Climate mania: California says it’s time for giant carbon vacuums

Posted: April 21, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Emissions
Tags: ,

Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide

Climate mania is now in full swing as catastrophism takes over. What difference its supposed remedies will make to the climate remains to be seen – or not seen. At vast cost and effort, greenhouse gas theories of climate modellers are being assumed to be broadly correct, despite consistent failure to predict even current conditions.
– – –
Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars will go far in helping California and the Biden administration meet their aggressive climate goals—but not far enough, claims

As time runs short, scientists and government officials say the moment to break out the giant vacuums has arrived.

The art of industrial-scale carbon removal—sucking emissions from the atmosphere and storing them underground—has long been an afterthought in climate-action circles: too expensive, too controversial, too unproven.

But as the deadline to avert climate catastrophe barrels nearer [Talkshop comment: evidence-free assertion], the Biden administration is making the technologies prominent in its plans, and California is scrambling to figure out how to put them to use.

It is no small undertaking. Installing sci-fi-type machinery to pull carbon from the air—or divert it from refineries, power plants and industrial operations—and bottle it up deep underground is a monumentally expensive and logistically daunting challenge. It is one climate leaders now have no choice but to try to meet as they race to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, the central commitment of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which aims to avert cataclysmic effects.

“To have any chance of holding warming below that level, you can’t do it simply by limiting emissions,” said Ken Alex, a senior policy adviser to former California Gov. Jerry Brown who now directs Project Climate at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. “You have to sequester significant amounts of carbon.”

The recognition has pushed state regulators to start drafting blueprints for what could be one of the larger infrastructure undertakings in California history. Millions of tons of carbon dioxide would need to be captured and compressed into liquid form, at which point it would be either buried throughout the state or converted into materials for industrial uses such as manufacturing plastic and cement.

The state is essentially starting from zero. There are no large-scale carbon-removal projects operating in California.

Pipelines need to be built, vast geological reservoirs deep underground need to be fashioned into carbon dioxide storage facilities, costly new technologies for vacuuming carbon from the air and factories need to be brought up to scale.

Full article here.

  1. hunterson7 says:

    How sad to live through finding out how vulnerable people are to brain washing.

  2. JB says:

    Time is always running short with ideologues.
    Whenever I hear this phrase I just walk away.
    Time proceeds in the mind. The Sun will rise again in the East tomorrow.

  3. oldbrew says:

    ROSS CLARK: Green dream that will cost us the earth… Boris’s astonishing carbon-free targets will make him the darling of Britain’s eco summit. But wait until the bill comes in…

    So while Boris Johnson may have the world at his feet at the G7 and at COP26 — a Greta Thunberg with mop hair — the hard reality for British consumers of these draconian carbon targets will sink in only when the delegates have flown home, spewing their vapour trails behind them.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Of course ‘giant carbon vacuums’ have to be powered somehow…

    To make the project pencil out financially, the carbon dioxide pulled from the air will be injected into the ground in a way that helps Occidental extract oil that can then be sold on the market.

    Critics have long warned that fossil energy firms are looking to the technologies to delay the transition to more sustainable fuels. The oil generated at the Texas facility will likely qualify as an environmentally friendly fuel in California under the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

    Solved – Texas ‘low carbon’ fuel 😆

  5. Chaswarnertoo says:

    La la land. AGW has been falsified.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    The truly silly part of all this is that plants can remove ALL the CO2 in the air column above them without much effort. I “did the math” a dozen years ago:

    Got Wood?

    you get 1.2386 lbs per square foot of CO2 for ALL the CO2 in that air column.

    So how big is a pound and a quarter of CO2 in wood? Got a chunk of wood that size?

    That’s the first step, then we convert to chains and exit some oxygen mass:

    so that 1.25 lbs of CO2 takes about 0.8445 lbs of wood to store it.. because we throw away one of the “O” Oxygens in the process of making wood (and we are all glad for that as we like to breath!)

    Then turn that into a block of wood using common density estimate for hardwoods.

    How big is that, in volume? Using a 50 lbs / ft^3 figure, we get about 3.1 inches on a side. Call it 7.8 cm on a side. Pretty darned small.

    So let me get this straight: A 12 x 12 inch square of dirt with a 3.1 x 3.1 x 3.1 inch cube of wood on top of it has removed ALL the CO2 from the air column above it?

    As a “cross foot” check, turn it into tons / acre and compare to crop yields:

    So what is that in tons per acre?

    About 16.7 tons.
    But don’t we get about 50 tons / acre of wet wood or about 25 tons dry? (E. Grandis in the 2nd year of growth produces 63 tons / acre at )

    Yes, we do, for very fast growth species like poplar and eucalyptus. So a fast species completely drains the air above it of all CO2 in one year AND most of the acre next to it. Given that plants can’t suck CO2 out below about 100 ppm, it’s more like they drain twice the area they occupy down to the limit of survival. In one year.

    So just grow trees and build stuff with them. There, good for a few hundred years… maybe even thousands if you are into historical preservation…

    Grass does the same but at various rates. Switchgrass is 10 to 15 dry tons / acre. Bamboo will really do it:

    Bamboo? A bit more at 15-50 tons / acre commonly and up to 100 tons / acre for a 5 year stand for some species with special care.

    The yield of dry wood varied from 17 to 54 tons per acre, depending on the species.

    Cutting in 10-foot strips every 5 years produced a yield of 18 to 45 tons of dry wood per acre. The 4-year average yield was 28 tons per acre.

    That 28 tons per acre (dry tons, given the context) would be about 56 wet tons / acre / year.

    I have a ‘timber bamboo’ in my back yard and each year I must cut down a bunch of stems to keep it in check. I’ve now got about a cord ( 4 foot x 4 foot x 8 foot ) of old stems that have dried but not yet composted back into the soil. And that is with me trying to make them go away…

    I’m rather fond of this photo. I put a 1 sq ft tile on the ground. That’s the air column that will be depleted of CO2 all the way to space by the plant standing on it. Yes, that’s a single skinny little corn stalk. (I weighed it and had to find a miserable one to make it light enough… Guess what happens in Iowa in summer…). Then note the really big tree trunk behind it. That tree has sequestered one heck of a lot of CO2…

    So tell me again why we need some machines to remove “carbon” (really CO2) from the air?

    Because the GOAL is free CO2 to the oil companies for enhanced oil extraction methods…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s