Maybe there's hope after all... looks like the CO2 situation just got a bit brighter.

[gigantes]

since becoming 'green' is something that's taking the world a lot longer to accomplish than we actually have time for, carbon capture is the most realistic technology to bail us out IMO. maybe the only real one.

unfortunately development has not gone well. until...

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. generated more than 3.18 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, of which two thirds was attributed to power plants alone. In general, about 20 to 30 percent of a power plant's energy is spent on capturing carbon dioxide emissions, at a cost of $70 per metric ton.

...

In a simulation study Khazeni conducted, the new ZIF structure adsorbed more than 100 times more carbon dioxide than other similar structures. With negligible difference in adsorption of other gases like nitrogen and hydrogen, they can also separate carbon dioxide from gas mixtures more selectively.

now that he's gotten a patent, he has to figure out who wants to implement it. at the same time, the major nations led by the USA and china need to figure out how to make this happen quickly, cooperatively, smoothly.


still a lot of challenges going forward, but civilisation might just hang on a bit longer than i thought. there's now a decent chance that many people on ISH might get to live relatively normal lives, lifespans and all that stuff.

[kNIOKAS]

Eh... I feel like the CO2 hysteria is really something for the public to be occupied with for a while.

Thank you for caring, gigantes, but the people that actually matter do not...

[gigantes]

well, the public in first world nations did not care enough about the issue to get things done in time... meaning changing their consumer habits and putting pressure on corporations and politicians. the public in other nations are generally underinformed or resentful of first world nations for creating most of the problem in the first place.

it's far too late to avoid catastrophe by preventative means... so AFAIK the only thing that's going to save our bacon is geo-engineering or the like.

now, i figure CO2 capture is *way* more appealing than trying to put particles in the air to deflect sunlight. i.e., so many ways for that one to go wrong. CO2 capture is also a way for the avg citizen to keep living their consumerist lives and economies to avoid disaster.

the difference this time around is that as global climate change gets worse and worse, people will be much more motivated to put pressure on govt and industry to implement this technology rapidly. because people hate giving things up or changing radically, but are always eager to blame someone else for their problems or demand govt fix their problems for them. so i see this situation as much more workable than the previous ones.

even if the west has to foot the entire bill themselves (i.e. no help from russia, china, india, brasil), it's still better than all of us going under, right?

[Nanners]

my understanding is that this technology is something you put in a power plants smoke stack to capture CO2 from concentrated emissions, not something that just pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. so while technology like this may help us slow down the rate of carbon emissions, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would still continue to increase.

[DeuceWallaces]

This shit has been around forever. They're expensive to implement so industries don't bother unless they're forced.

That being said, there is this crazy technology that can pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Fucking trees. They've been around for a long time.

[gigantes]

That being said, there is this crazy technology that can pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Fucking trees. They've been around for a long time.

great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.

[kNIOKAS]

well, the public in first world nations did not care enough about the issue to get things done in time... meaning changing their consumer habits and putting pressure on corporations and politicians. the public in other nations are generally underinformed or resentful of first world nations for creating most of the problem in the first place.

it's far too late to avoid catastrophe by preventative means... so AFAIK the only thing that's going to save our bacon is geo-engineering or the like.

now, i figure CO2 capture is *way* more appealing than trying to put particles in the air to deflect sunlight. i.e., so many ways for that one to go wrong. CO2 capture is also a way for the avg citizen to keep living their consumerist lives and economies to avoid disaster.

the difference this time around is that as global climate change gets worse and worse, people will be much more motivated to put pressure on govt and industry to implement this technology rapidly. because people hate giving things up or changing radically, but are always eager to blame someone else for their problems or demand govt fix their problems for them. so i see this situation as much more workable than the previous ones.

even if the west has to foot the entire bill themselves (i.e. no help from russia, china, india, brasil), it's still better than all of us going under, right?

All this might be very well true, but I generally disagree that it should be expected from the public to try to deal with the CO2 problem (if it really is what it is now said that it is).

Such decision is not to be made by public in any means. It should come with will from the top. Currently we simply do not have a system where such thing is realistically possible - the dominant market paradigm does not provide for individuals to make a choice of this scope.

Right now I see all this "humans hurting planet", "CO2 destroying nature" talks as just a cheap way to induce a guilt on consumers, and force them to consume something else - like buy "organic" food, pretend to be a douchebag environmentalist, yet not actually address and solve the real problem - for example, overproduction and overconsumption.

