Russell Cook writes:
I kid you not. From tonight’s (8/23/16) PBS NewsHour broadcast segment titled “To combat climate change, these scientists are turning CO2 into rock“, these quotes from the discussion segment host and two of the speakers, regarding recapturing CO2 from Icelandic geothermal activity:
MALCOLM BRABANT: “Because it is self-contained within the geothermal power plant, the CarbFix solution cannot be used for capturing CO2 from planes, cars and ships like this one in a Norwegian fjord. But Professor Gislason believes there should be international law requiring countries to start using this new technique.”
SIGGI GISLASON, CarbFix: “The more diffuse emissions like from jets, cars, et cetera, is going to be more complicated, but still 40 percent of the emissions could theoretically be captured and stored in rocks. There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”
MALCOLM BRABANT: But even here in Iceland, it’s not being used to its full extent.
BERGUR SIGFUSSON: Seventy-five percent of the CO2 is emitted at the moment. Of the CO we take up to the surface, approximately 25 percent are reinjected directly to form the carbonates, minerals.
[……..]
MALCOLM BRABANT: But if you’re trying to save the planet, why don’t you put in 100 percent?
HILDIGUNNUR THORSTEINSSON: Well, when we were testing the technology, we didn’t know if it would work. And so we only started injecting two years ago. We’re still proving that we can keep it all down there, everything turns to minerals. As the future progresses, we might do more. We haven’t decided.
Proof positive. Rocks for brains!
Clams invented it millions of years ago. They have the same brains as a clam.
Ironic, in that Norwegians enjoy a particularly cushy social safety net funded by North Sea oil.
Only the Norwegians living in Iceland.
The only value gained from such a project is PR.
Not true. The professor would get lots of value. In fact, he has already started his promotional campaign, to wit: “But Professor Gislason believes there should be international law requiring countries to start using this new technique.”
I am sure he would be available as an expert consultant whose services would be in great demand by companies scrambling to satisfy the new “rockquifaction” laws.
But this is a war on CAGW, so we should confiscate all technologies that contribute [to the] war effort and provide them free to all to use to fight the great fight. Isn’t that what was done during WWII to help the war effort. So why not for this great cause. Besides, everyone should work for the greater good without compensation as all will benefit all. As we learned from history, this worked very well in the Soviet Union
And Venezuala.
This from the guy that invented, tested, and sells the CarbFix method. I’m pretty sure he’s got quite a lot to gain. I’m ideologically and morally opposed to legislation to “force” me to do anything. I’m especially opposed when the legislation forcing me to do something will make the proponent of that legislation rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Will our cars leave little rocks behind like turds?
Hah. They could.
Of course the problem is that in order to make a carbonate,. you need to take something else – like say a sulphate, and use energy to turn it onto a carbonate. And then you end up with in this case spare sulphuric acid etc.
Much better to simply add water and energy and turn it back into diesel.
LOL!
Instead of Ƈhem Ʈrails we could have rock trails!
Trucks already do. Check my windscreen.
No, they are just following the tenets of their substitute for religion. CAGW only makes sense if not examined too closely.
No, CAGW does not make sense, even on the most rudimentary of examinations.
These brainless attempts to limit the release of natural CO2 are the height of stupidity.
(yes, CO2 from coal and gas is totally natural)
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared.
and?
so what..?
passes any energy directly to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere, where it is dealt with, like any other extra energy, by conduction and convection
.
Repeating Tony Halla’s sentence for emphasis: “CAGW only makes sense if not examined too closely.” In the case of the PBS NewsHour, I can say with authority that CAGW is always presented as a settled science – notice in the complete transcript/video of this segment, not a word of skeptic opposition was presented. Stemming from my earliest articles at AmericanThinker years ago on the bias of the NewsHour (as described here http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html ), I keep an ongoing file on that bias. Dr Pat Michaels appeared once on the program, in a taped segment only containing his rebuttal about the ClimateGate situation; he wasn’t allowed to make other statements about the skeptic side of AGW. When it comes to the NewsHour’s overall reporting on the issue, regarding their direct discussion segments on the issue or when it is significantly mentioned in other parts of their program, it’s come up around 580 times (including last night’s CO2 rocks bit) ever since 1996, from the beginning of their online broadcast transcripts. Out of that total number, there’s only been FIVE instances where NewsHour viewers have seen any semblance of pure science points from CAGW skeptics, and one of those occurred when Anthony Watts appeared in a 2012 taped segment. The other four being skeptic science points offered by the CEO of Western Fuels in 1997, Chris Horner in 2001, Rep Joe Barton in 2007, and Roger Pielke Jr in 2013. Meanwhile, during this same ’96-to-present time, there’s been 33 appearances of IPCC/NOAA/NASA scientists there.
