3 ms·

Nature already developed this technology: trees. More seriously: perhaps it's not such a bright idea to build a for-profit industry on the concept of removing

Nature already developed this technology: trees. More seriously: perhaps it's not such a bright idea to build a for-profit industry on the concept of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Plants need it and if we overdo it for the sake of maximising profits, the ecosystem will suffer (alarmism: we'll all starve). Just plant more trees, please.

eloff 9y ago
It gets burned and goes straight back into the atmosphere. It's carbon neural, not carbon negative.
- lazyjones 9y ago
  > It's carbon neural, not carbon negative What does the headline of this thread say? > Stripping CO2 from the air and using it to produce carbon-neutral fuel So, where's the benefit over trees? The drawback is that the fuel doesn't have any uses other than to burn it for energy. Trees, on the other hand, just suck up increasing amounts of CO2 while they grow and they don't have to be turned into fuel.
  - eloff 9y ago
    You missed the headline apparently since you were commenting about the dangers of sucking too much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Clearly if it's carbon neural there's no danger of that happening. Trees are also carbon neutral since they either burn or decompose and return the carbon to the atmosphere. But over much longer timescales than fuel - so they could still be useful in combating global warming (despite what some people say.)
    - hedora 9y ago
      In particular, if you increase the average global biomass over time, then you’ve captured some carbon. Longer term, you can bury that biomass instead of burning it or letting it decompose. Eventually, it will turn back to oil. I guess the question is whether these new technologies are better than buying up tree farms and sending their outputs to landfills at are optimized to minimize decomposition. Edit: Tree farms are a terrible straw man. Are these technologies better than simply instituting bio-waste bins alongside recycling, and burying the bio-waste for long term carbon capture instead of composting?
  - adrianN 9y ago
    The benefit is that you don't need huge amounts of land, can use surplus energy in a useful way and produce something that is of immediate value.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

eloff 9y ago

It gets burned and goes straight back into the atmosphere. It's carbon neural, not carbon negative.

lazyjones 9y ago
> It's carbon neural, not carbon negative What does the headline of this thread say? > Stripping CO2 from the air and using it to produce carbon-neutral fuel So, where's the benefit over trees? The drawback is that the fuel doesn't have any uses other than to burn it for energy. Trees, on the other hand, just suck up increasing amounts of CO2 while they grow and they don't have to be turned into fuel.
- eloff 9y ago
  You missed the headline apparently since you were commenting about the dangers of sucking too much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Clearly if it's carbon neural there's no danger of that happening. Trees are also carbon neutral since they either burn or decompose and return the carbon to the atmosphere. But over much longer timescales than fuel - so they could still be useful in combating global warming (despite what some people say.)
  - hedora 9y ago
    In particular, if you increase the average global biomass over time, then you’ve captured some carbon. Longer term, you can bury that biomass instead of burning it or letting it decompose. Eventually, it will turn back to oil. I guess the question is whether these new technologies are better than buying up tree farms and sending their outputs to landfills at are optimized to minimize decomposition. Edit: Tree farms are a terrible straw man. Are these technologies better than simply instituting bio-waste bins alongside recycling, and burying the bio-waste for long term carbon capture instead of composting?
- adrianN 9y ago
  The benefit is that you don't need huge amounts of land, can use surplus energy in a useful way and produce something that is of immediate value.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]