The Lego-Like Way To Get CO2 Out of the Atmosphere – Slashdot

Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter




The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Yes, nice niche idea, but unless we all start to eat only rice, I do not see it doing much overall. Obviously they will get money, because at this stage (bargaining) too many people are still ready to believe carbon-capture is going to work just fine.
In actual reality. it does not look like it at all. But some rich fuckers must get even richer, so there is money to be made by pretending this problem is entirely manageable while doing nothing.
If carbon capture is the only solution then it’s already over.
The world generates 37 billion tons of co2 a year. Where is $3.7 trillion dollars a year coming from without crushing the global economy (if we use this method)? And that’s just yo zero out current annual human co2 production.
Where are they burying 37 billion tons of their little bricks every year even if the cost was viable?
Yes. 3.7t just to break even. As noted that isn’t actually enough and I still want to know where they’re getting buried.
Let’s reverse prior co2 injection. Double the number 7.4t a year into little bricks that magically just go away.
We had 2 years of Covid money pumped into the economy which came out to roughly that much and we now have inflation the likes of rich hasn’t been seen since the 70s. Now try doing that every single year and see what happens. The global economy will shatter. That’s a mind bo
Maybe but 3.7t is the number just to break even which we are told isn’t enough.
Double it to take out the same amount we’ve been putting in to reverse it.
This is guaranteeing a monumental global economic disaster which will lead to what normally happens in bad economic times: war and mass starvation. How is that any better than finding something else or doing nothing? Same result: billions dead. And that disaster will use up all the funds that would have been available to find something viable. So we get
No there’s a huge difference. This is non-productive money. It doesn’t produce any goods or services for sale. It’s essentially a tax on production. Which is conceptually fine but the numbers are bone crushing.
Sure let’s assume war n such are coming. We’re going to crush the economy and then have the same wars? Because this 3,7t doesn’t actually solve anything.
I still want to know where billions of rice bricks are buried every year. Everyone replying has studiously ignored that question.
Wow with such a well made and evidenced argument I am left with no reply. How can anyone counter your evidence and your brilliance?
Bonus time that you’re upset about a silly internet name. This was an adult conversation. Take your fragile ego elsewhere next time. Don’t step up if you can’t take the L without crying.
You assume there is somebody left to do that “cleanup”. If not, things will be a lot cheaper….

If carbon capture is the only solution then it’s already over.

The world generates 37 billion tons of co2 a year. Where is $3.7 trillion dollars a year coming from without crushing the global economy (if we use this method)? And that’s just yo zero out current annual human co2 production.

Where are they burying 37 billion tons of their little bricks every year even if the cost was viable?

If carbon capture is the only solution then it’s already over.
The world generates 37 billion tons of co2 a year. Where is $3.7 trillion dollars a year coming from without crushing the global economy (if we use this method)? And that’s just yo zero out current annual human co2 production.
Where are they burying 37 billion tons of their little bricks every year even if the cost was viable?
One might come to the conclusion that maybe the biggest problem is that there are almost 8.1 billion of us here, many that want no restrictions on their carbon de-sequestering, and want only a few nations to stop it.
We’re on a roller coaster ride now. One that won’t stop until we run out of CO2 to re introduce into the atmosphere.
Truth in that. There are a lot of people on the planet, orders of magnitude more than any time in previous eras.
Fortunately most of the planet now has non replacement birth levels but only in the less poor areas. Wealthier people have fewer children. This is a well known fact. By making everyone poor we would encourage the opposite of what is needed. I think you’ve hit a good point here, the solution is fewer people which can only reasonably happen by reducing birth rates which means increasing living

except we *have* to make carbon capture work.

except we *have* to make carbon capture work.
At this time, there is no indication it is possible in the amount needed. There is tons of indication that it is not. “Have to” does not move mountains.

Even if we stop emitting CO2 today, the climate warms for another 50-100 years.

