Trees ‘remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store large quantities of carbon in their tissues.’ – Wikipedia
If absorbing carbon dioxide is the idea, which is better value for money: big technology, or plain old-fashioned trees?
On May 31, 2017, the world’s first commercial atmospheric carbon-capture plant opened for business in Hinwil, Switzerland, reports Climate Change Dispatch.
The plant, designed and operated by a Swiss company called Climeworks, is different from existing carbon-capture facilities because it filters carbon dioxide out of the ambient atmosphere using proprietary technology, rather than from industrial exhaust, which is quite common.
Climeworks claims their facility will be able to remove 900 tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year. Furthermore, its modular design will allow it to be scaled up as the demand for carbon dioxide increases.
What do they plan to do with said carbon?
Some of it will be pumped into nearby greenhouses to help the plants grow better, some will be used in carbonated beverages, and the rest will be sequestered deep underground in Swiss mines.
The point? To stop climate change. Whether or not this is a worthy goal is beyond the scope of this article, but for the sake of argument, assume that climate change is a clear and present danger–even an existential threat.
Does this project make sense? No.
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Didn’t I cover this one the other week? 🙂
No idea 😦
Can’t find it now. Maybe I just tweeted it.
This one is from 2015.
– – –
‘the world’s first commercial atmospheric carbon-capture plant’
How ‘commercial’ is it really? The report says:
The only way this facility actually removes carbon from the atmosphere is via sequestration, which is clearly not profitable. This means taxpayers will inevitably be on the hook for this “business” venture.
When will big-time commercial operators be entering this market? Not until or unless the subsidies are juicy enough.
The Climeworks website says that 250000 plants like this will capture ONE percent of annual CO2 output, but no costs are mentioned, just feel good statements. There goes another trillion of taxpayers money, for zilch. How stupid do they think we are? Answer: Really stupid.
But as the report says a lot of the ‘captured’ CO2 will end up back in the atmosphere anyway.
Putting it in fizzy drinks isn’t capture 😭
So it’s all just a $$$ game.
When you start with a false assumption ( CO2 is a danger) then ANYTHING built upon this false foundation is nonsensical. I refuse to make any such assumption as suggested at the end of the article, its like asking your local Imam to assume that prayer is a pointless exercise and then ask him to debate what difference it makes to his religion.
So I am sticking to my “religion” (= Real Science) and am NOT going to be dragged into behaving, even in a pretend way, like a member of the rival PseudoScience club.
I know it’s a phrase from the antichrist (D**g C****n) but “It’s not CO2” really sums it up for me. Time to have some merchandise I think, t-shirts? Might look quite good if we can get a couple of dozen students to wear them in their University lectures.
Cheap anti-CAGW T- shirt = $25 .
Real scientific debate between students and professors = Priceless
Like all memorable phrases uttered by D**g C****n, he stole it off someone else.