Once again, for greater emphasis: “CAGW only makes sense to PBS NewsHour viewers if not examined too closely.”
Well this is nothing short of brilliant. We should immediately remove all low reliability wind turbines and solar plants from the grid and convert them all to energy sources that turn CO2 into rocks leaving reliable coal and gas powered energy for powering the grid. And this will appeal to leftists everywhere – we pay the renewables people to make rocks. Then we use all those death trains that return to the coal mines empty to drag all those CO2 rocks to the coal mines there they are used to back-fill the coal digs. In addition, we can load all those Chinese ocean freighters that return to China empty with CO2 rocks that are dumped in the South China Sea to make new islands. Given time they can build a multi-lane trans-Pacific highway system from China to all the Pacific Rim nations.
Pff, I think the urgency is so great the time for science is past – we need to employ wizards. I suggest they take all their consensus tokens, pool them together and form an academy of alchemy. I hears a bloke called Hairy Porter is available for lectures..
Reminds me of a tee-shirt I once saw. A gorilla sitting at a potters wheel.
MarkW,
Except in this case it would be a gorilla carrying somebody’s luggage. :>)
And Sheriff Joe can use prisoners to break down the rocks! 😉
I am going to start sending all of my CO2 to Iceland.
I know, I know….lets burn limestone to reduce it to CaO and, here’s the clever part, CARBONATE IT WITH CO2!! Yay!!
Dang!, that’s a Cunning Plan!
WE could use nuclear energy to do it.
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that when the next ice age comes, we will be burning limestone to create CO2 like there’s no tomorrow. Not because it will have any effect on the temperature, but because it will keep agriculture from crashing.
Why that heck would anyone sane want to store something that is desperately needed NOW in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 level are still way too low, and need to be boosted somehow if we are going to continue to feed the world’s increasing population.
You don’t really believe that do you Andy?
YES
It is patently obvious
You really do not doubt it, do you Tony?
Do we Need more CO2 in the atmosphere? Definitely not. Would it be useful for farming, probably yes.
Probably? Probably????
EVERY plant on earth is growing faster, taller, higher, more efficiently with the increased CO2 released than EVER before in recorded history! We (worldwide) are feeding and clothing and sheltering some 1/6 of MORE people worldwide due to the increased CO2 released by burning fossil fuels. And we ARE feeding the remaining 2/3 BY the energy of the fossil fuels (bulk storage, cleanliness, handling, harvesting, plowing, planting, shipping, packaging, selling, moving, wrapping, cooking, refrigerating, and handling the food), and preserving the health of every one with cleaner tools, clothing, shelter, water, and sewage disposal only made possible by the concrete, steel, pipelines, and roads and dams and sewage plants built with fossil fuels.
Remvoe fossil fuels? You kill people. You return to the short impoverished lives of the 1750’s. Worldwide. (Except for the liberal elites of course.)
Do you often have trouble with reality tony?
Tony,
If you look at CO2 levels on a geological time scale, you will realize that we are near record low concentrations right now. And as long as you are looking, please notice that when CO2 levels were high, so were plant and animal life. It took a lot of plants to feed one sauropod. So all that CO2 that we are returning to the atmosphere, where do you think it originally came from, hmm? And how do you think it got into the ground? By putting it back, we are actually recycling a valuable resource and helping to green the planet. And if we warm the place up slightly, that’s just a bonus. Warmth = Life, Cold = Death
“Do we Need more CO2 in the atmosphere?
MOST DEFINITELY YES..
700ppm should be the initial aim.
The world’s plant life would flourish, in abundance, to the massive benefit of all life on Earth.
Greenhouses use CO2 generators to promote plant vitality.
I don’t have a greenhouse so I just stick it outside. Just doing my part to help the planet. 🙂
When I need to go somewhere, like to drive my mobile CO2 generator.
My stationary CO2 generator is nice and comfortable so I live in it.
No thank are necessary…I’m just doing my part.
Fair enough Ben, but this whole ‘CO2 isn’t a pollutant it’s just plant food’ meme is just too silly for words. It’s not about food, it’s just boring internet blather.
I have plenty of doubts Menicholas, there being no such thing as certainty.
Odd then how your side is ABSOLUTELY certain of AGW, isn’t it?
It’s not a pollutant.
It is plant food.
Why do you object to the facts?
tony mcleod
Why is it “too silly for words”? What part of it is not true? What part is an exaggeration?
Photosynthesis, the reaction whereby plants make food, powered by sunlight:
6 CO2 + 6 H2O —> C6H12O6 (sugar) + 6 O2
In years past, I would be stunned if any adult did not recognize this reaction on sight. These days it seems a large fraction of the population not only does not know it, but also is oblivious to it’s pivotal role for virtually all life on the planet.
This is why house plants do so well when you talk to them. As you speak, you exhale additional CO2 on them and they love it
“it’s just boring internet blather”
The sort of CRAP that you keep producing.
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/09/plants-encouraged-as-co2-levels-reach-400-ppm/
Call Any Vegetable – Frank Zappa 1970
(This is a song about vegetables, they keep ya regular
They’re real good for you)
Call any vegetable Call it by name
Call one today When you get off the train
Call any vegetable And the chances are good
Aw, The vegetable will respond to you
(Some people don’t go for prunes…I
don’t know, I’ve always found that if they…)
Call any vegetable Pick up your phone
Think of a vegetable Lonely at home
Call any vegetable And the chances are good
That a vegetable will respond to you
From the Album https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutely_Free
I understand plants need CO2 and I also understand a little more can be beneficial for plant growth.
My question is how much is too much?
Unfortunately the answer to that question may only appear in the rear-view mirror. In the past rapid, dramatic changes to the climate have occurred as a result of changes in atmospheric and ocean chemistry, changes that happened much slower than those happening today.
If CO2 affects global temperature (and I understand some here dispute even that) then who can be certain the short term benefits (for plants for example) of emissions at unprecedented rates won’t be swamped by adverse affects such as changes in soil moisture and rapid habitat changes. I don’t think anyone can be certain.
redback1
Nope. The plant stomata changes that have increased life and improved productivity and increased growth by 12% to 28% every year in every plant on earth allow GREATER resistance to drought, not less resistance.
And, as always, more CO2 = more growth.
More warmth = more growth (over a longer season, in more areas of the world, at higher elevations and higher altitudes!)
There is no harm, only good, from a definite CO2 increase and its “potential” 0-4 degree temperature rise, and we see little chance of even a 4 degree rise.
Actually, CO2 is plant food:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
Carbon is the building block of all life. Where do plant get it from?
Those who fulminate on the subject of CO2 don’t want to be feeding the increasing population. NWO wants smaller numbers, not larger.
If you have a geothermal field and inject CO2 as a test, you can make carbonate, and then foul your injection well. But, you can drill another, and another, and another, every few weeks. Also, you just take your CO2 from your power plant in Virginia and just pipe it across the continent to the Salton Sea, and inject it into that geothermal field. Sounds cost effective to me. Should only cost a few billion for the pipeline. Use a couple hundred fossil fuels pumps to compress it and ship it over in the pipe. As for transients sources, there is no capture possible. Making carbonate makes carbonate scaling, a real bane for well drillers of any type. It mixes with a tad bit of silica, and becomes insoluble, even in acid. When your pipes foul, you throw them away. You cannot clean them. Depressurization of water up to the surface in a geothermal field is massively corrosive to pipes and everything comes out of solution as an insoluble scale. What they do now is limit the heat exchanger dwell time so that the scale does not form fast enough before reinjection. So if CO2 is coming up, reinjecting the water with CO2 keeps it somewhat more in solution. Cycling CO2 is done to stop pipe scale, not to save the world. Calling that CO2 sequestration is disingenuous and proves noting for others. There is no viable CO2 sequestration at this time. Most attempts involves calcium silicates like olivine.
Oh just pump it all into Yellowstone and wait for the burp…
Yep. Probably cheaper to just produce less.
We could start with the millions of tons of CO2-producing concrete going into wind turbine support.
Agree on producing less, as long as the method makes economic sense – molten salt nuclear reactors are
on the cusp of revolutionizing all power production. The idiotic bias of the braindead greenies against “dangerous” nuclear power cannot withstand a technology that not only is by far the cheapest method of producing power but also by far the safest of all power production technologies and will never run dry for lack of fuel, be it Thorium, nuclear wastes, or uranium exttracted from the sea. The rest of the world is not as dumb as the USA and will universalize molten salt reactors – starting with the Chinese , who will once again demonstrate their superiority over this country in practically everything – they are hell-bent for
creating the first commercial molten salt plant design, and their govt is throwing lots of capital into the devleopment of these plants, unnlike our braindead chief executive, who throws money only at primitive solar and wind power. Obama, the only man who can make George Bush look absolutely brilliant.
