First US commercial carbon capture facility opens

That actually worries me--that's CO2 no plant ever gets.

There is this idea of 400 ppm is "too high"--but didn't we have more famines when it was in the 100-250 range?
 
edwest4 said:
https://fortune.com/2023/11/09/first-us-commercial-carbon-capture-facility-opens-california/
Click to expand...
1,000 tons of CO2 a year. Neat. China spits out 1,000 tons of CO2 roughly every 22 minutes. And accelerating quickly.

So how many of these facilities will the US need to manufacture *per* *hour* to hope to make a dent in what China produces?

Article says the company *hopes* to get the cost down to $100 per ton of captured CO2. China will add a billion tons of CO2 production to their output roughly every six months. So for the US to virtue signal "equity," we'll need to spend $100 billion per six months per six months, just to keep up.

Are we going to send Xi a bill?
 
publiusr said:
That actually worries me--that's CO2 no plant ever gets.

There is this idea of 400 ppm is "too high"--but didn't we have more famines when it was in the 100-250 range?
Click to expand...
Plant growth is more likely to be inhibited by darkness, soil salinity, extreme temperatures, drought, lack of nutrients in soil.
 
Found here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138500018136

Adaptation to low CO2​

The predominance of low CO2 atmospheres in recent geological time and the yield reductions observed experimentally indicate that there might have been pronounced evolutionary selection pressure in response to low levels of CO2. If so, then plants of the late Pleistocene might have been adapted to lower CO2 concentrations than currently exist 8. Given the short period of evolutionary time since low-CO2 conditions predominated (100–15 000 years, depending on perspective), many if not most plants...
Click to expand...
More here:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate-change-carbon-emissions-plants-photosynthesis
For the last century, rising levels of carbon dioxide helped plants grow faster, a rare silver lining in human-caused climate change. But now, as drier conditions set in across much of the globe, plant growth may be failing to keep up with emissions, a new study suggests.
[...]
The study suggests that photosynthesis sped up until around the year 2000, at which point it began to level off, owing to more arid conditions. Looking ahead, authors say, the rate of photosynthesis could flatten out entirely, making it harder to keep rising carbon emissions — and warming — in check. The findings were published in the journal Science.
Click to expand...
 
Wood is probably weaker...with rings closer together...it makes for stronger structures I imagine.
 
Arjen said:
Plant growth is more likely to be inhibited by darkness, soil salinity, extreme temperatures, drought, lack of nutrients in soil.
Click to expand...

Darkness? From where? It's sunny outside right now.
 
A big volcanic eruption will throw enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. An all-out nuclear war will do the same.
 
Arjen said:
A big volcanic eruption will throw enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. An all-out nuclear war will do the same.
Click to expand...
So you're saying we should counter global warming with an all-out nuclear strike on China? Hmm. That's a daring proposal you have there. Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
Orionblamblam said:
So you're saying we should counter global warming with an all-out nuclear strike on China?
Click to expand...
I can't recall naming China. Hundreds of millions dead, retaliation would likely follow to ruin even YOUR day, so no, not even in jest. Can we move on?
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
I can't recall naming China.
Click to expand...

It's the obvious choice, though. Not only do you get the ash and aerosols to block the sunlight, the CO2 emissions drop *after an initial burst, of course). You'll get the ash/aerosols form *anywhere* you nuke, but only China gets you the CO2 reduction bonus.

Unless your devious scheme involved nuking the oceans. Hmmm. Finally put an end to the cetacean scourge...
 
The carbon capture facility is real. I hope your fantasy remains a fantasy.
I listed possible causes for an acute drop in the amount of sunshine reaching the Earth's surface, in reply to @edwest4 .
Earlier, I listed inhibiting factors for plant growth.
You keep bringing up China. First asking China for compensation for carbon capture. Then nuking China.
Go on. Start your own thread about China, see how long it lasts.

But can we move on here?
 
Arjen said:
The carbon capture facility is real.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's real. And it's real insignificant. To be significant in the face of practical reality would cost many trillions of dollars. There are better uses for those dollars than artificial trees.

Can we move on? Sure, as soon as the reality of the situation is understood. Living in a world of unrealistic fantasy *merits* mockery.
 
dannydale said:
"Low-cost method can remove CO₂ from air using cold temperatures and common materials"
Click to expand...

On first reading, quite dubious about this being tied to LNG production. Tempted to go through papers and literature to compare the amount of captured CO₂ to the carbon footprint of the whole process (or even life cycle) to which it is attached. Merely burning a ton of LNG produces ~2.75 tons of CO₂, I think? Entropy would seem to dictate that this is merely a mitigating technology even just within its own footprint. Potentially a good Jevons paradox candidate.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom