5 ms·
> “The system is also much better for the environment as it uses reclaimed carbon dioxide.” That is most likely not the reason it is cleaner as releasing captu
by davidhyde 4y ago
> “The system is also much better for the environment as it uses reclaimed carbon dioxide.”
That is most likely not the reason it is cleaner as releasing captured carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere is kind of polluting isn’t it! I think it’s supposedly cleaner because the alternatives like blasting the tracks with additives and sand is worse but they don’t really say why.
- mcronce 4y agoI guess it's better than, like, burning something specifically for the purpose of capturing CO2 to put in a tank on the railways...but has anybody ever actually proposed that?
- jandrese 4y agoThere was one proposal to use a high power blowtorch device to burn off the crud ahead of the train, but it had a number of problems and never went anywhere. The lasers were an evolution of this, but they have their own issues.
- xchaotic 4y agoObviously they forgot to add Sharks. Sharks with lasers is the ultimate solution.
- mrlonglong 4y agoJust in time for Sharknado 6 then!
- hetspookjee 4y agoI belief the Netherlands uses a high powered laser much like a rust removal laser in some parts. But it’s not widely rolled out. On the co2 argument. The release of the co2 itself is one thing. But keeping it cryogenic and applying it isn’t free either. Not sure if it’s more energy intensive than a high powered laser though.
- horsawlarway 4y agoIf you watch the video in the article, they briefly mention it - Basically, they're using captured CO2 that would have been released anyways, from industries like brewing. And they mention it's better than the sand approach since they're not leaving a contaminate around afterwards, since the CO2 will just sublimate back into gas, both which improves the cleaning and makes it more consistent when done repeatedly. The movie is still borderline sales-pitch, so I'd take it with a grain of salt, but it adds some detail.
- mlindner 4y agoYou missed what the original poser was saying. Their point was that if you're capturing the CO2, it's better to keep it captured, rather than just releasing it again.
- danuker 4y ago> that would have been released anyways By any chance, does money change hands? "Carbon credits"? Guess what! I'll start a brewery and brew billions of tons of CO2 unless you pay me! The carbon credit industry is a scam, and it does not actually affect the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
- MobiusHorizons 4y agoTo be fair, in order to produce co2 as a brewer, you must first have a sugar source for the yeast to eat. This is typically grain, which captures the co2 from the air using solar energy. Farming clearly also has an impact on the environment requiring energy and water to produce and transport, but the co2 locked up in that grain would be released to the environment most of the other ways that grain could get metabolized. Seems like not that bad of an outcome really.
- chrisco255 4y ago
- bitwize 4y agoWhen there's excess of it heating up the planet, it's a pollutant.
- chrisco255 4y agoWe're talking spraying rail lines with CO2. It's not going to heat the planet. That's like dropping a table shaker of salt in the ocean and worrying about the impact on salinity. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
- cogman10 4y agoWater is essential for life. That doesn't mean you can't drown in a swimming pool.
- tejtm 4y agodosis sola facit venenum --Paracelsus [] 'only the dose makes the poison'