Carbon sucker

[Dr H]

A global carbon tax would go a long way to sort such issues out.  That would provide incentives for companies to build up manufacturing in the U.S. again.

Think we should tell Donald Trump?
Building up manufacturing in the US is supposedly one of his goals.  

[Dr H]

Yeah, just look at Brazil.

Things may  not be working out so great, in Brazil.

So it is hard to say what is going on with this carbon sucking energy. Technically it is possible, but since it is all left to private businesses we more or less have to take their word for it. If you want to be cynical you can be and if you want to be optimistic I guess it is too early. But should this all be abandoned? Or should there be government funded programs that perhaps have bigger chances of developing it?

I'm not cynical, just cautious.

I am especially cautious of single-sector projects being offered as "the solution".  That attitude feeds the (American, especially) passion for the quick fix, and helps foster an attitude that we don't have a serious problem and can turn nature on and off like a beer tap.

These guys with the new fuel may really have something, but like I said, it's not really possible to make a good assessment from the information presented.

Are there perhaps some other solutions? Like could Sahara be irrigated using mirror solar energy and planted with new rain-forest? It seems very much so that it was even featured in that new "Cosmos" TV series how some guy during ww1 was going to do it but then they melted his stuff to cannons.

There are lots of things we could be doing -- we need to get off our collective ass and start doing them.

It should be noted, however, that it's not just radical conservatives that stand in the way of alternative energy projects.  In my state I've watched a number of clean energy proposals shot down by well-meaning, left-leaning conservationists.  

We get a significant amount of our electricity from hydroelectric installations, but we are not increasing this sector; instead we have been systematically removing dams, theoretically to bolster the salmon population.  A tidal generation installation was nixed over concerns that it might impact whale migrations.  A geothermal proposal was shot down over concerns that it might negatively affect the clarity of Crater Lake (even though it would have been 30 miles away and at a lower elevation).  Proposed solar installations in the high desert have been blocked over concerns that large fields of solar cells would alter fragile desert ecology.

Some of these are valid concerns.  But we need to educate people to realize that you don't get something for nothing.  Every form of energy production has some kind of potentially negative impact; some less than others, but they all have them.  We need to do realistic cost/benefit analyses, and decide what we are willing to give up to approach the kind of lifestyles we want to have.  We could, for example, just give up electricity, which would solve a lot of problems -- while creating a lot more.  Or we might have to decide that we need to give up salmon or a certain amount of desert ecology, in exchange for lights at night, heat in the winter, and reliable food preservation.

Maybe the best solution would be a drastically reduced population -- but I don't see that happening.

There was also some other segment on Vice and are you optimistic about this?





I mean imagine if this amount of clean energy was available we could suck carbon from air and join it with hydrogen for almost no price at all - but again, it's all left to private businesses to develop.

I think nuclear energy has be a part of any energy program with a serious design to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Lithium and thorium reactors have not been getting nearly the kind of attention they should be -- these are in the same category as the design this guy is proposing.  This certainly should be pursued.

[Alan V]

I don't think nuclear fusion will ever be a part of the mix, since the money spent on its questionable results could be invested more effectively elsewhere.

However, new designs for nuclear fission seem promising, especially those which run on what was previously considered spent fuel. Compared to older nuclear installations, they would be cheaper, safer, easier to build, and could actually help reduce nuclear waste. The question is how soon they will be viable.

Most big locations for hydroelectric are already being used, but lots of smaller dams can be adapted to generate electricity. We need to focus on lots of small projects rather than just a few big ones.

Hopefully people will become better educated about the options and tradeoffs in the near future.

[Dr H]

I don't think nuclear fusion will ever be a part of the mix, since the money spent on its questionable results could be invested more effectively elsewhere.

I think we'll crack that nut, eventually -- although probably not in my lifetime.  We know it's possible in nature, at any rate, and you never know what new thories may be developed in the future.  You make a good point, though, that at least for now we might better be spending our resources on developing things that we already know will work.
I'd hate to abandon the pursuit of fusion altogether, though . . .

However, new designs for nuclear fission seem promising, especially those which run on what was previously considered spent fuel.  Compared to older nuclear installations, they would be cheaper, safer, easier to build, and could actually help reduce nuclear waste.  The question is how soon they will be viable.

Agreed.  It's always bugged me to see how much potential energy we were throwing away by burying spent fuel in salt mines and ponds -- seemed like there should be some way to make practical use of that energy -- and now there is.

Most big locations for hydroelectric are already being used, but lots of smaller dams can be adapted to generate electricity.  We need to focus on lots of small projects rather than just a few big ones.

True, but as I said, we seem to be back-tracking in this regard.  We're not adapting smaller dams for electricity production; we're removing them.

Hopefully people will become better educated about the options and tradeoffs in the near future.

That is essential.  And it's why I'm leery of presenting any particular project or approach as a panacea.  Proposals need to be made in a practical way, detailing both advantages and costs, insofar as they can be realistically predicted.  New energy production methods need to be carefully compared not only to existing production methods, but also to other proposed new methods.  Broad, multifaceted plans need to be developed:  wind, solar, nuclear, etc., are all viable options -- and I think we're going to need all of them -- but not everyone of them will work in every location or situation.  (Solar, for example, might be great for an arid location that has oodles of sunlight and low annual rainfall; not so much in places that log 250+ cloudy and overcast days every year.)

The conservation aspect needs to be closely considered as well.  If we use less energy, we need less generation capacity, and reduce emissions accordingly.  But once again, a realistic view needs to be taken.  Replacing a dozen light bulbs doesn't mean much if the same household is also running a 350 gallon outdoor hot tub, year round.

Ah well, Thoreauvian, I know I'm preaching to the choir.
But it is nice to have a receptive, if small, congregation now and then.

[Alan V]

Ah well, Thoreauvian, I know I'm preaching to the choir.
But it is nice to have a receptive, if small, congregation now and then.

It does sound like we're both on the same page, which is encouraging.

However, I was a bit surprised you agreed about the need for a carbon tax, because of your political leaning.

[Dr H]

Ah well, Thoreauvian, I know I'm preaching to the choir.
But it is nice to have a receptive, if small, congregation now and then.

It does sound like we're both on the same page, which is encouraging.

However, I was a bit surprised you agreed about the need for a carbon tax, because of your political leaning.

I'm not sure I specifically agreed to a carbon tax, although I have seriously considered it as a stop-gap measure. 

As to my political leaning, I think of myself as a practical anarchist, or perhaps a philosophical anarchist would be more accurate.  While I believe that social anarchy is a desirable state for a fully mature society, I recognize that I will probably not live to see it on any large scale.  In the interim I am willing to use what tools are available to help nudge things in what I see as an appropriate direction -- which includes continually pushing for the governments that do exist to do things which are more conducive to human good, than otherwise.

I have a strong science and technical background, and I can see the writing on the wall.  If the human race dies off, whether through nuclear war or environmental neglect, there won't be any mature future society to worry about, anarchist or otherwise.

So, it's kind of a matter of priorities.

[Jehanne]

This could solve few problems

To me, this sounds a lot like an advertisement for this guy's business, rather than a viable scientific proposal.  
I would like to have seen some details of the process:

* How much energy does the process require?  
* Where, exactly, is that energy coming from?  ("Renewable electricity" is pretty vague.) 

These 2 points cannot be emphasized enough; I have read that if the United States were to capture every single photon of light from the Sun (hitting US territory) and convert such into renewable energy such would only meet half of the country's energy needs.

[Fake Messiah]

Here is some additional info:

While this technology could play a part in the fight to reduce climate change, its exorbitant costs pose a serious challenge. According to a 2011 paper, the cost of removing one single ton of atmospheric CO2 is anywhere from $600-$1,000.

Experts estimated that total CO2 emissions in 2017 were around 37 billion tons, which means the world would need about 370,000 of Carbon Engineering’s plants to absorb all emissions.

The discrepancy between cost and effectiveness is tempering scientists’ enthusiasm for DAC as a long-term solution to human carbon-emissions. However, Carbon Engineering has developed a potential solution to this problem by creating a highly-valuable byproduct from their carbon removal process: clean fuel.

Carbon Engineering predicts that fully-operational commercial plants would be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of only $100-$150 per ton.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content...ering-co2/

And even Bill Gates is investing in this.

[Dr H]

Here is some additional info:

While this technology could play a part in the fight to reduce climate change,   its exorbitant costs pose a serious challenge. According to a 2011 paper, the cost of removing one single ton of atmospheric CO2 is anywhere from $600-$1,000.

Experts estimated that total CO2 emissions in 2017 were around 37 billion tons, which means the world would need about 370,000 of Carbon Engineering’s plants to absorb all emissions.

The discrepancy between cost and effectiveness is tempering scientists’ enthusiasm for DAC as a long-term solution to human carbon-emissions. However, Carbon Engineering has developed a potential solution to this problem by creating a highly-valuable byproduct from their carbon removal process: clean fuel.

Carbon Engineering predicts that fully-operational commercial plants would be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of only $100-$150 per ton.

And even Bill Gates is investing in this.

Good that they have Gates on board, because to bring the technology to that cost effective level they're going to need some serious venture capital, or government subsidies; probably both.

[Fireball]

An octane molecule and an oxygen molecule meet again in a combustion chamber. The oxygen molecule says, "Say, I remember you, we had a real hot time awhile back!"