Remember me
▼ Content

Scientists Just Pulled CO2 From Air And Turned It Into Coal


Scientists Just Pulled CO2 From Air And Turned It Into Coal27-02-2019 18:25
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/27/scientists-just-pulled-co2-from-air-and-turned-it-into-coal/#6bd5f62c4563
27-02-2019 22:30
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(601)
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.
28-02-2019 00:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7668)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.


This technique doesn't produce a lot more CO2, but it does require the use of toxic metals that must be replaced to continue the process to run.

Obtaining those metals, pumping the CO2, and removing the coal afterwards does require producing CO2 though.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2019 04:49
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(601)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.


This technique doesn't produce a lot more CO2, but it does require the use of toxic metals that must be replaced to continue the process to run.

Obtaining those metals, pumping the CO2, and removing the coal afterwards does require producing CO2 though.


Figured they would have to move a lot of air, which will take energy, likely from burning coal or natural gas. I mean, 0.04 % CO2, scattered all over the world, couldn't really yield much coal from the process. Besides, what will they do with the coal produced, burn it? Seems a little foolish, unless they figure on adapting it to the exhaust pipes and chimneys of everything that burns carbon based fuels. Still, it could only reduce efficiency and economy. Still doesn't address the problem of all that coal still in the ground, can't just leave it there.
28-02-2019 19:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7668)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.


This technique doesn't produce a lot more CO2, but it does require the use of toxic metals that must be replaced to continue the process to run.

Obtaining those metals, pumping the CO2, and removing the coal afterwards does require producing CO2 though.


Figured they would have to move a lot of air, which will take energy, likely from burning coal or natural gas. I mean, 0.04 % CO2, scattered all over the world, couldn't really yield much coal from the process. Besides, what will they do with the coal produced, burn it? Seems a little foolish, unless they figure on adapting it to the exhaust pipes and chimneys of everything that burns carbon based fuels. Still, it could only reduce efficiency and economy. Still doesn't address the problem of all that coal still in the ground, can't just leave it there.


You are quite right. You have to move a LOT of air to get a significant amount of coal from this process. It's easier to just dig up coal out of the ground. It is, after all, a renewable fuel, and it's cheap.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Scientists Just Pulled CO2 From Air And Turned It Into Coal:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
First, it's CO2. Now it's wind turbines and batteries. Humans are the problem.317-05-2019 20:06
So what if Democrats spend 600 trillion USD putting a bit CO2 into underground?005-05-2019 13:56
Why do they take out H2O from air when they measure CO2 concentration?330-04-2019 23:21
So what if Democrats spend 500 trillion USD to reduce CO2 while China builds 100 warships030-04-2019 15:37
Why Is China Placing A Global Bet On Coal?030-04-2019 06:14
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact