World Will Need “Carbon Sucking” Technology by 2030s, Scientists Warn

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Megalith, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,298
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Scientists say that large-scale projects to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere will be needed by the 2030s to hold the line against climate change: many new technologies that aim to capture and store carbon emissions, thereby delivering “negative emissions”, are costly, controversial and in the early phase of testing. But “if you’re really concerned about coral reefs, biodiversity [and] food production in very poor regions, we’re going to have to deploy negative emission technology at scale,” said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, a science and policy institute.

    World leaders agreed in 2015 an aim of holding global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial times. Scientists believe this is key to protecting small island nations from sea level rises, shoring up food production and preventing extreme weather. Carbon-sucking technologies may even be needed to hold the planet to a less ambitious two degrees of warming, said scientists at Chatham House, a British thinktank. The world has already seen an average of about one degree of warming, they said.
     
  2. Sikkyu

    Sikkyu I Question Reality

    Messages:
    2,601
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    quickly, someone say we need this stupid tech. Please sign my check for more research.
     
    cyclone3d, Nukester, mullet and 7 others like this.
  3. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,524
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    My grandpa used to tell me we had this thing called "forests"... we could do a bunch of new ones maybe?

    Grow wood, use the wood, repeat... morning wood is good.
     
  4. Azrak

    Azrak Gawd

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    The Lamb, Nukester, mullet and 5 others like this.
  5. thejokker

    thejokker Gawd

    Messages:
    634
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    dateline 2250: Researchers conclude that the recent ice age was caused by zealots in the early 21st century determined to stop global warming.
     
    Madoc, Domingow, cyclone3d and 7 others like this.
  6. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,141
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    We should grow dinosaurs.
     
    mullet likes this.
  7. Kinsaras

    Kinsaras 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,091
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
  8. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,524
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
  9. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,616
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Good, we already have that tech. It's called plants. Maybe you should stop mass de-forestation at the same time you reduce co2 emissions.
     
  10. CombatChrisNC

    CombatChrisNC Gawd

    Messages:
    804
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Yea, huge forests are a great idea.

    So is the plan to stop putting so much carbon into the atmosphere in the 1st place.
     
    Talyrius and travisty like this.
  11. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,616
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    No they'll say it was caused by the indifference of scientific illiterates of the 21st century.
     
    Talyrius, cyclone3d, The Lamb and 3 others like this.
  12. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,770
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    so there is a limit of one world wide.

    oh no there isn't.
     
  13. shad0w4life

    shad0w4life Gawd

    Messages:
    579
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Nuclear.... Oh wait it's the devil, burn more coal China and USA
     
    cyclone3d and Snowdensjacket like this.
  14. tgom222

    tgom222 n00bie

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    There are easier possible solutions. Basically, simulate large volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions been shown to lower Earth temperatures.

    https://www.livescience.com/22417-aerosols-stop-global-warming.html

    I'm sure "World Leaders" will go with whatever solution gives them the most power instead of what is the most cost effective though.
     
    Snowdensjacket likes this.
  15. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,280
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    and how much power and resources go to running the giant plant that only "balances" out to 200ish cars? seems really stupid to me unless youre just looking to create jobs to build a pointless plant.

    edit: oh and theres this: https://www.livescience.com/53152-does-cleaner-air-worsen-global-warming.html
     
    Snowdensjacket likes this.
  16. Verge

    Verge [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,304
    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    You mean... like plants ?????
     
  17. cpy2

    cpy2 n00bie

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    You can dump shitload of iron oxide to feed CO2 consuming bacteria in oceans. Or something like that, but that would totally mess up fish.
     
  18. DigitalGriffin

    DigitalGriffin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,552
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    You want to suck carbon out of the air in a safe cheap effective way? PLANT MORE TREES.

    Oh my god, that was so hard. Someone hand me my billion dollar check please for solving this perplexing dilemma.

    That said, the science is still very much out if CO2 actually is a contributor to global warming. Before ANYONE protest, I did the research as to why they think it might be the main contributor. It's still an unproven hypothesis because they think CO2 increase has a direct correlation to more cloud cover and reflected IR waves back to the earths surface. This is based on Venus (which has an entirely different atmosphere/gravity) and simulations of CO2 on a computer on how it carries particulates, and ice core studies. The core studies have been proven wrong as CO2 continued to increase for long periods during earth cooling.
     
    Madoc, DocNo, Snowdensjacket and 4 others like this.
  19. gigaxtreme1

    gigaxtreme1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,988
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    OTEC, nuff said. Cool the ocean's surface and bring up nutrients for Phytoplankton which absorb most of the CO2 in the atmosphere producing more biomass per cubic mile of seawater.
     
  20. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,056
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    You just need a fleet of plume boats. All the tech is already there, just need the funds to get it started.
    Ocean temps get lowered, global temps stabilize, methane deposits stay frozen. Everyone wins.
     
  21. c_porter

    c_porter [H]Lite

    Messages:
    89
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Is this the thread where half of us freak out about the predictions of people whose previous predictions were always wrong? Cool!
     
  22. fuzzylogik

    fuzzylogik Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    490
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    At first I thought somebody invented something that grows/establishes plants in some quick manufacturing way. Though... uhh... okay. not plants.
     
    Snowdensjacket and GoldenTiger like this.
  23. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,056
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Honestly this is sort of backwards.

    They should just develop carbon air sucking technology and combine them with farms. Put plastic bubbles around the crops, pump in concentrated CO2 from the atmosphere. Capture it with produce from the crops and expand farming with little energy.
     
  24. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris Wii was a Novelty

    Messages:
    16,938
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
  25. Charlie_D

    Charlie_D Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    454
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Yes! This will be fun! Let's to some math! :D

    So, in 2014, the estimate is that 14% of C02 emissions were released from the transportation sector. There were 1.015 billion cars in the world as of 2010, so let's go with that!

    1,015,000,000 / 200 = 5,075,000 awesome new giant sucking machines! Well, we'll have construction jobs, at least...

    But, that's only accounting for 14%! Let's negate the rest -


    5,075,000 / 0.14 = 36,250,000 awesome new giant sucking machines!

    Yay! Look at all those jobs! Then maintenance, and actually running the thing...

    I briefly thought about trying to figure out how many new plants we would have to bring online per year, at current inceasing C02 levels, but I don't have quick and dirty access to data that wouldn't need a whole bunch of conversion. Plus, this was just a fun little thing to do while bored ;)
     
    The Lamb and GoldenTiger like this.
  26. Sikkyu

    Sikkyu I Question Reality

    Messages:
    2,601
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    I wonder what they are going to do with tons of raw carbon.
     
  27. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,135
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Anyone know what the carbon footprint of the carbon sucking machine is? Net positive or negative? It has to use power from somewhere made by something.

    Think the tree planting thing is better. Less maintenance and the critters are a nice side benefit.
     
  28. jardows

    jardows Gawd

    Messages:
    815
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2015
    Something is better than nothing, right? :rolleyes:

    Especially the tasty ones! :p
     
  29. TheCommander

    TheCommander 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,870
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    So reading through the article, there are cheaper ways to deal with CO2. Anyway, it looks like that company might be making a lot of money from selling these devices.
     
  30. Krenum

    Krenum [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,950
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    So, we use electricity that's probably coming from a coal plant to run the carbon sucker? Sounds counter productive. Why not just plant fucking trees everywhere? You know, like to olden times? But I guess you can't make or fund your dumb research idea planting a tree. I bet the scientist who came up with this thing doesn't even know HOW to plant a tree.
     
    cyclone3d and knowom like this.
  31. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,280
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    "There are many critics of air capture technology who say it would be much cheaper to perfect carbon capture directly at fossil fuel plants and keep CO2 out of the air in the first place.
    Among the skeptics are Massachusetts Institute of Technology senior research engineer Howard Herzog, who called it a "sideshow" during a Washington event earlier this year.
    He estimated that total system costs for air capture could be as much as $1,000 per ton of CO2, or about 10 times the cost of carbon removal at a fossil fuel plant.
    "At that price, it is ridiculous to think about right now. We have so many other ways to do it that are so much cheaper," Herzog said."
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air

    its cheaper to clean up the emissions and plant trees/lower deforestation.
     
  32. TheCommander

    TheCommander 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,870
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Not only from operating it, but there will be an initial carbon footprint manufacturing them and if you go far back enough in the chain, there is a carbon footprint in mining and processing the materials used to manufacture the devices. Transporting them also adds to the carbon footprint. Eventually though, the amount of CO2 it sucks in would surpass the amount used to manufacture, transport, and operate it- or so I think. It would be useless if it generated more CO2 than it takes in from operation. They could always lessen it by using the device with renewable energy sources.

    Planting trees does sound better though.
     
    knowom likes this.
  33. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,774
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    They'll release it back into the atmosphere of course, job security.
     
  34. DigitalGriffin

    DigitalGriffin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,552
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    They are pumping it into vegetables which is irony because as veggies decompose, whether in the body or not, it releases the Carbon back into the atmosphere (CH4 and CO2). At least with more trees it stays trapped in the trees until the tree dies & decays on the surface, or is burnt. But a good bit of the coal pulled up today comes from plants that were trapped under ground after they died.
     
  35. TheCommander

    TheCommander 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,870
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    I wouldn't be surprised. Release it back somewhere and create demand to buy more of the devices.
     
  36. Krenum

    Krenum [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,950
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    This is starting to remind me of Highlander 2.
     
  37. Charlie_D

    Charlie_D Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    454
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    No. That movie never existed.

    Got that? IT NEVER EXISTED.
     
    griff30, Madoc, Unabomber and 3 others like this.
  38. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,280
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    "The new plant is intended to run as a three-year demonstration project, they said. In the next year, the company said it plans to launch additional commercial ventures, including some that would bury gas underground to achieve negative emissions."

    that doesn't sound good either...
     
    knowom and GoldenTiger like this.
  39. Azrak

    Azrak Gawd

    Messages:
    517
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    From the article: "Climeworks says its venture is a first step in their goal to capture 1 percent of the world's global CO2 emissions with similar technology. To do so, there would need to be about 250,000 similar plants, the company says."
    So they need 250,000 of these for 1% offset. Yeah, I'm still laughing.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.