On 04/01/17 14:12, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 13:43, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level.
But if
it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?

If it can't be done in any effective way?

I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but it makes
sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?

Basic level is it. Now try doing it in the real world, on the sort of
scale supposedly required.


Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

No, it doesn't.
To combine it chemically takes more energy thus reducing nearly all the
point of burning hydrocarbons at all, and to make it a gas and pump it
underground means it pops up somewhere else eventually.

Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

And there is no need to remove it anyway. Plants need it.

Nobody has ever suggested removing so much CO2 from the atmosphere that
the earths vegetation all dies. You ****ing Idiot.
TW

I wasn't suggesting that we did you ****ing idiot