contrail management systems.”

Contrails And The Dark Side

In 2000, Air International magazine published an article about the B-2, and explained how it was that the B-2 didn't produce contrails. "As for elimination of contrails (normally a giveaway, even for a stealth aircraft), the USAF said chlorofluorosulphonic acid was injected into the jets to eliminate contrails."

since contrails are just water ice, why would it be a good thing to inject chlorofluorosulphonic acid into hte atmosphere to get rid of them??

Those would actually be "real" chemtrails!

Getting rid of contrails is trivial - fly at a different altitude where contrails are not made.

However since airliners generally fly as high as they can for fuel efficiency, that would normally mean flying lower, and hence burning more fuel due to lower efficiency.

burning more fuel means making more CO2, and more water vapour, and more soot and more CO and more of every other chemical that is normally made by combustion of hydrocarbons.

So the answer to "why have contrails unless they are chemtrails?" is that they "have contrails" in order to minimise fuel burn so reduce costs and reduce pollution.

the inability of you to see a reason why contrails exist "unless they are chemtrails" speaks more to your ignorance of the basics than anythign else. Sorry.

reply to post by Uncinus


From the sources you provided, I found this paragraph to be rather interesting:
www.nasa.gov...

While the Science paper does not prove that aerosols are behind the recent dimming and brightening trends -- changes in cloud cover have not been ruled out -- another new research result supports that conclusion In a paper published March 8 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.

The part I bolded is significant to me because of related research I have done that claims that contrails trap heat, which could most certainly be related to your video about contrails affecting weather. We all know that warmer air and water produces stronger storms, so if warmer air is being trapped, this may explain the stronger storms we have been seeing in the past 12 to 24 months. Although....
(from same source)

The combined effect of global dimming and warming may account for why one of the major impacts of a warmer climate -- the spinning up of the water cycle of evaporation, more cloud formation and more rainfall -- has not yet been observed. "Less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer air temperatures, so evaporation does not change very much," said Gavin Schmidt of GISS, a co-author of the paper. "Increased aerosols probably slowed the expected change in the hydrological cycle."

This is very daunting. Even though storms are increasing in strength, there is less rainfall. This also goes back to other research I've read that suggests that contrails have been used to "kill" storm clouds as well as seeding clouds. I'd like to know who is in control of deciding if a storm is destroyed or created. Who gets to choose what areas will get rain? Like we saw during the Olympics in China, they were well prepared to deploy technology that would stop any storms that would rain out the games.

The conclusion of this article was fascinating and I'm going to have to do more reading about this since I've never heard of it before.

“One of Glory's two instruments, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor, will have the unique ability to measure globally the properties of natural and human-made aerosols to unprecedented levels of accuracy," said Mishchenko, who is project scientist on the mission.

reply to post by ProudBird

Be logical, and try to learn about the topic before making claims that a few hundred jets and their "exhaust' is a "toxic problem",

A few hundred jets??? What's that all about?

whilst ignoring literally millions of cars and trucks and motorcycles and mopeds and lawnmowers (etc), here on the ground!!

If you want to talk about the pollution that lawnmowers create - start a thread. I thought we were talking about troposphere/stratsophere contrails contributing to global dimming. I'd be fascinated to see the tie-in between lawnmowers and contrails. On second thought, I think I could make a case for it but I doubt seriously that you could. Why not talk about the subject at hand? Human beings are gross polluters - I don't think you'll find any disagreement with that.

No....what you posted were mention of attempts to mitigate CONTRAILS!! Not imaginary "chemtrails"! Contrails......even the "stealth" airplanes, like the B-2, still use jet engines, and the "give-away" and 'tell-tale' that destroys their "stealthiness" are the contrails that they naturally form, when conditions are suitable for contrail formation!! This is so simple to understand!

Indeed it is...simple to understand. It's like handwriting on the wall except in this case it's in the sky. To me, it's so obvious what is happening that I can't believe you would even for a minute throw your jets into the trash bin in order to go along with this persistent contrail propoganda. You're killing yourself and killing your industry because global dimming is a serious serious issue that involves vitamin deficiencies and starvation and water purification and resonances. Why are you, as an advocate of jet travel, unconcerned with the explosion of persistent contrails? And seemingly so disinterested as far as what changed to put your industry under the microscope with global dimming? Going to just sit by and take it?

