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
★★★★☆
(1085)
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
★★★★★
(2754)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-02-2019 04:49
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2754)
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 NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13990)
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

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change for the non-scientists3001-12-2020 06:18
the logarithmic effect of CO2615-11-2020 23:54
Can CO2 be temporarily stored if necessary?2016-10-2020 21:12
Why is CO2 the key to our survival?1327-09-2020 17:27
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact