Current Events > Thanks to capitalism, an extremely effective Carbon Removal Plant is now online

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co2-removal-than-photosynthesis-is-now-active/

This is in addition to other innovations in carbon scrubbing/capture technologies that are being developed by startups and universities all over the world.

bump

@Antifar
@averagejoel

It doesn't remove it, it just captures the CO2.

Whatever is done to it afterwards, it's getting released back.
---

Interesting concept, I know theyre had similar plans in china but this is the first working one Ive seen. Maybe they should be on ships
---

Link HT posted...

It doesn't remove it, it just captures the CO2.

Whatever is done to it afterwards, it's getting released back.

did you even bother to read the article

QuantumScript posted...

Link HT posted...

It doesn't remove it, it just captures the CO2.

Whatever is done to it afterwards, it's getting released back.

did you even bother to read the article

yes, did you?
---

Link HT posted...

QuantumScript posted...

Link HT posted...

It doesn't remove it, it just captures the CO2.

Whatever is done to it afterwards, it's getting released back.

did you even bother to read the article

yes, did you?

Yes, did you?

muchdran posted...

Link HT posted...

QuantumScript posted...

Link HT posted...

It doesn't remove it, it just captures the CO2.

Whatever is done to it afterwards, it's getting released back.

did you even bother to read the article

yes, did you?

Yes, did you?

Yes, did You?

No, I didn't. Let me go fix that
---

How is this a "thanks to capitalism"?

Isn't that heavily subsidized and if it's going to be profitable, only because "carbon credits" have value as a result of govt. legislation?
---

So it collects the CO2, and then you bury it underground for reasons?
---

Link HT posted...

QuantumScript posted...

Link HT posted...

It doesn't remove it, it just captures the CO2.

Whatever is done to it afterwards, it's getting released back.

did you even bother to read the article

yes, did you?

The CO2 released by the plant is not released back into the atmosphere.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

So it collects the CO2, and then you bury it underground for reasons?

Where do you think the carbon we've been polluting comes from?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

How is this a "thanks to capitalism"?

Isn't that heavily subsidized and if it's going to be profitable, only because "carbon credits" have value as a result of govt. legislation?

There's nothing wrong with a government lending money or loaning money for companies and commercial ventures that need some bootstrapping funds.

In this case, the company Climeworks is expressly in the business of building this technology to make a profit and help the world.

From the article:

The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.

So yeah, you capture the CO2 and then use it for something else. Whatever that use is, it's going to get re-released, it's not magically being removed or transformed into something else, just moved from the atmosphere into a container.
---

Link HT posted...

From the article:

The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.

So yeah, you capture the CO2 and then use it for something else. Whatever that use is, it's going to get re-released, it's not magically being removed or transformed into something else, just moved from the atmosphere into a container.

By pulling it out of the air and putting it into solid blocks that can be buried, or putting it into reusable products, you are effectively removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It's still present on earth, but in forms that are not dangerous since it's no longer trapping heat from the sun.

QuantumScript posted...

of building this technology to make a profit

Who's paying them?
Their site, per their site; http://www.climeworks.com/

"Food & Beverage"
So CO2 to be released back into the air.

"Green houses"
So CO2 to be released back into the air.

"Energy, fuel & materials"


Unless it stays in a form other than CO2, this does nothing.
So CO2 to be released back into the air.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

QuantumScript posted...

of building this technology to make a profit

Who's paying them?
Their site, per their site; http://www.climeworks.com/

"Food & Beverage"
So CO2 to be released back into the air.

"Green houses"
So CO2 to be released back into the air.

"Energy, fuel & materials"
So CO2 to be released back into the air.

Whoever wants to purchase the plant. If you can reuse carbon rather than process more carbon, that's going to be a huge success for maintaining CO2 levels. And also for decreasing CO2 levels over the long run as the products have a shelf life and as we bury blocks of carbon in the ground.

I feel like you're trying really hard to find some way in which this won't work.