Found a patent on acoustic contrail mitigation - interested? Probably not because you know as well as I do that what we're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with persistent contrails and everything to do with additives for their deliberate creation.

Method And Apparatus For Suppressing Aeorengine Contrails

Even wiki is pointing in the direction of afterthoughts thread.

Environmental impact of aviation

The environmental impact of aviation occurs because aircraft engines emit noise, particulates, and gases which contribute to climate change[1][2] and global dimming.[3] Despite emission reductions from automobiles and more fuel-efficient and less polluting turbofan and turboprop engines, the rapid growth of air travel in recent years contributes to an increase in total pollution attributable to aviation. In the European Union, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006.[4]

Like all human activities involving combustion, most forms of aviation release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere, contributing to the acceleration of global warming[6] and (in the case of CO2) ocean acidification.[7] In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports, as well as through emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings, the manufacture of aircraft and the construction of airport infrastructure.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Uncinus

Why? Because they are expensive. Ironically one the the technologies (the injection of acid, tested my the military, but abandoned as impractical due to the corrosive effects) would turn the contrail from a harmless cloud of ice crystals into an actual "chemtrail", albeit an invisible one.

Everything is expensive as a prototype. In 2000 the technology existed and currently the technology is in use, by the military, for the Stealth. The price tag, depending on the source, was $16 million to $63.5 million. That price has already been paid and included research and development from the ground up. I don't have operating costs or production costs beyond the prototype so we're really just assuming expense. The acid, mentioned as ONE method, corroded the storage tanks and they moved on. Bottom line is that the technology, whether it be a gadget or an additive or an adjustment to elevation, exists to eliminate contrails. Predictability for contrail formation or at least for lack of formation exists and has existed for decades.

Contrails

One early approach was the injection of chlorosulfonic acid into the exhaust of an engine to diminish the particle size of water below the visible range. However, this substance is extremely corrosive.

Contrail Prediction

Results indicate that the new contrail prediction algorithm developed by the Tactical Environmental Support Branch provide a dramatic improvement in the ability to forecast contrails. The new algorithm produced accurate contrail forecasts 85 percent of the time compared to 57 percent correct for the Air Force Global Weather Center operational contrail prediction algorithm.

We can afford to bail out banks and auto manufacturers and pay for installation after installation in Antarctica and put up spy satellite after spy satellite with quantum computers to collate data but we can't have an impact on global dimming caused by persistent contrails because...why?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So the answer to "why have contrails unless they are chemtrails?" is that they "have contrails" in order to minimise fuel burn so reduce costs and reduce pollution.

This is an interesting statement and I've heard it alot. I mean about how expensive it supposedly is to change altitude slightly and how polluting it is to fly lower. Just how much more money is it? And how much added pollution is it? And why wouldn't you change altitude to fly a bit higher? Why would it always be lower?

If your statement is based on something actual rather than something assumed, there must be a cost study somewhere. And a pollution by altitude study.

reply to post by Afterthought


Also it is now known that the more or less constant background noise of distant jet engines has a detrimental effect on mental health. If air passengers paid for the problems caused by their chosen method of transport each seat would cost millions.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
We can afford to bail out banks and auto manufacturers and pay for installation after installation in Antarctica and put up spy satellite after spy satellite with quantum computers to collate data but we can't have an impact on global dimming caused by persistent contrails because...why?

But global dimming has reversed over the last 20 years.

And if you counteract global dimming, then you increase global warming.

And because they don't know what the effect would be.

And it's expensive, and would take decades to fully implement.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I mean about how expensive it supposedly is to change altitude slightly and how polluting it is to fly lower. Just how much more money is it? And how much added pollution is it? And why wouldn't you change altitude to fly a bit higher? Why would it always be lower?

If your statement is based on something actual rather than something assumed, there must be a cost study somewhere. And a pollution by altitude study.

Obviously airlines are on a very low profit margin (most are losing money). They fly at the altitude that gives them the maximum fuel efficiency. Even a change in altitude only results in $1000 of extra fuel costs, you'd have to have some very good science behind the reason why.

I'm not against altitude modulation to reduce contrails, I just don't think the science is there yet. It's not clear if it will improve climate change, or make it worse. It's not clear how much it will cost. It's not clear what the pollution impacts are.

It's also a very minor player in total global climate change. There are far bigger problems to address, like CO2.

Thanks to those who are contributing to this thread and posting relevant crucial information about this important topic.

I'm still doing some digging, but I thought I'd post this article because I like the way it is cut and dry while hitting the target and mentioning problems and possible solutions.
www.airliners.net...

Jet aircraft, however, have a unique form of harming the environment that is associated exclusively with them: contrails. They are the long, thin clouds that are blasted out of the exhaust nozzle of jet engines at high altitudes. Some days they fade away within a few minutes and they pose no threat. It is the days that perfect conditions exist when they do their damage, drifting and expanding to several thousand square miles and blanketing the lowest atmosphere of Earth through the night, unnaturally trapping heat. Some argue that contrails have no effect on the environment but evidence indicates this opinion is not valid. Several solutions to the problem exist. Jets could fly at different altitudes, or engine standards could be raised so that insurance rates are less for those that are friendlier to the environment. Knowledge from the military stealth aircraft program could be incorporated into civilian aviation to avoid contrails, or contrail forecasts could be incorporated into flight planning process so that contrail-prone routes and altitudes are avoided. Contrary to some opinions, contrails have indeed helped raise the temperature of North America and the entire planet since the start of the jet age and continue to do so, making a long-term plan to reduce them a plan that needs to be initiated.

Tests were performed with a NASA jet aircraft examining the effect of sulfur levels in jet fuel exhaust. During the airborne test one engine was run on normal jet fuel and the other engine was run on fuel that emitted exhaust with a lower sulfur content. The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite. “Aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause”6. This condensation nuclei is the tiny matter that gives water vapor the ability to form. The International Civil Aviation Organization is in favor of making polluting, obsolete aircraft uninsurable.

I'd never considered the insurance aspect of this issue, so this is something I feel needs more attention. Not to mention the sulfur angle. Doesn't sulfur contribute to the formation of acid rain?
To those who are saying that contrails are doing nothing to the environment, you're dead wrong.

Global warming is already a concern, and although the extent to which contrails are contributing to global warming is debatable, it cannot be argued that they have no effect.

Please visit the link. It contains some great satellite photos of contrail pollution.

Originally posted by Afterthought
To those who are saying that contrails are doing nothing to the environment, you're dead wrong.

I don't think people are arguing they do nothing. But threads like this sometimes make it seem like contrails are the only problem, or the worst problem. Really there's a lot of uncertainty, but it's generally considered to be a pretty small component of the problem.



Notice the Sulfates in the above. Adding sulphur to contrails will reduce the number of contrails slightly, but might also increase cloud cover as now you've got more sulphates in the air. This would help cool things down, but as you mention could result in more acid rain. I think modulating the altitude would be a better approach - more chemical neutral, assuming the efficiency problem is balanced out.

The climate as a whole is very complicated.

reply to post by Uncinus

But threads like this sometimes make it seem like contrails are the only problem, or the worst problem. Really there's a lot of uncertainty, but it's generally considered to be a pretty small component of the problem.

Yes, there is much uncertainty and a lot of evidence apprears contradictive.
I didn't create this thread to make it seem as though contrails are the only problem, but it is obvious that it is an issue that is being ignored. I also don't believe that it is a "pretty small component".

One thing that's on my mind lately is why people have to fly for business so often. With today's technology and our ability to teleconference, why are so many people having to appear at places when they can stay in their own city and discuss business?

Also, why do insurance companies get to dictate how businesses are run and how aircraft are flying? It truly appears that insurance companies are given way too much power over available options they know nothing about. Cleaner aircraft should have lower insurance costs, but who are the lobbyists for this change to happen or not happen?

Change certainly needs to happen and I don't understand why avenues are not being experimented with unless there is something we aren't aware of that is preventing positive progress from taking place. I can't allow my imagination to take off with that right now though because I have to go somewhere now. I'll be back later after this digests and I have done some more digging.

reply to post by Uncinus

But global dimming has reversed over the last 20 years.

I'm not seeing this from the consensus of articles BUT I haven't read any recent STUDY on global dimming so - make your case.

Here from March of this year an article that throws around some numbers and tries to explain the two evil twins' relationship between global dimming and global warming - how they are separate and yet joined at the hip so that solving one without the other could spell disaster.

Global Dimming - Its causes and effects

Since the year 1950 there has been a slow yet steady drop in solar radiation, in fact the level of radiation reaching the surface of our planet has dropped by 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, 30% in areas of Russia and by 16% in parts of Britain. Overall the average drop in solar radiation has been estimated to be a staggering 22%, an amount which climate scientists consider to be “enormous” and which may present a grave danger to our environment.

The cause of Global Dimming has been found to be changes in the earth’s atmosphere due to the fact that almost anything we do to gain useful energy creates pollutants.

And this article from 2004 as a companion piece to show that different ways of measuring give different results. I'll quote the relevant part.

After a Period of Brightness, Earth Dims, Researchers Say

Tracking the brightness of Earth by looking at its reflection on the Moon, scientists have concluded that sunshine on Earth brightened in the 1990's, then dimmed after 2000.

Using a small telescope at Big Bear, the astronomers have for the past five years measured the relative brightness of the two sides of the Moon, which tells how much light is bouncing off Earth back into space, what the scientists call ''earthshine.'' The reflectivity is largely a measure of clouds, which are much shinier than the ocean or ground. Thus, a brightening of earthshine means a dimming on Earth's surface, because less light is reaching the ground.

So that brings us neatly back to persistent contrails and jet exhaust cirrus.

I'm not against altitude modulation to reduce contrails, I just don't think the science is there yet. It's not clear if it will improve climate change, or make it worse. It's not clear how much it will cost. It's not clear what the pollution impacts are.

Same way that you say you're not against mitigation of contrails by altitude, I'm not against looking at pollution particle saturation (from all sources) as a reason for some increase in persistent contrails (the real thing - not chemtrails.) To be fair, that makes sense. However, I don't buy the expense and lack of know-how on contrail mitigation because the expense already happened and the technology is in use.

I do buy lack of knowledge on the relationship between global dimming and global warming and that, by reckless polluting, the military may have gotten us into a catch-22 situation. I don't buy the sudden and abrupt rise in pollutants in the atmosphere that fly in the face of prior prediction and modeling studies. The extra stuff came from somewhere and that's what we're on the hunt for.

I do buy lack of knowledge on the relationship between global dimming and global warming and that, by reckless polluting, the military may have gotten us into a catch-22 situation. I don't buy the sudden and abrupt rise in pollutants in the atmosphere that fly in the face of prior prediction and modeling studies. The extra stuff came from somewhere and that's what we're on the hunt for.

The article you linked makes the reasonable suggestions that it's from soot, i.e. industrial pollution:
www.nytimes.com...

The output of the Sun varies only slightly, so scientists theorize that global dimming probably results from air pollution. Some light bounces off soot particles in the air. The pollution also causes more water droplets to condense out of air, leading to thicker, darker clouds, which block light. For that reason, the dimming appears to be more pronounced on cloudy days. Some less polluted regions have experienced little or no dimming.

But note that story is from 2004, eight years ago. This 2011 overview paper is much more up to date:
www.iac.ethz.ch...

The latest updates on solar radiation
changes observed since the new millennium
show no globally coherent trends anymore (see above
and Fig. 2). While brightening persists to some extent
in Europe and the United States, there are indications
for a renewed dimming in China associated with the
tremendous emission increases there after 2000, as
well as unabated dimming in India (Streets et al. 2009;
Wild et al. 2009).
We cannot exclude the possibility that we are currently
again in a transition phase and may return to
a renewed overall dimming for some years to come.
On the one hand, air pollution mitigation potential is
approaching saturation in many of the industrialized
nations (Ruckstuhl et al. 2008; Streets et al. 2009),
thus confining further human-induced brightening
in these areas, while on the other hand air pollution
increase and associated dimming may continue for
a while in developing and emerging nations. The
recent renewed increase in global sulfur emissions
(particularly originating from Asia) (Streets et al.
2009), the evidence for renewed declines in visibility
(Wang et al. 2009) and in satellite-derived SSR
(Hinkelman et al. 2009; Hatzianastassiou et al. 2011),
and the lack of warming in the early 2000s may be
interpreted as additional indicators for such a development.
However, such renewed dimming and associated
impacts would likely have a limited persistence,
since emerging nations will be forced to implement
air quality measures in face of increasingly pressing
health problems. Thus, with the foreseeable inevitability
and undisputable necessity for clean air regulations
and aerosol reductions also in emerging nations,
potential dampening of global warming by a renewed
dimming could only be temporary, and greenhouse
gases will ultimately become the sole major anthropogenic
forcing factor of climate change.

Basically the recent resurgence of some dimming is the result of increased pollution from developing countries, and is probably a short term thing. The longer term trend is brightening as pollution controls are implemented.

reply to post by Uncinus

The longer term trend is brightening as pollution controls are implemented.

No. Things dimmed from 1950 through the 1980's. In the 1990's they supposedly brightened. Now they are dimming again. What long term brightening trend? Even the brightening in the 1990's is questionable because it was done by country!!?? Some countries dimmed and some brightened! I still think measuring earthshine off the moon is a more honest way to do it. That way you get the reflected light - everything that's being pushed away. And anybody who measures should get the same results - no need to fudge anything per country depending on who you're trying to impress or who is paying the bill.

From this dialogue with you I foresee global dimming going the way of global warming with the result du jour tailored to the highest bidder whether that bidder is offering money or security or saving the planet.

As far as the contrail contribution to global dimming - every study I've read seems to think it's been grossly underestimated. In light of that, my question stands - the expense has been paid and the technology is in use to mitigate contrails - why isn't it being done? I mean it's not really even on any table anywhere. It's like chemclouds are so important. And even though studies have shown that cirrus deflect heat during the day, at night they hold heat and studies have shown that they wind up holding more than they deflect so they have a net warming. This hasn't been disputed. What's being disputed now is whether or not contrail cirrus act the same way or are they somehow good for us. That's another can of worms currently on the auction floor.

So there are three issues with du jour scenarios: global warming, global dimming and contrail cirrus. And depending on how the studies of these items come out: some stocks will rise, others will fall, jobs will be gained and jobs will be lost. Where's the nitty gritty in it? There's only one thing for a beleaguered tree-hugger to do: go back to observation and fight the good fight against back-alley exchanges of money.

reply to post by luxordelphi

No. Things dimmed from 1950 through the 1980's. In the 1990's they supposedly brightened. Now they are dimming again. What long term brightening trend? Even the brightening in the 1990's is questionable because it was done by country!!?? Some countries dimmed and some brightened!

Yes, this is what I'm finding as well. It seems as though much of this is based on varying opinions instead of concrete evidence. As I'm digging around, as soon as I locate one piece of info, it's no sooner that I find another study that is contradicting the one I just read. It seems to me that there is are entities in control that are purposefully trying to confuse the experts, or vice versa? I'm trying hard to make heads or tails of this and I can't shake the feeling that we're missing one or more important pieces of the puzzle that would allow us to see the whole picture.

Thanks for all your comments and info you've contributed.

reply to post by Afterthought

You're welcome, Afterthought, and thanks to you for the opportunity, i.e. marshalling a thread, to discuss these things.

The clue that has come out of all of this, for me, is the regional dimming and brightening. Everything else these days is global. Regional dimming is like pretending that ocean currents don't go from the southern to the northern hemisphere or that atmospheric systems are somehow separated by country borders. Or that radiation from Japan will not cross an ocean. That's where the agenda is, IMO.

Hunting for more concrete info, I stumbled onto The Global Cooling Project.
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

We promote simple land-management changes which can reduce global warming, stabilise rainfall, reduce flooding and help prevent famine over the next 10-50 years.
•Our methods are based on mainstream scientific research into land-atmosphere interactions - in particular, the role of clouds.
•We work with academics, communities, NGOs, social enterprises and governments.

How can clouds help cool the planet?
Low level clouds reflect the heat of the sun. Thunderstorm clouds also transport heat from the earth by convection and then radiate it out into space. These clouds can be encouraged to form naturally by increasing soil moisture and vegetation.

How is it done?
Soil moisture can be increased by rainwater harvesting (catching rainwater and helping it percolate into the soil). Other helpful soil moisture interventions include permaculture, conservation agriculture, agroforestry, farmer-managed natural reforestation, soil and water conservation. When done on a large scale, this will increase soil moisture, plant growth, cloud cover and rainfall.

