17 ms·

UN report say that by 2050 we have to actually start draining the atmosphere of CO2 to, maybe, reach the 2 degree Celsius goal. http://arstechnica.co.uk/scienc

by cel1ne 10y ago

UN report say that by 2050 we have to actually start draining the atmosphere of CO2 to, maybe, reach the 2 degree Celsius goal. http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/11/un-report-climate-goals-rapidly-moving-out-of-reach/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/11/un-report-climate-g...

klipt 10y ago
> start draining the atmosphere of CO2 Make oil and put it back in the ground?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Make trees, and put those in the ground.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Trees die and decay and release the carbon back into the atmosphere.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      That's why you have to increase the total forested area, while also leaving much of the carbon as humus when the trees and leaves decay.
- akiselev 10y ago
  That would probably require an international coalition to pull off. The hard part is building enough power plants that are nearly carbon neutral at a big enough scale to make a dent because the scale of the problem is... well, planetary. 1 gallon of gas contains 33.4 kWh (this is a standard unit and can be converted to an equivalent volume of natural gas) so assuming we can convert electricity and carbon dioxide to gasoline at a 33% efficiency that's 100 kWh of carbon neutral power needed for every 33.4 kWh of gasoline. If we assume that we get a 50% effeciency converting the fuel to energy (highest efficiency achieved so far with state of the art natural gas plants but more than twice that of an auto ICE) we'd need over 1 MWh for every 167 KWh of energy produced using fossil fuels and this is probably way too unrealistic for a best case scenario. Technology capable of 33% efficient energy and CO2 to fuel conversion is extremely unlike to happen for a very long time and ICEs are way less efficient than natural gas power plants. For example, you'd have to grow California's energy output by about three times using only renewables or nuclear just to make up for the CO2 from its natural gas power plants and that's not including what you'd need to make up for rush hour traffic. It would literally be cheaper for California buy all of the natural gas plants at original value and replace them with renewables than to try to offset our CO2 output. Only once we replace all large scale fossil fuel energy sources can we start thinking about carbon sequestration or conversion.

by cel1ne 10y ago

klipt 10y ago

> start draining the atmosphere of CO2 Make oil and put it back in the ground?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Make trees, and put those in the ground.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Trees die and decay and release the carbon back into the atmosphere.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    That's why you have to increase the total forested area, while also leaving much of the carbon as humus when the trees and leaves decay.
akiselev 10y ago
That would probably require an international coalition to pull off. The hard part is building enough power plants that are nearly carbon neutral at a big enough scale to make a dent because the scale of the problem is... well, planetary. 1 gallon of gas contains 33.4 kWh (this is a standard unit and can be converted to an equivalent volume of natural gas) so assuming we can convert electricity and carbon dioxide to gasoline at a 33% efficiency that's 100 kWh of carbon neutral power needed for every 33.4 kWh of gasoline. If we assume that we get a 50% effeciency converting the fuel to energy (highest efficiency achieved so far with state of the art natural gas plants but more than twice that of an auto ICE) we'd need over 1 MWh for every 167 KWh of energy produced using fossil fuels and this is probably way too unrealistic for a best case scenario. Technology capable of 33% efficient energy and CO2 to fuel conversion is extremely unlike to happen for a very long time and ICEs are way less efficient than natural gas power plants. For example, you'd have to grow California's energy output by about three times using only renewables or nuclear just to make up for the CO2 from its natural gas power plants and that's not including what you'd need to make up for rush hour traffic. It would literally be cheaper for California buy all of the natural gas plants at original value and replace them with renewables than to try to offset our CO2 output. Only once we replace all large scale fossil fuel energy sources can we start thinking about carbon sequestration or conversion.