Even if we stop emitting CO2 today, the climate warms for another 50-100 years.
I am aware. It will very likely do that and the human race will be thoroughly fucked and may even go extinct.

And trees aren’t viable [slashdot.org] to use as a forest.

And trees aren’t viable [slashdot.org] to use as a forest.
I am aware of that as well.
What, you thought the human race deserves a future, no matter what dementend, stupid, greedy things it does? Does no look like it. At all.
I completely agree. And as available evidence, we do not even manage large-scale CO2 reduction, which would be a _lot_ easier. How are we supposed to carbon capture, which is harder?

except we *have* to make carbon capture work. Even if we stop emitting CO2 today, the climate warms for another 50-100 years.

except we *have* to make carbon capture work. Even if we stop emitting CO2 today, the climate warms for another 50-100 years.
Think of how we de-sequestered all the carbon that we put back into the atmosphere.
Then think of how we are going to do it.
One of the oddest thing about the “We must do something!” crowd is that they are engaging in a monovarient outlook. They are willing to put in a thousand years of Acid rain, with it’s effects on forests, and it’s inevitable extinctions it will cause – and do that for a thousand years. Sulfuric aerosols are a mask. The moment you stop, you still have the carbon and methane, and tem

But the foremost problem is that there are about 8.1 billion of us.

But the foremost problem is that there are about 8.1 billion of us.
Yep. But that is one aspect that will fix itself though. Species that exceed their ecological niche get decimated by natural regulation mechanisms. Whether down to, say, 100-500M or down to 0 remains to be seen.
Yes, lots of money getting transferred to the .1%, whose wages went up over 30% last year, not counting capital gains. The bottom halves raise was about 5%, and they mostly spend on food and shelter which are increasing faster then 5% a year.
You think the top .1% gets regular wages? True wealth is about assets not salary. You could set their wages to zero and none of them would notice. Why do you think so many will set their wages to $1?
Lots of the 0.1% get wages, average CEO wage according to https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala… [glassdoor.com], $153K – $286K/yr plus additional pay. Googling also shows much higher pay scales but it is hard to find breakdowns between wages and bonuses, which are often stock. It is why I said “not including capital gains”. You’re thinking of the 0.01%.
256k is nothing. I wasn’t even a C level and was making 300k+ 10 years ago. That’s not how I got rich. I got rich on stock options.
The salary is irrelevant. At the last real job I had I told them I’d take the salary as offered with no negotiation but in exchange I wanted a huge boost in stock well outside their normal band. They went for it and I scored an _extra_ 7 figures on that deal after only 1.5 years. The CEO scored about half a billion for 5 years work. Salary? Pft. Keep it. Gimme base lin
Sure:
https://www.washingtonpost.com… [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com… [washingtonpost.com]
https://news.slashdot.org/stor… [slashdot.org]
They don’t care about co2 or technology or anything else. It’s a pure cash grab for the third world.
And why not? If dumb rich people are willing to give them money for nothing more than chanting the right incantations at a UN conference then why not?
The bigger flaw is when it’s discovered that this stuff makes a great fuel source when burned.
We’re at a point as a species where almost nothing that we build has any real long-term staying power. If something is subject to being torn down, to being destroyed, then there’s no real benefit to creating it for the express purpose of using it for something like this. And unlike the intended nuclear waste disposal sites where what’s being is actually dangerous, this stuff is basically inert, so if someone want
I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.
I can tell you straight away what the flaw is. Its burying food. We tried a variation of this already with Biodiesel and had to *rapidly* pull out of that plan when we realised it was causing staple food shortages in corn dependent countries like mexico.
Burying rice? Does not seem like a well thought out plan.
But maybe blocks of algae?
You’ve got it backwards.
You can’t eat rice hulls or wood chips. You might be able to eat some kinds of algae.
You’re also burying other nutrients instead of returning it to the land.

Burying rice? Does not seem like a well thought out plan.

