as it does absorb longwave radiation and radiates it back to the surface, thus contributing to warming."
The Orca DAC plant
Posted on 09/10/2021 2:10:31 AM PDT by blueplum
Edited on 09/10/2021 4:05:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The world’s biggest direct air capture (DAC) plant is set to come online in Iceland on Wednesday. The moment is an important one in developing new technologies to help suck carbon dioxide out of the air—but raises a whole host of questions on the future of how we’re going to put those technologies to use.
The Orca plant, located about 20 miles (30 kilometers) southeast of the capital of Reykjavík, uses large industrial vacuums to remove carbon dioxide from the air. The plant’s owners and operators, a Swiss startup called Climeworks, said that the plant can remove 4,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year...
Reminds me of the Mel Brooks movie “Spaceballs” where the planet’s atmosphere is sucked away using a massive vacuum cleaner.
I forgot to carry the two, ok?
My point is that we aren’t making enough use of trees to shape our environments. Trees can go a long way to solving many of our environmental problems. We should be incorporating green infrastructure as much as we can.
In California, for example, get rid of the eucalyptus trees that are just tinder, and aren’t even native to California, and plant trees that can hold water.
Do you have a link?
Of course this IS Iceland so no trees!
I can also see news articles later on. “The plant, which turns CO2 into rock deep underground is believed to be the cause of the catastrophe. Molten lava which once follow the fissures deep underground became trapped by the newly created rock and exploded, leaving half of Reykjavik in ruins.”
The new volcano in Iceland emits 10,000 tons of Co2 in a day. (Actually low for a volcano.) This plant will remove in a year what this volcano emits in about 9 hours! Using electricity.
Its carbon footprint is actually positive, it contributes more co2 than it removes.
Due to the amount of wood it took to power steam engines back then there was concern that the north east would be barren of timber. Once read that the average steam powered train used 8 cords of wood to travel 25 miles then it would have to stop and reload it’s wood and water supply. Throw in the fact that all heating was from wood and you have a huge demand.
That's 160,000 trees. (not 1,6000,000) An acre usually only accommodates 100 mature trees so that's 1600 acres to accomplish what that plant is doing. Visually that's a little less than 3 miles square. I would venture this plant and surrounding buildings takes up close to that much land and costs considerable more than allowing for a natural forest.
The Orca DAC plant
Throw in the fact that it doesn’t cost anything to operate 160,000 tree’s and no CO2 is produced in the manufacture or operation of those tree’s. Leave nature alone and let her take care of herself and it’s amazing what she can do. We’ve got 42 square miles of ranch, all I have to do to surpass that facilities capabilities of capturing CO2 is nothing. The plus side is I run about 30 head of cattle on each square mile and produce oil and gas from 72 locations. I’m about as environmentally friendly as they come.
You're certainly doing your part. I'm surrounded by the Big Thicket in E Tx and if you leave a spot of ground untended you'll have weeds in a week, a tree sprout in 2 weeks, and a half grown tree in 6 months. It's not hard at all to exceed that 100 trees per acre (that number is managed timber).
If this CO2 should ever leak out the result would be a few greener trees.
General Wu say, Sometime do nothing by doing something, sometime do something by doing nothing. A wise man knows the difference.
I just checked. 160 trees will do this job for free.
—
But where is all the government grant money in that?
How much carbon does it emit to save the amount it states it does - What is the net gain?
790 cars vs how many cars worldwide.
Mother Nature does not like anything that competes with her ways of doing things - she reacts by doing things to bring what she sees as being in balance.
>>That’s 160,000 trees.
80,000,000 / 50 = 1,600,000
boy, math is hard for some folks.
ignore that, 160,000 is right.
8,000,000 / 50 = 160,000
Maybe that’s the point. In Iceland there are very few trees?
If liberals were serious about global warming, they would be setting these up everywhere. They will figure out a way to bury this, so they can keep the crisis alive forever.
This plant is just speeding up the natural rock cycle. CO2 when added to water forms carbonic acid which when injected into rocks that contain basic minerals with calcium,silicon,magnesium,iron,aluminum, phosphorus...ect. Will form carbonate minerals or silicates which are a solid new rock no longer a dissolved supercritical fluid. Those minerals are all typical of shales, clays, granite and basalts. The earth will do a similar process with dissolved CO2 in the oceans via the carbonate bicarbonate system eventually the atmospheric carbon dioxide will be turned into carbonate ooze and or limestone on the ocean floor above the CCD depths where carbonate dissolves into solution again. This is the same process that made the cliffs of Dover or the Bahamian carbonate banks that the Bahamas island sit on.
There is no question that humans have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere every legitimate geoscientist accepts that as well documented with not only direct gauge readings from the 1800s onward but also 800,000 plus years of ice bubble data that has been isolated from the atmosphere under miles of solid ice. The question remains is the extra CO2 a bad thing. The earth has had drastically higher CO2 levels in the past due to a number of reasons volcanism and ocean degassing events being the largest. During those periods the planet was warmer and a lot more tropical. Greenland was green so was Antarctica. The temperate climate zones shifted north by thousands of miles and the whole planet greened. It wasn’t that long ago that the period now known as the Pleistocene Eocene thermal maximum was known as the Pleistocene Eocene thermal optimum. The temps didn’t change the wording did. Letting CO2 rose to 1000+ ppm will melt the Greenland ice sheet and a good portion of the Antarctica sheets as well it has happened multiple times in the past. Humanity will have to accept 25 meters of sea level change over a few millennia that would be unavoidable you can’t have it both ways higher CO2 , warmer greener planet which means more food but ice melts and sea level change over time due to that. Sea level will come up over a meter just do to thermal expansion of the earth returns to Pleistocene level CO2 and temps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.