Comments on: Carbon Negativity Emerging As Global Warming Solution

By: theophilous

theophilous — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 21:05:00 +0000

using centrifugal technology fabrics spread over the whole sea surface with a separation of 100ml between the points could improve our air quality to 2-5000 years before the industrial revolution

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 21:04:00 +0000

Why don’t you do some engineering designs and work up some cost numbers?

Then you can get back to us with something more than an idea which sounds improbable.

By: theophilous

theophilous — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:59:00 +0000

the concentred C02 gas item can in areally short term disappear from the atmosphere when adecuate means are emploid for instance with the construction of a fleet of up to 1200 platforms could be the greenhause effect in two (2) yerds end

By: theophilous

theophilous — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:55:00 +0000

Industrial Carbon capture is possible to improbe using centrifuge plants with racycling of C02 gas from the atmosphere in record time by self powering provider in floatings barges spread through oceans separating the remaining contens of greenhause gas from oxigen retourning it to the atmosphere and delivering the concentred C02 with tankers to appropiate instalations on land it is an idea of theophilous

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:25:00 +0000

Don’t know why this one popped up in my email today, four months later, but…

I missed Joe’s point about using bio-inputs for manufacturing and then burying them (as well as burying oil-derived products).

I agree. But in the short run we are probably better off recycling until we get bio-derived feedstock in place. And we also need to figure out energy inputs. As long as our grid has a significant amount of fossil fuel input then recycling may have a smaller carbon footprint.

Perhaps we need to put a thumb on the scale that gives non-petroleum inputs a financial advantage. That would get industry busy looking for alternatives.

By: Mary Saunders

Mary Saunders — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:14:00 +0000

If one M.D. could heat water for his family of 5 for 15 years with compost (Ole Ersson, Portland, Oregon), just imagine if we all did that. Jean Pain, of France, also produced fuel from forest trimmings in large compost piles. Limbing up was also done by indigenous peoples to stem the risk of out-of-control fires in forested areas. Permies.com has a number of threads devoted to how we can be more productive and efficient with heating and power issues.

By: Almuth Ernsting

Almuth Ernsting — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:25:00 +0000

GCEP’s report – as all calls for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) ignore a vast volume of scientific studies which show that large-scale bioenergy is anything but carbon-neutral (which, by implication means, it’s anything but carbon-negative with BECCS). For a list of some of the studies that look at carbon impacts of biomass power stations, see http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/resources-biomass/ . Not only this, but the authors ignore many of the uncertainties, technical hurdles and major risks involved in carbon capture and storage. The costs involved in BECCS are such that the only likely prospect of large-scale ‘BECCS’ involves capturing CO2 from ethanol fermentation (and nobody can call corn ethanol carbon neutral!) in order to pump more oil out of partially depleted wells, i.e. to increase fossil fuel emissions. Please see our recent report for details: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2012/beccs_report/ .

LanzaTech currently produces small quantities of ethanol from CO from steel mills. CO is not a long-life greenhouse gas and in how far it affects the climate is highly uncertain (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/229.htm). Unlike the massive CO2 emissions from steel production. Worldwide, around 12% of all hard coal burned is burned to produce pig iron, a precursor to steel production. That’s just for carbon enrichment of iron and does not even include the coal burned to provide the energy for steel making, a particularly energy intensive process. So, according to this article, if Lanzatech captures a gas component that’s not normally classed as a greenhouse gas from a highly polluting and carbon intensive steel mill to make ethanol – that’s what ‘carbon negative energy’ is supposed to look like?!

By: agelbert

agelbert — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:36:00 +0000

The fastest growing angiosperm on earth, and also the smallest flowering plant is called Lemna minor, otherwise known as Duckweed. Growing it in makeshift shallow pond/tanks over unusable or non arable land areas fertilized with animal feces (it actually cleans the water) would get the job done if a large enough effort was government backed.

For more info on the Duckweed potential as a renewable biofuel as ethanol or simply dryed and burned in a furnace, edible animal or even human nutrient, go to the following link:

All about Duckweed

http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5500#msg5500

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:03:00 +0000

If we bury the products made from oil rather than recycling them wouldn’t that mean that we’d end up extracting more oil to build the next generation?

By: Joseph Wilder

Joseph Wilder — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:43:00 +0000

A law could be written that requires all synthetic products normally made from oil be instead derived from bio-fuel. When those products are buried, the carbon will be sequestered. Actually plastic bottles should be buried instead of recycled as well.