Burying rice? Does not seem like a well thought out plan.
It’s the inedible rice hulls that get buried, not food.

But maybe blocks of algae?

But maybe blocks of algae?
I think we could package the plant matter more efficiently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
Ferment the plant matter into alcohol, that way the carbon is in liquid form for ease of transport and sequestration. Bring it over to my place, I have an idea on how to dispose of it.
Seriously though, if they have a means to turn rice hulls and sawdust into conveniently sized blocks of dry plant matter then sell the stuff as a firewood replacement, or carbon

It’s quite difficult to ferment these into ethanol. Methanol (‘wood alcohol ‘) maybe but it’s an inefficient process. It also doesn’t then sequester anything which is the whole point of this scheme.

It’s quite difficult to ferment these into ethanol. Methanol (‘wood alcohol ‘) maybe but it’s an inefficient process. It also doesn’t then sequester anything which is the whole point of this scheme.
It appears my joke was too subtle for you. You see my plan was to get people to produce some moonshine then pay me to sequester it, but what I was actually going to do was take their money then get shitfaced with my friends.

Burning things in domestic heating also doesn’t sequester carbon and given the relative inefficiency of burning solid mass for heat, is also a bit of a boondoggle and won’t result in a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions overall compared to sequestering it. Not that I think sequestering in this way is likely to be sustainable and there would be issues with respect to the loss of nutrients in the soil.

Burning things in domestic heating also doesn’t sequester carbon and given the relative inefficiency of burning solid mass for heat, is also a bit of a boondoggle and won’t result in a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions overall compared to sequestering it. Not that I think sequestering in this way is likely to be sustainable and there would be issues with respect to the loss of nutrients in the soil.
Burning the plant matter isn’t going to sequester any carbon but it will mean the heating is from carbon neutral fuel than fossil fuels. I guess that was too subtle for you too.
The issue of nutrients being taken from the soil can be addressed with taking the ashes and spreading that in

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.
The flaw will be greed. It’s always greed. Since the industrial revolution we’ve gotten accustomed to having an economy where dumping your combustion byproducts into the atmosphere has been gratis. It’s gonna be a tough adjustment to get used to the idea that we’ll have to spend money to do the opposite, bury the resulting carbon and then… just leave it there. The whole concept is almost the antithesis of capitalism.
And best of luck to any US politician who thinks they’ll be able to roll the costs of

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.

The flaw will be greed. It’s always greed. Since the industrial revolution we’ve gotten accustomed to having an economy where dumping your combustion byproducts into the atmosphere has been gratis. It’s gonna be a tough adjustment to get used to the idea that we’ll have to spend money to do the opposite, bury the resulting carbon and then… just leave it there. The whole concept is almost the antithesis of capitalism.

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.
The flaw will be greed. It’s always greed. Since the industrial revolution we’ve gotten accustomed to having an economy where dumping your combustion byproducts into the atmosphere has been gratis. It’s gonna be a tough adjustment to get used to the idea that we’ll have to spend money to do the opposite, bury the resulting carbon and then… just leave it there. The whole concept is almost the antithesis of capitalism.
And while it is a handy bugaboo to blame capitalism, it’s not remotely possible to blame it on capitalism. https://www.wri.org/insights/i… [wri.org] Unless you believe that China is a capitalist country. And India? They like planing, which is not terribly capitalistic.
And there is the problem. Assigning the USA as the nexus of all problems, is an application of the old adage, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
The issue of the desequestration of carbon Dioxide is not a US centric problem,

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.

I predict this method will be undermined by a deceptively simple flaw.
Feeding it after midnight?

1. More renewables (it is possible to scale up quickly, but in the US the bureaucracy has got in the way).

1. More renewables (it is possible to scale up quickly, but in the US the bureaucracy has got in the way).
Bureaucracy has got in the way? Whatever. There’s been so many government incentives, subsidies, and all kinds of preferential treatment piled on renewable energy that utilities had to speak up because the over abundance of solar on the grid during sunny days was threatening the stability of the grid. That’s not “bureaucracy” but subject matter experts forcing politicians into some level of sanity.

2. Grid scale energy storage and smart grids to level the peaks.

2. Grid scale energy storage and smart grids to level the peaks.
Grid scale energy storage cost grid scale levels of money but they don’t produce any energy, they only store
Natural sequestration is slow on human time scales, depending on the source you look at, 1000’s-10,000’s years. There’s plants and there’s weathering of rock, which also makes the oceans more acidic.
I’ve played this game before and I’m done playing it. If you want references out of me then provide yours first and I’ll think about it. The usual game is me looking for a source then a reply on how it is biased or something so I find another source. Then comes a reply on how there’s something wrong with that source also. This repeats until I realize I’ve been played since there was never a source shown in the first place to demonstrate there was anything wrong with my original claim. I’ve finally wise

If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions.

If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions.
From https://royalsociety.org/topic… [royalsociety.org].

First, I have doubts on your claim being true.

First, I have doubts on your claim being true.
Yes the numbers do seem low, partially as it is expected with warming will be more rain speeding up the natural weathering which currently is responsible for about half of natural sequestration, with plants being responsible for the other half, and we know that most plant matter rots etc and does not sequester on the long term.

Wind is no longer just a rounding error, or at least more so than nuclear.

Wind is no longer just a rounding error, or at least more so than nuclear.
I didn’t claim that wind was a rounding error, I pointed out that solar energy production is a rounding error. Nuclear fission produces nearly as much energy as all non-hydro renewable energy combined. A quick look at Wikipedia shows some data to back this up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
If you want me to do more effort than link to Wikipedia then provide some links of your own.

I don’t see there being much appetite for nuclear powered ships.

I don’t see there being much appetite for nuclear powered ships.
Citation needed.

And most cars can be powered via batteries as products coming onto the market show that battery power for larger ones is very possible.

And most cars can be powered via batteries as products coming onto the market show that battery power for larger ones is very possible.
Citation needed.
Even if it is possible to power cars and heavy trucks with batteries there’s been Slashdot a
sounds far more exciting than burying it in a hole in the ground.
This is how I “store” my used up iron trichloride. By the looks of my first bricks from four decades ago, it won’t outlast the Roman empire.
Just put it six-feet under right away. Seems like a lot of unnecessary energy spent to make bricks,
then bury. I know, the greedsters will say, why not burn the deadwood first to get energy out of
that (modulo pollution), then bury the charcoal briquettes instead.
Six feet probably wouldn’t sequester the carbon for very long. Nor would ten feet without some preprocessing.
Now, if you had some nice big coal mines to chuck trees into and pour a bunch of rock on top, that would probably do it. Or sink them in the deep ocean.

Now, if you had some nice big coal mines to chuck trees into and pour a bunch of rock on top, that would probably do it. Or sink them in the deep ocean.

Now, if you had some nice big coal mines to chuck trees into and pour a bunch of rock on top, that would probably do it. Or sink them in the deep ocean.
This is why I really like my idea of baking the trees into charcoal. Bury that in an old coal mine and viola!, we’re renewed the coal bed.
Coal and charcoal, basically both pure carbon, are incredibly stable. Nothing eats them that I know of. Keep them reasonably dry and I think they’ll last pretty much forever without a lot of monitoring.
Future meeting minutes from coal company board of directors:

Why are we investing huge amounts of capital removing overburden and digging shafts to find solid fuels, when all we have to do is dig down 10 feet and pick up all these convenient blocks that have been neatly stacked for us?

