/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15268222
Carbon capture is a scam. I need more beef and basedbean plantations, stat

>>15268222
>perfect solution
it is.
however, the best carbon capture technology we currently have is to plant more trees

>>15268222
>>15268225
carbon capture is a viable technology that could eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, but it doesn’t run for free. it needs power to run. therefore carbon capture is a viable solution _only_ if there is some energy source to power it that generates less CO2 than the carbon capture can eliminate:

the list of viable energy sources that could accomplish this are:
1. Nuclear fission energy
2. not solar or wind
3. go fuck yourself
4. and i was actually serious about Nuclear. it’s the only way to power carbon capture

>>15268227
Currently, yes, and we should be pushing for tress to be planted as that is helpful
But the best bombs we had before the Manhattan projects weren't even thinking on a subatomic level
Nothing is possible until the envelope of possible is pushed
>>15268234
Agreed on nuclear, big time. However solar isn't bad, it just isn't a good power source for this kind of use

>>15268222
Carbon capture is a solved problem. Global warming is easy to fix. The elites are using plebs fear to establish a totalitarian world government.

>>15268238
It'll be solved in ~7 years. Right now it isn't as good as trees

>>15268239
>7 years
multiply that number by 10 and add 100

>>15268239
Cyanobacteria are far better and easier to feed. We already know how to fix global warming, the problem are the elites who want to use fear to establish a totalitarian government. All of them must be eradicated like the vermin they are.

>>15268239
where do you even come up with your “trees” schtick? do you actually have a source that trees are the best natural carbon-capture organism? i was under the impression that in nature, coral and krill capture much more carbon than trees per year

>>15268247
animals don't capture carbon, they eat captured carbon.

>>15268222
You are going to be paying for it?

>>15268222
How about it doesn't scale ? Sure, man has proven to have outdone nature. It has been shown that an artificial plant, with solar cells on top, can outcompete plants occupying the same area in terms of capturing C and releasing O2. But who is going to make and distribute and service THAT MANY machines of this type ?
Planting stuff can only increase surface level biomass and with it bound carbon but not remove carbon from the cycle for good. The later feat wont be recreated that easily.
You will also need to be able to make absolutely sure your captured carbon wont decay again by accident. You'd be sitting on a bomb.
So how about just not producing arbitary amounts of CO2 at will or at least capturing at the source ?

>>15268303
animals are literally carbon based. Of course they capture carbon, you literal idiot.

step 1: create charcoal from wood
step 2: bury it forever
step 3: replant trees, repeat
is there any reason this wouldn't work?

>>15268821
Why not just build stores of it and then use it to carbon neutral and safely heat homes?

>>15268222
the only solution to climate change is the eradication of humans. GET WITH THE PROGRAM.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

>>15268227
Wouldn't something fast growing as bamboo cane be better? Just harvest it and bury it

>>15268222
It's expensive and the money is instead spent on climate researchers to write hundreds of articles that the Earth is warming.

Organizations offer tree planting to capture carbon and 1 tree can absorb 10 kg of CO2 per year and only cost 1 dollar to plant and ensure maturity. Over a 100 year lifespan it would absorb a ton of co2. Certain tree species capture even more with English Oaks capturing 3 tons of CO2.


>>15268247
Trees are good because it gives you by-products to build houses out of. Planting a tree and letting it eat CO2 for 50-100 years and then building a house out of it that will last for another 50 years will give us more than enough time to develop a permanent solution to the CO2 problem.

Also natural sinks are already absorbing away the excess CO2 so if we can just keep the level low for the next 150 years then the Earth itself will solve the problem.

The carbon we put in the atmosphere was the result of exothermic reactions that we used to provide energy.
To pull that carbon back out would require most of that same energy, with in-efficiencies taken into account that is likely more energy than Human society has produced to date.

To do so we would need tremendous renewable energy infrastructure.

>>15269011
Less energy intensive to grow fir trees, added bonus they grow almost anywhere and can be harvested after (60yrs)?? To make lumber. Idk the exact grow time but they do this in oregon logging lands, havrvest, replant, wait, repeat.

>>15269193
Fixing with loads of trees runs into the problem of land usage and soil depletion.
Trees are not only made out of carbon.

>>15269211
>To do so we would need tremendous renewable energy infrastructure.
Renewables are a bit of a meme. Nuclear is what you want.

>>15268222
>Greenhouse gas effect doesn't exist anymore.
it never did, greenhouses function by having a physical barrier which prevents convective cooling. no gas can reproduce that effect, gasses are all subject to convection.

>>15269011
buying all of that would be energy intensive, what about sinking it to the bottom of the ocean? could that work
>>15269193
>10 billion trees/year
>>15269222
yeah I'd assume so

>>15269236
Hypothetically speaking, would greening the Sahara be a good option?

>>15269242
Fucking how? Not only would the massive desalinated water usage have large energy requirements (see: associated CO2 emissions), the sandy shit isn't exactly fertile. Most of it anyways, yeah there are exceptions.
>just use nuclear power/solar/wind to desalinate the water
you'd be better off replacing existing coal or gas plants.
CO2 sequestration doesn't make much sense until our grid is close to carbon neutral to begin with.

>>15269258
>you'd be better off replacing existing coal or gas plants.
I wish. But in my country most people are of the opinion
>LE NUCLEAR LE BAD
What do?

>>15268821
Takes more than the entire land surface area of the planet to work, trees just don't absorb carbon very well. It would also cost more than just using capture especially when you consider the economic implications of the world starvation that will happen when all farm and pastureland is replaced with tree farms.

>>15268953
I don't think you fully understand the concept of co2 release

>>15269266
>>LE NUCLEAR LE BAD
>What do?
Hope SMRs become popular or an excellent energy storage medium is discovered. Only two ways we have out of this shit. Well besides chemtrails.

>>15269310
>excellent energy storage medium is discovered
Frankly I think it's a pipedream. Fusion is more realistic than the magic storage system. The only long term storage system that I know of is chemicals (hydrogen, ammonia, methanol etc.) and those have rather abysmal roundtrip efficiencies.

>>15269323
And pump hydro can't be expanded too much.

>>15269323
>Fusion is more realistic than the magic storage system.
wouldn't go that far.
Batteries do fine in most regards but $/J needs to go way down, and cycle life up.

>>15269332
>Batteries do fine in most regards
I was referring to seasonal storage. Batteries are good for daily storage, they are already displacing peaker plants. Seasonal storage with battery is unfeasible.

>>15269343
It could be feasible with flow batteries.

>>15269351
I don't think the math adds up. I think we should build nuclear. Simple as.

>>15268222
so how do you power carbon capture machines?(carbon capture is a scam)

>>15269213
>60yrs
That's possible, but not on all sites/in all climates.

>>15268222
>Carbon capture
>So why isn't this being championed as the perfect solution?
Some of the cheapest and best forms of carbon capture are trees, deep peats, wetlands, etc. However, people love cities and stuff.

>>15268222
https://terraformindustries.com/

>>15268222
The money is in carbon credits. Money is all that matters as there will be a complexity collapse trying to convert a liquid fueled logistics system into green energy. It's why lithium is the new oil and within a decade be apparent that massive desalinization plants need to be built to get at more of it. Which will require massive solar and heat battery infrastructure.

Meanwhile lots of people are going to have a bad time.