Where can it be done?
This can be effective in hot, semi-arid countries which have a rainy season, especially in parts of the tropics where there has been deforestation. The most promising region is West Africa. Other locations in the northern hemisphere are Florida, India, Ethiopia.

In the animation below, the red, orange, yellow and green areas show where this can be most effective, and at which times of year.

I live in Florida and I had no idea that this geoengineering project was being conducted in my state. Why is this the only place in the US that's being used as a testing ground?

How much cooling impact can this have?
The project is not concerned with CO2 and the greenhouse effect, and it does not allow us to stop our efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it does buy us more time - potentially delaying the effects of increased global warming by 10-20 years.

I can assure everyone right now that absolutely NO cooling is happening in Florida. I think they need to re-evaluate their technique since it appears that these low level clouds are trapping heat instead of cooling things down.

Can we be sure it will work?
The project is supported by mainstream scientists from around the world, such as Professor Peter Cox, Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics at Exeter University (see his letter of support). A science dossier (pdf, 7MB) with 112 references to peer-reviewed scientific journals is avaliable for download.

What stage is the project currently at?
We have made links with a number of scientists around the world who support the project and want to contribute. We are keen to attract new supporters and collaborators, especially in fields such as: hydrology, meteorology, and other earth-sciences. We have made links with NGOs, and a social enterprise, Kinomé, is working with communities in Senegal on full scale implementation, as part of their Trees & Life project.

Here are the implementation stages of the project: www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

I clicked the link for the Trees & Life project, but it led nowhere.

Here is a link to The Land-Atmosphere and Resilience Initiative:
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

Speaking of low level clouds, some of you may remember a thread I did about NASA's comment about cloud tops dropping closer to Earth. Maybe there is some correlation here?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but this is proof enough for me that manmade clouds are being used as a tool in a current geoengineering project.

It appears that the more we dig, the clearer it becomes that countries are not just talking about geoengineering and have moved onto actually conducting geoengineering and it has simply gone unannounced to the public. Through the private sector and universities, they are going ahead with their plans.

Originally posted by Afterthought
It appears that the more we dig, the clearer it becomes that countries are not just talking about geoengineering and have moved onto actually conducting geoengineering and it has simply gone unannounced to the public. Through the private sector and universities, they are going ahead with their plans.

there is all sorts of publicly acknowledged geo-engineering going on - carbon sequestration for example, and carbon capture and storage are commonly referred to in the mainstream press....eg from wiki

In the United States, four different synthetic fuel projects are moving forward, which have publicly announced plans to incorporate carbon capture and storage:
1.American Clean Coal Fuels, in their Illinois Clean Fuels (ICF) project, is developing a 30,000-barrel (4,800 m3) per day biomass and coal to liquids project in Oakland, Illinois, which will market the CO2 created at the plant for enhanced oil recovery applications. By combining sequestration and biomass feedstocks, the ICF project will achieve dramatic reductions in the life-cycle carbon footprint of the fuels they produce. If sufficient biomass is used, the plant should have the capability to go life-cycle carbon negative, meaning that effectively, for each gallon of their fuel that is used, carbon is pulled out of the air, and put into the ground.[74]
2.Baard Energy, in their Ohio River Clean Fuels project, is developing a 53,000 bbl/d (8,400 m3/d) coal and biomass to liquids project, which has announced plans to market the plant’s CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.[75]
3.Rentech is developing a 29,600-barrel (4,710 m3) per day coal and biomass to liquids plant in Natchez, Mississippi, which will market the plant’s CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The first phase of the project is expected in 2011.[76]
4.DKRW[who?] is developing a 15,000–20,000-barrel (2,400–3,200 m3) per day coal to liquids plant in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, which will market its plant’s CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The project is expected to begin operation in 2013.[77]

and the mere fact that you found the website and the info shows that is HAS been announced to the public - your "digging" found a publicly available website, complete with links to other similar sites - paranoia much??

Doesn't it strike you as strange that all the "hidden" info that people are "finding" is on various easily accessed web pages??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


What percentage of people do you think are actually searching for this type of info?
Why do you think you're not hearing about this stuff on the 6 o'clock news?