Why are we investing huge amounts of capital removing overburden and digging shafts to find solid fuels, when all we have to do is dig down 10 feet and pick up all these convenient blocks that have been neatly stacked for us?
Putting aside that the total energy input computation of any of these processes are initially suspect, the process results in nothing of value as an end product. It’s a pure money sink, so it’s only of value as an offset to other processes that pollute the Earth with CO2. As such, it must be the absolutely cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to survive.
In comparison, the process that produces these bricks can be the input side of a biochar production line, likely sequestering about half the carbon into something that according to hundreds of well-qualified studies, permanently improves the fertility of a wide range of soils that are too poor for productive agriculture without massive inputs of fertilizers that need to be reappied year after year and are currently produced using fossil fuels.

Putting aside that the total energy input computation of any of these processes are initially suspect, the process results in nothing of value as an end product. It’s a pure money sink, so it’s only of value as an offset to other processes that pollute the Earth with CO2. As such, it must be the absolutely cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to survive.

Putting aside that the total energy input computation of any of these processes are initially suspect, the process results in nothing of value as an end product. It’s a pure money sink, so it’s only of value as an offset to other processes that pollute the Earth with CO2. As such, it must be the absolutely cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to survive.
Yes and no. The waste products have to be disposed of anyway, so there’s a direct cost involved in not using this process, too. Disposing of the waste at least arguably *is* something of value, just not of significantly more value than the cost of dumping it in a landfill. But if they can turn it into carbon credits that the company can sell, then that can offset the cost of doing it. So this is one of the few situations where carbon credits actually make a lot of sense and can lead to actual reductions
100 gallons of gasoline produce about 1 ton of CO2 when burned. Assuming this technique works and buries 1 net ton of CO2 for $100, that means it’ll cost about $1 per gallon to clean up car emissions.
Likewise, you can get about 869 kWh per ton of CO2 from a coal plant, 2062 kWh per ton from a natural gas plant, or 13,745kWh per ton from a nuclear plant. Therefore you can clean up electrical generation for about $0.115/kWh for coal, $0.048/kWh for natural gas, or $0.007/kWh for nuclear. I’ve looked up enough numbers, but I’d assume renewables would be down there with nuke.
If you tack those costs on to the prices of electricity supplied by generators, you’ll see a pretty rapid change in the “nuclear and renewables aren’t cost-effective” mantra. Likewise, tack it onto the price of a gallon at the pump and you’ll see an even faster push toward electric cars.
Those aren’t the only ways to pay for it of course, but you have to pay for it somewhere (climate collapse is much more expensive in the long run). Pricing it in close to the source will get people eager to change sources in a hurry… and for those who can’t, it’s okay as long as they’re paying to clean up their own mess.
Sources for CO2 emissions per (gallon, kWh):
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic… [epa.gov]
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs… [eia.gov]
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-che… [dw.com]

If you tack those costs on to the prices of electricity supplied by generators, you’ll see a pretty rapid change in the “nuclear and renewables aren’t cost-effective” mantra. Likewise, tack it onto the price of a gallon at the pump and you’ll see an even faster push toward electric cars.

If you tack those costs on to the prices of electricity supplied by generators, you’ll see a pretty rapid change in the “nuclear and renewables aren’t cost-effective” mantra. Likewise, tack it onto the price of a gallon at the pump and you’ll see an even faster push toward electric cars.
Or you’ll see a lot of incumbent politicians get replaced in the next election.
We aren’t going to get a carbon tax if the people that vote don’t want it. And funnily enough there’s going to be more people voting in elections as energy costs rise.
I recall mention of how a long time ago people were hunting whales to near extinction because people wanted the whale oil as fuel for their lamps. There were attempts to pass laws protecting the whales but they didn’t get much traction until people discovered kero
Until then, lets try all the stupid stuff first so we can get that out of the way.
After the envirofascists are gone and we’re ready to fuck the planet again, this will be almost as good as oil.
There are all sorts of projects for extracting and storing CO2. Every single one of them is a boondoggle. First, by the time they have extracted, processed and stored the CO2, they have used up a ton of energy. Saying that comes from renewable sources doesn’t help, because that renewable energy probably could have otherwise replaced fossil-fuel generated energy. Plus the actual production and storage facilities have their own CO2 costs.
In this case, we have (1) gathering crop waste – transport, (2) drying

“People that are academics probably thought about this before and were like, ‘That’s way too simple,’” Sanchez said, laughing. “‘No one’s ever going to do that.’”

