*** Not expressing an opinion on global warming, not need to debate the science on that here. What we are confronting is a political reality, and this is one of those times where the perception IS the reality and our industry must reduce carbon emissions significantly, regardless as to the science either way ***

SAF (sustaniable aviation fuel) has been the obvious near-term mitigation for transport category aircraft, and numerous airlines are doing very small-scale demonstrations.

Carbon capture has always been a theoretical mitigation, since the underlying root of the problem is that we dig up carbon buried in geological formations, aka fossil fuels, and when the fuel is burned that carbon ends up in the atmosphere. Carbon capture pulls CO2 right out of the atmosphere and converts it to an inert compound which can be safely stored... typically back underground where it came from.

UAL has committed to operate the first industrial-scale carbon-capture system, as their path to carbon-zero by 2050. It's comforting to see the industry starting to address this on a large scale... before somebody addresses it for us, in a manner we're not going to like.

Carbon-capture has tremendous potential beyond aviation. Many sectors can practically reduce emissions to near zero at a specific point, such as the automotive industry using batteries to eliminate direct emissions from the operation of vehicles. But that doesn't account for carbon costs associated with industrial processes (ie mfg the vehicle) and power generation, etc... basically life in general. Ag processes emit carbon, especially livestock.

Carbon-capture could readily counter-act the carbon impact of those processes (industrial, ag, and biological) which cannot practically achieve carbon-zero, or even get close in some cases. Even better, it could actually reverse the carbon build-up if necessary, and employed on a large enough scale (probably need nuclear reactors to power that much carbon capture).

https://www.reuters.com/article/unit...-idUSL1N2IQ05W

I know that there's a ton of interest and excitement around carbon capture. I don't know how it works but it seems like you would need an absolutely massive amount of harvesting equipment to try and pull a not insignificant amount of carbon out of the air. But, maybe this is the golden ticket to bring able to continue motoring around the globe forever.

If we can't even build clean coal power plants, can we really make this work? if it's too difficult to capture the emissions coming out of a power plant, how the heck is this going to work?

I hope I'm wrong.

Until the environmentalists become rational enough to consider fission and fusion power, there is little sense in trying to humor them. As long as they persist in being Gaia religious nuts there is no satisfying them and it’s a waste of money to try.

It's not hard to capture from air, and it's easy to scale up. Does use some significant energy, which is why nuclear is the way to go (or do it in places where you have a lot of hydro available, or maybe other green power).

Capture of carbon from coal is hard because it's energy-intensive, and they also want to remove particulates and other pollutants. Otherwise it's two steps forward, one step back as you have to burn more fossil fuel to capture the carbon from the fuel you just burned. Latest estimates on energy cost probably make that impractical coal.

But it's a step in the right direction to establish production-scale carbon-capture systems. That can prove the concept, and then the next obvious step if you need more capture is nuclear power. You could co-locate nuclear and carbon-capture plants, and you can probably do it in very remote areas, ie weather patterns will eventually mix and circulate the air globally.

So, if you have an industrial plant capturing carbon dioxide from the air, does that carbon dioxide starvation result in plants withering and starving in that local?

Of course, if it just results in buying indulgences and nothing much happens....

Probably not. Just dump the "scrubbed" air out of tall chimneys, and it will mix nicely with the carbon-saturated ambient air. This is a slow, steady process which would have an impact over a long time frame.

Worst case the plants have to be in windy areas (for mixing) and possibly reduce output if it's dead calm. But that's probably not necessary, any more than people and animals get poisoned by the CO2 emitted from power plants or other industrial processes.

The irrational fear of nuclear power is what holds mankind back from progressing to a sustainable future.

Saturated? I think you can actually mix CO2 and air in ANY concentration without saturation - at least at standard temperature and pressure.

And while CO2 separation from air is handled rather readily by any LOX plant, sequestration might be a bit more difficult. Venting the O2 wouldn’t be a problem, but storing the dry ice would be.

With cheap fusion energy, you’d probably do better just taking methane and making methane hydrates of it and pumping it down into the Marianas Trench or someplace cold and under pressure..

Totally agree. Bill Gates had plans years ago for mini nuclear plants that would have concrete walls around them and a water tower next to them. If the plant melted down, the water tower would fill the entire plant within the walls.

We need nuclear power. Would make your Tesla truly environmentally friendly