QuantumScript posted...

Link HT posted...

From the article:

The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.

So yeah, you capture the CO2 and then use it for something else. Whatever that use is, it's going to get re-released, it's not magically being removed or transformed into something else, just moved from the atmosphere into a container.

By pulling it out of the air and putting it into solid blocks that can be buried, or putting it into reusable products, you are effectively removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It's still present on earth, but in forms that are not dangerous since it's no longer trapping heat from the sun.

burying CO2 is a shit solution for so many reasons I'm not even going to bother addressing this.

You know who buys CO2 though? Carbonated drinks. Guess what happens when people open said drinks?

Either way, here's a less click-bait article for the same thing that explains why this isn't the miracle the one you posted tries to claim:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air
---

lol "Thanks to capitalism"
---

Maybe they can turn the carbon into manmade wood or oil or something. Theres about 1000 trees in an acre so depending on the surface area one of these machines could remove as much carbon as an acre of trees.
---

this one is fun too since you mentioned capitalism:

https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/02/carbon-capture-plant-bad-investment/
---

QuantumScript posted...

that's going to be a huge success for maintaining CO2 levels.

The soda we drink is such a small fucking fraction of CO2 emissions, it's not worth noting.
WHO is going to pay them to turn CO2 into lump carbon blocks and bury it?

Also, 1000 times more efficient that photosynthesis, who the fuck cares, you know how big the planet is? Nature should* be able to reabsorb co2 into the carbon cycle if we weren't putting out so much.
We will NEVER be able to build enough plants to go net even.

Deforestation and the rape of out oceans is causing more damage than this stupid factory can fix.
We're talking gigatons.

You got conned. Deal with it.
---

ReignFury posted...

Maybe they can turn the carbon into manmade wood or oil or something. Theres about 1000 trees in an acre so depending on the surface area one of these machines could remove as much carbon as an acre of trees.

Do you not see how inefficient this plant is when we could just not deforest 18,000,000 acres a year?

God damn, TC, you bought into this idea?
Go back to school, fuck.
---

technological advances are not exclusive to capitalism
---

Trees can do the same work for less cost, sure. But the reason this is exciting is because it's the first technology of its kind that proves that it works. The first model of any new innovation was always much more expensive than later iterations.

What will happen when they make better versions of it? When they cut the size in half and double performance? It's only going to get better over time, assuming they continue innovating. The first iteration is not intended to be some miracle cure. We could easily plant trees for a fraction of the cost, but the goal here is to have a technological solution over the long term.

Because trees alone won't help. We could plant a shit ton of trees and not resolve the CO2 problem.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

ReignFury posted...

Maybe they can turn the carbon into manmade wood or oil or something. Theres about 1000 trees in an acre so depending on the surface area one of these machines could remove as much carbon as an acre of trees.

Do you not see how inefficient this plant is when we could just not deforest 18,000,000 acres a year?

God damn, TC, you bought into this idea?
Go back to school, fuck.

I wonder if shit like this will see eco terrorists on the rise again
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

ReignFury posted...

Maybe they can turn the carbon into manmade wood or oil or something. Theres about 1000 trees in an acre so depending on the surface area one of these machines could remove as much carbon as an acre of trees.

Do you not see how inefficient this plant is when we could just not deforest 18,000,000 acres a year?

God damn, TC, you bought into this idea?
Go back to school, fuck.

Its definitely inefficient compared to reforesting the sahara and maybe australia, but thats unlikely to happen until things become catastrophic. Until then ideas like these are a step in the right direction, were not going to solve it all at once
---

interesting

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

ReignFury posted...

Maybe they can turn the carbon into manmade wood or oil or something. Theres about 1000 trees in an acre so depending on the surface area one of these machines could remove as much carbon as an acre of trees.

Do you not see how inefficient this plant is when we could just not deforest 18,000,000 acres a year?

God damn, TC, you bought into this idea?
Go back to school, fuck.

If only the people making money on deforestation would listen.
---