“People that are academics probably thought about this before and were like, ‘That’s way too simple,’” Sanchez said, laughing. “‘No one’s ever going to do that.’”
Probably.
They probably also thought it would be blasphemous, since it doesn’t involve pain, deprivation, and blame (for non-academics, of course).

Graphyte, a new company incubated by Bill Gates’s investment group Breakthrough Energy Ventures, announced Monday that it has created a method for turning bits of wood chips and rice hulls into low-cost, dehydrated chunks of plant matter.

Graphyte, a new company incubated by Bill Gates’s investment group Breakthrough Energy Ventures, announced Monday that it has created a method for turning bits of wood chips and rice hulls into low-cost, dehydrated chunks of plant matter.
Me too. I leave them out in the sun. Checkmate, global warming!
Reporting unironically on anything Bill Gates is invested in as if it will have any utility for mankind is idiot’s work. He is always just seeking more profit. He is personally worth far more now than when he founded his tax dodge^W^Wfoundation after AG Ashcroft let Microsoft off with a handslap after the USDoJ investigation concluded that Bill Gates led it to violate antitrust law in basically every way possible.
Bill Gates is a career criminal,
Digging holes and filling them with blocks seems like a money sink instead of an (additional) income stream. I’m pretty sure that with some slight tweaks, the product of this process could be turned into a new product that could be sold…
For instance, blocks that look more like actual “Lego” pieces and/or “bricks” (than the photo on the article). Pretty sure something that is easy to stack and interlock, but is impervious to rotting and weather, and has similar insulating values and feel of wood, could be
So, they are basically seeding a future coal mine. Some future civilization will “mine” these bricks for their own energy needs.
The question becomes will that use count as carbon neutral/ renewable?
Also, this also use the ground like trees do, so how is this different than planting trees?
Finally, if it is necessary to silo the carbon rather then just put it into soil, why not use the fibrous plants in aircrete for building? or the many other uses we have already found for such materials?
Don’t we have a need for carbon in other places as well?
Spending effort on things which won’t scale is silly.
By the time you do something which can scale at 1000x the scale, it will be cheaper too. This is just a new slightly less scammy green certificate scam … if they can find private customers for it, let them fuck around in the margins, just don’t waste any taxpayer money on it. It’s a complete waste of time.
It’s really easy to tell what can’t scale though. This can’t scale, not enough soil in the world to make a dent.
Electricity from PV and Nuclear is defacto limitless. So it’s a question of how to turn electricity into sequestrable carbon with minimal unrecoverable consumables, that’s how you scale.

Well, this could still be a part of the solution. Perfect is the worst enemy of good.

“feel good” non solutions are worse than that.

It’s like sending “thoughts and prayers”. You think you’ve done something useful so you don’t actually do anything useful.

Well, this could still be a part of the solution. Perfect is the worst enemy of good.