In a relatively short period of time, China went from a nuclear nobody to the premier (along with Russia)
producer of Gen 3+ nuclear reactors. They can build 35 reactors simultaneously while our bankrupt manufacturing facilities are struggling to build four of them.
This country has become the land of media-sanctioned lies and utter stupidity. And Fascist as well.
Even cheaper to do nothing at all.
Thanks for the chemical/geo. insights, very informative.
So what they are doing is just pro forma good well practice. Then they call for international law forcing everybody else to do this. Of course they know full well that nobody else can do this because almost nobody else does commercial steam geothermal.
Of course, they will be very happy to do this for others, and Save The World on the behalf of others, in exchange for cash payments for the resulting Carbon Credits.
And they create a nice revenue stream of hard international currency.
Smooth, Iceland, Very Smooth.
Actually it is even worse than that. From my reading of the conversation, they said they’re doing it a little bit but only about a quarter of what they could be doing, to see if it will work. So they are not really sure yet if it will work. And even if it does work they are not sure if going to do it any more than they’re already doing anyway.
So, they want to force everyone else to do it, but they’re not even sure if they’re going to do it themselves?
Why should anyone listen to such drivel from witless nincompoops who evidently do not even listen to themsrlves?
Gee great. Pass the law, then find out if it would work.
Liberalism in action.
….MarkW……..Kinda like ….ObamaCare ?
If you want to limit it to just one example.
I loved the bit at the end of the video.
37% of people in Iceland believe elves possibly exist,
17% find their existence likely and
8% are certain,
according to a 2007 University of Iceland survey.
Social justice warriors will use anything, no matter how farfetched, to advance their cause. They use CAGW to advance their agenda although many of them will privately admit that it doesn’t matter if it is true or not. They call it the noble lie.
In Iceland, they use elves as an excuse to block the construction of roads. link
Have you read your celtic mythology? The fair folk are not ones to be trifled with.
You are right. I am protected by my puppy Fenrir the 1023rd* and by my two cats, the Gib brothers (we lost count of the generations). No elf dares put a foot within miles of my place.
The critters are also potent against dragons. There has not been even a single damsel devoured since my ancestors settled here.
*It’s not that special. Every dog is the decendant of Fenrir the 1st just as I am a decendant of Attila the Hun. link
I liked that too; totally unrelated, and undermines the credibility of what they just presented. This is the type of thing we would expect after news coverage of skeptics.
Of course elvenkings exist, how could Frodo get his lembas without them?
[The mods wonder what is the relationship (least-squared-skeptics-fit?) between a belief in CAGW global warming and the belief in elves, faeries/fairies/ferries, and the beliefs of trolls? .mod]
What difference will it really make!?
Are these guys really contemplating a method that it will be considered as of any effect at all when its capacity can be somehow comparible with the natural CO2 sink!
Do these guys have any idea how huge that is and how meaningles what they propose is in sight of it, especially when an international legislantion demanded to regulate it and force it.
Are they mad, or simply looking for a way to dip them fingers in the “fight against climate change” huge fund!??
cheers
The latter.
“we need legislation to force people to do this”. There they go again.
Sadly, they believe in it. They really believe the legislation should criminalize dissident and require CO2 capture. I wonder where should I move to? I quite liked the Europe.
Lets Sneer At That. In fact lets sneer at anything that contradicts our pre-conceived bias. SMFH.
Your gods already do, toni. suzuki, gore, desmugblargh, non-skepticalscience…. all work at sneering at anything that contradicts the tenets of their faith.
While doing the opposite of what they tell the rest of the world it should be doing.
pot kettle
“lets sneer at anything that contradicts our pre-conceived bias”
Seems that is all you have available to you…typical of anti-CO2 regressive, world hater.
Why do you hate plants, and everything that relies on their growth… Including yourself.???
Plants NEED CO2, and the current atmospheric level is not that far above basic subsistence level.
Sure, control REAL pollution, but let the CO2 go free, into the atmosphere where it is needed, and where it BELONGS.
A little bit more may well have had some benefit, but letting off a massive, uncontrolled burp (on geological timescale) is performing an experiment on our life support system with entirely unknown outcomes.
