rickair7777

I did not mean saturated in the chemical sense, air is a mixture not a solution. Saturated as in the sarcastic, hyperbole sense.

They don't permanently store CO2 as dry ice, it would be converted to a solid compound for long-term storage.

rickair7777

Another article on this...

https://viewfromthewing.com/how-unit...e-environment/

furloughfuntime

I personally think it has to do more with fossil fuel lobbyists than a few hippies. Most environmentalists I know are all for nuclear power anyway, but it's easier to make such generalizations and they're certainly popular among the apc audience

rickair7777

Some of the most raging anti-nukes back in 70's/80's were covertly funded by big oil. Wouldn't be surprised if that's still going on.

Excargodog

There are bio units that will do that for you. I believe they are called ‘trees.’ Some redwoods have been doing it continuously for 2500 years.

rickair7777

Two small problems with that...

The wood will eventually decompose, releasing the carbon back into the air although if you stored in cool, dry underground facilities it could obviously last for centuries, even longer. The natural cycle of plants absorbing CO2 and then releasing it when they die and decompose is carbon neutral. But our problem is we're digging up long-buried carbon (fossil fuels) and releasing it into the atmosphere. To reverse that, we have to put it back in the ground (or in gi-normous warehouses, or outer space, etc).

The bigger issue is that the number of trees required to offset carbon emissions from human activity would require vast amounts of arable land and would have to compete with agriculture.

Also IIRC the rain forests (which are vanishing) scrub carbon at a rate which is much higher, acre for acre, than say pine trees. I'm not sure there's enough arable land on the planet to both feed us and scrub out the CO2 from unrestrained human activity. Certainly doesn't hurt to plant trees where it makes sense, ex former forests which were logged or burned.

Excargodog

others disagree with your analysis:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/

https://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/carbon.shtml


Forests and Climate Change


Since the carbon is neither created nor destroyed, ALL PROCESSES are carbon neutral. What we are talking about is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

ALL FOSSIL FUEL was once put in the ground by biological processes. More is being put there every day in peat bogs and as methane hydrates in the deep oceans. Other is being captured as standing timber. Certainly if you then burn the wood, like burning any fossil fuel, that CO2 can be released again. Most coal was once trees or peat.

rickair7777

Not correct in our context. We need to not add any additional net carbon to the atmosphere (and possibly remove some of what's already there).

In the global warming context, carbon neutral means the only carbon you put into the atmosphere is carbon that you recently removed *from* the atmosphere.

Of course. But the fossil fuels we use came from an era when the global climate was MUCH different (hotter for sure, likely different gas concentrations than our current atmosphere). Just because the carbon was in the air when the dinosaurs roamed does not mean it's OK to put it back in the air now.

Sure. But nowhere near on the same scale as in pre-history, when vast swaths of the planet were essentially rain forests and bogs. Today's natural process are not keeping up with us undoing the processes from the the age of the dinos.

Excargodog

Carbon dioxide is pretty fungible stuff...

I can acidify eons old limestone and put carbon in the atmosphere that hasn’t been there for a million years. It’ll still count.

I’m sorry, but you’ll never convince me that these carbon exchange schemes are anything other than buying indulgences at the Church of Gaia.

We’d be far better off just using fusion and fission power for fixed base power needs - where it’s practical - in lieu of burning fossil fuels and depending on carbon capture (including by trees) to offset the carbon based fossil fuels that get burned in transportation, especially in aviation where energy density storage is an issue.

Aero1900

Yeah, trees are cool. Too bad we have been mowing them down. Have you heard about the Amazon? Over 4,000 sq miles cut down in just the last year.