Well, this could still be a part of the solution. Perfect is the worst enemy of good.
“feel good” non solutions are worse than that.
It’s like sending “thoughts and prayers”. You think you’ve done something useful so you don’t actually do anything useful.
How does a completely incorrect comment like this get rated up to a 5? Planting a tree is, objectively, a net positive in the climate change equation, and cannot be accurately referred to either as a “non-solution” or as “not doing anything useful.” Further, the crux of tintux’s comment (to which Krunch is replying) is explicitly that planting trees alone will not solve the problem, so Krunch’s fundamental premise So Krunch’s post is unarguably incorrect.
Point of order, knowing people are rooting for you to get better when you are ill very much can trigger the placebo effect outside of being a complete and total misanthrope, which demonstrably improves outcomes. Which is PROBABLY the origin of the concept of thoughts and prayers being useful. Moreover, the inverse can trigger the nocebo effect, which can cause illnesses to be significantly worse, thus the probable origin of curses et al. At the end of the day when it comes to people, belief is a powerful th
You’re also burying all the plant nutrients, phosphorous is getting rare, then there is the potassium, nitrates, which are the easiest to replace, calcium and micro-nutrients. You can only do a few cycles and the soil starts getting barren. When those leaves fall and later the rest of the tree, nutrients get returned. Burying them underground removes them. Guess we could make more fertilizer, which usually produces CO2.
Yes, rock dust can do wonders, energy intensive to crush, less so if harvested from retreating glaciers.
In general we’ve gone through at least half the soil that we started with, at some point things will get bad food wise as well as other stuff like forests
You’re also burying all the plant nutrients… You can only do a few cycles and the soil starts getting barren.
Won’t the nutrients eventually leach out [wikipedia.org] and re-fertilize the land?
Not really in the short geological time frame, for the same reasons that the CO2 will be locked up, buried deep in a form that is sorta sealed. Eventually some will be returned but that is a long way off.
Why are you focusing on mature trees? Just take a look at any plant matter. Every single carbon atom that makes up that plant came directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide. What should be looked at isn’t what the mature plant or tree takes up, but instead what plant produces the maximum mass of growth over time. Then pyrolyze the resulting organic material, collecting the outgassed substances and the sequester the left over carbon.
It’s basically replicating what peat bogs do today. Wood and other material do not decompose and release its carbon as peat, because there is not enough oxygen for the C to CO2 process to work.
In millions of years they might even have turned into oil 🙂
You’re right. $200 billion per year is way too much money to halt an existential planetwide crisis. We should spend that on the defense budget instead.

Sure it costs trillions. NOT doing it will cost dozens of trillions more.

Sure it costs trillions. NOT doing it will cost dozens of trillions more.
But by the time while biospheres collapse and wars break out over securing farmland, water, and places more hospitable to life all these billionaires will be dead. Won’t someone think of the future generations grandchildren?
>>At $100/ton, 200 billion dollars is “affordable”? How is that going to work?
You just discovered the real cost externalized when burning Fossil fuels.
And Yes, 200 billion is actually very affordable to maintain the planet livable.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds absolutely affordable. This would be for the whole world here.
Just to put it in perspective. The US defense budget for this year is 1.8 Trillion. If they cut it to 1.6 trillion and used the 200 billion remove carbon, that’s pretty affordable.
Again, this is just the US budget. I’m just going by your numbers here. That would be mean the US could probably solve climate change on its own for the whole world. Realistically, that 200 billion spread over many countries would
Yes. DM me to join my Bill Gates funded chalk cannon project. We are going to save the world, one chalky block at a time and we’re going to donate all that chalk to third world grade schools!

Plant more trees. Trees love CO2 and give off oxygen. Of course, the comments section and the Bill Gates shill army will try to explain with pseudo science how this is not feasible, or that it’s different this time.

Plant more trees. Trees love CO2 and give off oxygen. Of course, the comments section and the Bill Gates shill army will try to explain with pseudo science how this is not feasible, or that it’s different this time.
Trees die (or get intentionally cut down) and decompose. Farmers burn rice hulls and other field waste. Did you miss that part of TFA?
No worries! They spend some of that $100/brick to buy carbon credits!

Climate change is a scam to control you.

Climate change is a scam to control you.
Telling you that you are being scammed by climate change, to make you angry and fearful (and therefore easier to manipulate), is a scam to control you.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Japan To Create $6.6 Billion Fund To Develop Outer Space Industry
Open-Source 4K Dungeon Keeper Remake Spent 15 Years In the Making
“What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying.” — Nikita Khrushchev

source


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *