Guest hyperbole by David Middleton
Climate change: Five cheap ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
25 October 2018[…]
5 – Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
The idea of BECCS is to grow energy crops that soak up carbon, which are then burned to create electricity while the emitted CO2 gas is captured and buried permanently underground.
BECCS has been dismissed by many because of the massive amounts of land that would be needed, up to 40% of global cropland according to some studies.[…]
“If you have dedicated bioenergy crops that displace other land uses, such as forests or farms, the production of food and fibre would be reduced and you could increase the prices of commodities and really drive losses in biodiversity and ecosystem services,” said Kelly Levin from WRI.
“BECCS needs to be done in a very careful way.”
To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm in The Lost World: Jurassic Park:
Using 40% of global cropland for BECCS is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.
Five cheap ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere’ and kill 40% of the people of Earth.
That sound like quotation from Avengers: Infinity War where evil Thanos wants to wipe off half of the population of the Universe in order to preserve remaining half.
to the lefty malthusians, Thanos is the good guy.
Thanos did save Deadpool… oh wait… wrong movie… 🍻
Thanos did save Deadpool… oh wait… wrong movie…
Hmm, not did save but was saved. And not by Deadpool but by Superman. Ough! Wrong movie again!
The basic premise that CO2 should be removed from Earth’s atmosphere is false.
Pragmatic, unbiased observation shows that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is adding life to Earth via ubiquitous photosynthesis.
Since CO2 can’t accumulate in the atmosphere, it must be constantly replenished via the global biogeochemical carbon cycle. Just as water does not accumulate in a river, it must be constantly replenished.
A good approach to get this done is to turn urban areas back to forest areas. Starving people to death is inhumane. I more humane way would be to get rid of urban and suburban areas with thermonuclear devices. No one has to know and all the devices can be set off at the same time world wide. This approach would not only provide more land for forests in a big hurry but greatly reduce human population and the CO2 that those humans produce..
Bwahahahahahahaha! This is a good one.
I see a perpetual motion machine lurking… more CO2, more plants, more burning, more CO2, more plants, more burning…
Losses due to chain saw fuel, trucks, roads, etc. will doom this concept due to lack of perfect efficiency in the process. All this will do is ultimately create even more CO2 than we’d otherwise have.
Next!
EPA has called CO2 pollution as many other politicians and scientists have done. They have a sloppy language so they call it often for carbon pollution.
Humans and the Earth can not suvive without a fair amount of CO2 in the air, so could they please tell at what level it is beneficiary and at what level it is pollution.
If we ended all the burning of fossils i believe the CO2 level would fall 2ppm each year. At what level should we start burning again?
There’s a problem with ANY attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s a BIG problem, and it covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface – the oceans.
There’s around 50 times the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans than is in the atmosphere. The CO2 in in dynamic equilibrium between the two mediums. It’s constantly dissolving in oceans, lakes and rivers, and being emitted at the same rate from them.
Henry’s Law relates solubility with temperature and pressure. Look it up!
Given no change in atmospheric pressure or ocean temperature from current, 98% of human-emitted CO2 will end up in the oceans.
In recent decades, less than 98% net has been dissolving in the oceans because ocean temperatures have been increasing somewhat, resulting in lower CO2 solubility, and steadily rising atmospheric CO2.
What controls CO2 in the atmosphere is not what we emit, but ocean temperature.
Remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, and equilibrium will be restored by the oceans emitting CO2. Atmospheric CO2 would ultimately be reduced by only a very small net amount.
You’d think all these scientists and “geo-engineers” would be aware of this, but not one of them is.
What if there was a way that was affordable for the coal fired utilities to operate putting into the atmosphere less CO2 than a natural gas power plant? Might they be open to research it?
Combusting coal to produce America’s electricity is good for our Economy and doing it with minimal emissions is great for our Environment.
We would like to see these coal mining communities thriving again. We want to know that they have good paying jobs, and they are supporting their families.
The Carbon Capture Utilization System is affordable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRQ7S92_lo
and can make that happen. We need some Federal help to make it happen.
There are many agencies that appear to want to help. We need you the people to go to your elected officials, or someone you know in these communities and let them know that There Is A Clean Coal Solution available to them.
There is absolutely NO NEED to reduce CO emissions.
Its just putting sequestered carbon back into the shorter term carbon cycle where it belongs.
Yes, reducing real pollution from coal power is good, but these carbon capture mechanisms are a pointless expense that should be avoided.
The Earth’s atmosphere needs MORE CO2, not less
obliviously I meant CO2 emissions in the first line.
Not only is there no need to get rid of CO2, the nonsense being peddled here (over and over again) wouldn’t do it anyway.
Isn’t there a policy against pushing money making ventures here?
Scratch a global warmy and you almost always find a population control freak .
Grossly over stated global warming was a means to an end . Legalized human extermination through fuel poverty . You know, send them a price signal that insures the poor and weak are wiped out and while your at it make sure the 1% get more cake .
If people like Al Gore were actually climate warriors they wouldn’t be lining their pockets and promoting policies to make them a lot more $green . Arrogant liberal hypocrites. Most of the public has had it with these self serving A holes . Thanks President Trump !
Not just population control freak, a control freak in general. Push them and they will eagerly tell you all the other things people shouldn’t be allowed to do.