interesting info about carbon capture tech

[SC Maintenance]

Isn’t the reason we import because we don’t have the refineries that are needed to refine the USA crude, as it is different then Saudi crude that is more needed for oils etc….? Just like different kinds of metals are used for different applications, so are different crude oils makeup.

The refineries on the West Coast are not set up for light sweet crude from Shale. They could be converted, but it would take a year and make no sense anyway because it costs more to ship oil from Houston around South America , or through the Panama canal, than it does to ship from the middle east. @Snagglefoot has posted here several times about Canada now exporting crude and fuel to our West Coast.

Given the Canadians figured out how to put a pipe over the mountains I presume we could, but there was no desire.

 

[Albin]

I have 25 acres of high carbon capture tech. They're called trees.

 

[Vercingetorix]

https://www.creaf.cat/en/articles/world-has-become-greener-over-past-33-years

The study detected a significant increase in green biomass – essentially, leaves – over 40% of the planet from 1982 to 2015, while a significant decrease in vegetation was seen in only 4% of the surface.

They are using two different terms here. Biomass may not equal vegetation. Increase in biomass over 40% may very well mean a decrease in the other 60%.

 

[Bjornviken]

Yes, but that would make co2 look good actually. We definitely don’t want that.

View attachment 248435

i do, doesn't look bad living in Finland

 

[KrisZ]

The study detected a significant increase in green biomass – essentially, leaves – over 40% of the planet from 1982 to 2015, while a significant decrease in vegetation was seen in only 4% of the surface.

They are using two different terms here. Biomass may not equal vegetation. Increase in biomass over 40% may very well mean a decrease in the other 60%.

They simply compared satellite images and saw more green vegetation over the last two decades. Not sure where you're getting that the 40% increase may have caused a 60% decrease in some other plant form. Last time I checked, photosynthesis works rather the same for all green plants.

 

[Mechanician]

Yes, but that would make co2 look good actually. We definitely don’t want that.

View attachment 248435

Your source is looking for contributions to "devise new solutions to the climate emergency", if you look down at the bottom of that page.
I guess they don't believe it looks good.

 

[loneryder]

I think implementation on a big enough scale is the issue. To scrub enough CO2 to get back to ~300ppm needs 550 billion tons removed.
This is a handy way to get CO2 out of the air, but it still needs to put somewhere, probably liquified and injected into the ground?
Probably this is part of a solution, but not the only part.

Plant more trees!

 

[camrydriver111]

This is the original article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

I agree that looking at greeness in sattelite images does not equal biomass. How much of the rainforest was cut down since 1982?

How many trees would be required to actually offset the amount humans are producing? Someone must have calculated it, but I don't think it will be a small amount.

 

[IndyIan]

This is the original article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

I agree that looking at greeness in sattelite images does not equal biomass. How much of the rainforest was cut down since 1982?

How many trees would be required to actually offset the amount humans are producing? Someone must have calculated it, but I don't think it will be a small amount.

A quick search says there's ~450B tons of carbon in trees, and globally we extract ~15B tons of fossil fuels per year... And we've probably already extracted way more that 450B tons of fossil fuels?

Plant more trees!

I've put in about 75k myself, but they are probably destined to end up as amazon boxes, or twisty 2x4's sometime in the 2050's... If they don't get burned before then. Grasslands seem to store more, and lock it in better, building topsoil depth which doesn't burn.

Anyways, I think the solution is probably nuclear/renewable power, some bio liquid fuels for applications that batteries don't work for, to get carbon neutral. Then some mechanical carbon capture and lots of natural carbon capture, with grasslands, forests, more grassland friendly grazing methods instead of feedlots relying on mountains of cheap corn.

 

[bullwinkle]

I don’t know the numbers, but deciduous trees capture a lot of biomass in leaves, which eventually become topsoil if composted properly (I honestly believe earthworms eat the leaves and “contribute” to topsoil formation). My white pine makes a hellacious amount of pine straw, but nowhere near what the regular trees make.

 

[ragtoplvr]

I think implementation on a big enough scale is the issue. To scrub enough CO2 to get back to ~300ppm needs 550 billion tons removed.
This is a handy way to get CO2 out of the air, but it still needs to put somewhere, probably liquified and injected into the ground?
Probably this is part of a solution, but not the only part.

Earthquakes anyone

 

[KrisZ]

It’s just another welfare for corporations and politicians. It’s started with carbon credits and it’s obviously not enough. Now they will pay billions to scrub CO2 where one volcano eruption will erase all their work, but hey, someone will make a killing on this scam.