I would make a comparison between the global warming guilt nowdays and the sex taboo in the christianity - it's just a smokescreen, that's all it is.

[DeuceWallaces]

There are more trees in the western world than 100 years ago. Also the validity of this statement is questionable in the first place.

So much fail.

[DeuceWallaces]

great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.

It's an environmental-industrial engineering question. I don't really concern myself with those questions. That being said, it's probably a much more efficient, and likely expensive, version of what we've had around since the early 90s. Industry will only do it if forced.

[Akrazotile]

The most direct and effective way to begin "saving the planet" is to reduce global population size. It's as simple that.

Nothing else is even worth talking about if we wont/cant do that.

Deuce why dont you help us out and kick things off.

[Jailblazers7]

great idea from decades ago, i reckon. unfortunately we live in the now, and even if we went on some kind of surprising sapling-planting binge, it would still be a rather erstwhile solution.


anyway, i don't know if this new, more efficient method relies on power plant carbon capture or not. from the tenor of the article it sounds like 'not', but... i'm also just a layman upon this stuff. i'd be interested to see if boozehound, kevinNYC and shakehandlvr have comments upon the article.

I think it is just a new technological improvement to be implemented at power plants. My dad works for a large energy company and it's basically a "carbon scrubber" which captures the CO2 created by the plants so that it can be physically stored instead of being dispersed into the atmosphere. The EPA (or some government law or institution) has emission standards for plants which really impact coal burning plants because it's a much dirtier process than natural gas.

I think this tech could have an impact if it is cheap enough compared to other alternatives and energy companies expect further regulation that enforces stricter standards but otherwise the move to natural gas will probably have a much larger impact on CO2 emissions than any new tech (other than solar improving or getting cheaper). Maybe it can have a big impact in China tho.

[Trollsmasher]

Caring about CO2 when 20 times more GW potent arctic methane is getting released with an ever increasing speed

[DeuceWallaces]

Caring about CO2 when 20 times more GW potent arctic methane is getting released with an ever increasing speed

Hey genius, what do you think is causing the release of arctic gasses trapped in glaciers?

[gigantes]

All this might be very well true, but I generally disagree that it should be expected from the public to try to deal with the CO2 problem (if it really is what it is now said that it is).

Such decision is not to be made by public in any means. It should come with will from the top. Currently we simply do not have a system where such thing is realistically possible - the dominant market paradigm does not provide for individuals to make a choice of this scope.

the public created this problem with the cooperation of industry and govt. it's a three-way partnership so to speak and it -IS- "the top" as you say.

the fact that people expect the other two partners to take care of this mess is why the world failed to get things done in time. so pointing fingers is meaningless to me at this point. all that matters now is finding a workable way to solve the problem.

if you don't believe GCC is happening and is trending worse with each year, i understand. there are tonnes of threads on that non-scientific debate.

...

anyway it sounds to me like the solution, if it's to be found, will involve somehow scrubbing mass quantities of air of carbon content. converting factories to zero-carbon output will be a heroic advance, but far too late to correct the atmospheric imbalance we already have.

[kNIOKAS]

the public created this problem with the cooperation of industry and govt. it's a three-way partnership so to speak and it -IS- "the top" as you say.

It wasn't really public - it was individuals. That's what I'm saying... There is barely a body what one could call "public" in the contemporary system - it's merely a sum of individuals.

the fact that people expect the other two partners to take care of this mess is why the world failed to get things done in time. so pointing fingers is meaningless to me at this point. all that matters now is finding a workable way to solve the problem.

Well the mechanism should be self-evident by now. Have you heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Diffused responsibility is one of the main principles that applies... So it does here.

if you don't believe GCC is happening and is trending worse with each year, i understand. there are tonnes of threads on that non-scientific debate.

I'm not inclined to believe in something. I just think that climate is a complex phenomenon and the narrative which sounds something like "Humans producing CO2>CO2 causing higher temperature>Humans are at fault for higher temperature>Humans must try to stop CO2" is not scientific. It's a slogan and a headline, but not a correct or productive way to see things if anything.

anyway it sounds to me like the solution, if it's to be found, will involve somehow scrubbing mass quantities of air of carbon content. converting factories to zero-carbon output will be a heroic advance, but far too late to correct the atmospheric imbalance we already have.

You are thinking in terms of solutions already, and that's what I meant. A quick fix with a pill is what you're after? It's good for short term, but it's not a systemic solution to the problem (which I think is not understood enough).