The warming we are experiencing now is from the CO2 emitted 3 or 4 decades ago. It’s been a major ramp up of emissions since then.These kinds of events have not ended salubriously in the past. I don’t have much confidence this one will either.
And I don’t hate you Andy. Your my internet buddy and we just disagree. Hopefully that little up-tick on the graph Anthony posted is the beginning of the end of warming and the hole thing has just been a hoax. Noone would be more pleased than me.
Wow, tony really does seem to believe the propaganda.
Your evidence that the current warming is being caused by CO2 released decades ago is ….
I’m still waiting.
For that matter, your evidence that the current warming is being caused by CO2 at all is ….
I’m still waiting.
Your evidence that the rate of CO2 increases is greater than the planet has ever seen before is ….
I’m still waiting.
For that matter, it’s already been proven that there is nothing unusual regarding the current warming, not in terms of amount not in terms of rate.
What is it about warmists and their need to lie to support their religious beliefs?
God I hope your right Mark. You seem 100% certain.
Tony M says that carbon dioxide sits inert for 3 or 4 decades then decides to start doing its thing. Most estimates of residence time is less than 40 years. So is there really a problem?
tony, I am, especially since all of the science backs up that opinion.
Massive exaggeration
science sounding nonsense
dreaded unspecified threats
In tony mcLeod’s world, it is easy to achieve uncontrolled burps and geological timescale…
Going from .038% to .04% of the atmosphere is hardly noticeable.
Going from .028% of the atmosphere, which borders plant photosynthesis suffocation levels, to .038% of the atmosphere has literally rescued plant life, therefore all life on planet Earth.
Going from .04% to .1% is likely still a Godsend.
Disaster? From CO2 levels?
Without a truly massive volcanic event, that is highly unlikely.
Even then, in spite of all the alarmist assumptions and suppositions about CO2 levels, from the Deccan or Siberian traps, killing life; it took thousands of years of massive eruptions to achieve those alleged levels.
Instead, all replicable science has managed to prove about CO2, is that the Earth thrives with higher levels.
No proven CO2 caused droughts.
No proven CO2 caused deserts.
No proven CO2 caused heat waves.
No proven CO2 caused deaths.
No proven CO2 caused famines.
No proven CO2 caused sunken islands.
No proven CO2 caused extinctions.
No proven CO2 caused acidic seas.
No proven CO2 caused loss of reefs.
No proven CO2 caused loss of wildlife.
No proven CO2 caused melting polar icecaps. Before whining about the Arctic, explain the Antarctic.
Frankly, there is no proven CO2 caused global warming.
Decades of frightening claims with alarmist demands for greater funding and rather absurd green money pits, have frittered billions of dollars without advancing science.
Perhaps, in the case of climate science, science has been forced to significantly retrograde, requiring substantial proper scientific method research over years to repair.
but going to 6.0% 60,000ppm is deadly now thatsa lottsa carbonies
“The warming we are experiencing now is from the CO2 emitted ”
That is a MANIFEST LIE.
The only warming in the last 40 years since we actually started measuring properly has come from El Nino events and from ocean circulation, neither of which has anything to do with CO2
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend for 40 years
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010
11.Temperatures in northwest China have not shown a warming trend in the last 368 years.
12. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.
13. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling
14. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY real warming has come from regional ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
tony mcleod August 24, 2016 at 6:43 am
“… performing an experiment on our life support system with entirely unknown outcomes.”
But it’s perfectly OK, I suppose, to trash the world economy with complete disregard for “our life support system” which will result in “entirely KNOWN outcomes.”
Wasting money on something that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Nothing to sneer at here.
Tony M,
You are a hypocrite. When you give up everything that our fossil fueled civilization has provided, then you will be honest.
We from CarbFix recommend: CarbFix.
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere not less see http://www.theeuroprobe.org and type CO2 into the search box. Get it up to 1000ppm from 180ppm will probably double the yield of wheat and rice. Should reduce world hunger.
Since the crossover where C3 photosynthesis becomes more efficient that C4 is in the 700-750 range (on average) indicating the “natural” level of CO2 is above 750 PPM, we want to aim for at least 750 PPM.
http://matadorco2.com/wp-content/uploads/co2_enrichment_chart3.jpg
But if we want to maximize food production we should aim for 1200 PPM.
That is the first step.
The “P” seems unnecessary.
I’m sure ‘special correspondent’ Malcolm Brabant enjoyed his little expenses-paid fossil-fuelled jolly to Iceland. Skype system down, was it Malc’?
We will turn mountains
into sea,
and the skies into rivers,
and fjords into deserts.
– Come on ! Come on !
– And deserts into quagmires.
– And icebergs into fire !
And the fire into a mighty
rushing wind which will cover
the face of the earth…
and wipe clean the scourge of woolly
thinking once and for all.
We can make beans
into peas !
Time Bandits-1981
“There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”
No questions and force. The progressive allure.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to stop cutting down hardwood trees in the tropics and replacing them with trees for palm oil? Y’know chopping down tress that are a couple of hundred feet high, with a circumference of 50 feet and replacing them with saplings that are 8 feet tall and 6 inches circumference – now think – which of those absorbs more CO2?
Regards, Alan
The saplings. Full grown forest binds no CO2.
To be precise, full grown forest does not net absorb carbon, but it IS a significant carbon storage. Saplings absorb CO2, but have a small carbon storage.
What you want? Do you want absoption or storage? Absorption is good, but if you use the wood to be able to get a fast growing young forest, you didn’t get net absorption. You did get woodmaterial and energy, though. If you choose storage, you don’t get net absorption, but you neither get timber or energy.
BTW, Iceland has no forest. It used to have.
Just another would-be tyrant who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else.
I support a catalyst-enabled process wherein the CO2 waste from aircraft engines is converted into calciferous stones which are ejected rearward at supersonic speeds, contributing to thrust at cruising altitude. My proposal has already received support from the Society of Collision Repair Specialists and the Urgent Care Association of America. Our coalition has made significant contributions to a key “charity” and we expect EPA regulations requiring our technology to be in force by early 2017 and full compliance over US airspace to be required by 1/1/2020 .
/sarc off yall
You could call them faux asteroids.
Yes, thanks. Our initiative was also strongly backed by the Association of Social Scientists for Costs Of Carbon Knowledge, but we have found the use of their acronym to be too inflammatory.
We at Scientists Concerned Over Lewd Descriptors must object to the acronym of the aforementioned association.
We recommend Association of Social Scientists for Knowledge In Silly Shit and Equivocal Research Subjects as an apt alternative.
In an effort to expand the tent, the “Associated Social Scientists for Costs Of Carbon Knowledge” had decided to change its name to “Professional Organizations Onboard For Science”. They reconsidered when the Times emailed them and suggested that it could not print a headline reading “*SS for C*CK to become P**FS”. An organization spokesperson lamented that they had lots of great ideas but all of them seemed to have unexpected flaws.
“An organization spokesperson lamented that they had lots of great ideas but all of them seemed to have unexpected flaws.”
He said a mouthful there.
‘SIGGI GISLASON, CarbFix: “…but still 40 percent of the emissions could theoretically be captured and stored in rocks. There is no question we need legislation to force people to do this.”’
“Force” people to do something that’s … “theoretically” possible? Wow, what a nut case. Siggi has no idea what a dangerous behavior he’s advocating. Yeah, the US Constitution is 200+ years old, but as Siggi so clearly demonstrates, the need for a separation of powers, for three equally competing branches of government, for a written contractual limitation (“Congress shall make no law …”) of government powers, has never gone out of style. We need to relearn it. I hope not the hard way.
Now all they have to do is place a turbine inline with the CO2 coming up from the earth to produce the energy to inject the CO2 back into the earth. Then they can put a turbine inline in the injection well and use that energy to power the extraction well, right?
Brilliant! ;o)
Thanks for all the good laughs, all you commenters! Even a vacuous article like this one can be turned into good entertainment and a little bit of insight! Got to love WUWT!
….That reminds me of when I was a kid many moons ago and just starting out my job as an Iron Worker…my brother, who was also my boss, would send me down 3 stories( no ladder) to get him a “bucket of steam” ! D’oh !
I have this idea where I boil water down to make a concentrate for export to dry regions. After delivery it can be restored to normal dilution for drinking.
To date, it’s been hard to find partners for developing this revolutionary tech, but you’ve given me an idea. I’ll try Iceland!
+100
Nothing like plugging the well to improve power generation efficiency.
I was wondering who would first mention that little side effect of creating carbonates in the valuable pore spaces.
Iceland’s volcanic activity is outgassing CO2 virtually all of the time. It is the northern part of the mid Atlantic rift that extends for some 5,000 miles. Geologically active, with many parts outgassing CO2.
Icelandic trolls have a lot of work to do.