http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:40:49 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

We have carbon capture technology.
Called trees.

Tim Streater wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

Exactly, "displace"="no difference", you want people to stop eating
bread for green reasons?

On 03/01/2017 22:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

Exactly, "displace"="no difference", you want people to stop eating
bread for green reasons?


More probably they want you to stop drinking alcohol.
You need CO2 to make baking soda and the easiest source is from brewers.

On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:48:31 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gases are not bad. Stop believing the ****e the treehuggers throw at you.

--
If a cat joined the Red Cross, would it become a First-Aid Kit?

On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.

On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?
And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.
You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.
And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.
It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

On 04/01/17 20:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?

water and carbon dioxide.

And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.

for an hour or so.

You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.

you wont get much of it in the atmosphere, because it breaks down

And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.

which is almost immediately broken[ down.

It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

It isnt worse, because there can never be much of it as long as there is
oxygen to break it down.

In article . com,
lid writes
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?
And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.
You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.
And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.
BAIUI not as much as farting cows
It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

--
bert

On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.

A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn
the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.

Andy

On 05/01/2017 21:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.

A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn
the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.

How many years does it take to grow the wood you burn?
Unless it is instant or you planted it years ago to burn then you have
burnt x tons of wood and produced x tons of CO2 that is now in the
atmosphere.
Greens may claim its carbon neutral but it isn't.

You can buy carbon credits and make anything carbon neutral these days
even though its another lie.

On Thursday, 5 January 2017 21:55:25 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


AIUI - it is, but it breaks down very quickly.

A constant feed of methane means a constant atmospheric level. I burn
the wood, save the oil, and know my heating is carbon neutral.

Andy

Almost ten years.
All you need to know he-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosp...greenhouse_gas

On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.

There is some truth in there somewhere though. Rotting organic matter is
Carbon not in the atmosphere, and some hydrocarbons will hang around a
long time in the soil or in landfill. I have heard that changes in
agricultural practice to increase the organic matter in soils could have
an impact. I haven't checked the maths and don't intend to.

TW

On 1/4/2017 12:04 PM, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.


Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.

On 08/01/17 20:48, newshound wrote:
On 1/4/2017 12:04 PM, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.


Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.


Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if
the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you
do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

TW

In message , TimW
writes
On 08/01/17 20:48, newshound wrote:
On 1/4/2017 12:04 PM, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.


Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.


Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral
if the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing
you do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

I am actually burning stuff that is 200+ years old so I'm not doing much
to help currently. There are new saplings growing in nearby locations
and the otherwise suppressed stretch of hedgerow gets a lot more light.

--
Tim Lamb

TimW wrote:

newshound wrote:

Well when *I* fire up the woodburner, the TRVs kick in and my gas bill
goes down.

Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons by
plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon neutral if
the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a fine thing you
do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

So given the gas/coal/oil that gets burnt also releases CO2 that allows
new wood to grow, isn't that good too? The only difference being between
a few decades and a few hundred million years!

On 12/01/17 12:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

[...]

Exactly. I didn't express myself well, but burning wood is carbon
neutral as long as the carbon cycle continues of Co2 to hydrocarbons
by plant growth then back to CO2 by oxidisation. It isn't carbon
neutral if the forest is just wasted and not replanted. But it is a
fine thing you do for mankind every night that you light your woodburner

What do you mean by "wasted" in this context? Trees just dying and
rotting down naturally? Why would that not be carbon neutral?



A forest in its natural state with vegetation growing, dieing back and
rotting would be carbon neutral or even carbon positive as long as the
organic matter is accumulating and increasing in the growth and in the
soil.

I don't have any special knowledge on this subject but that is my
understanding.

TW

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

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

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

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

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:12:17 -0000, TimW wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

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

No. CO2 is good for plants. Leave it alone.

--
Smith & Wesson -- the original point and click interface.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

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

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.


NT

On 04/01/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

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

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.


I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on
the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense
of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider
environmental benefits are misleading.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit - they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with
impunity. Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made
plain. Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental
impact. Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good
summary of the sorts of things that should be considered:

http://www.superhomes.org.uk/resourc...tion-material/

That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no
reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and
post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net
benefits by most measures follow.

--
Cheers, Rob

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 04/01/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

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

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going
from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process.
It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress.
And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the
whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2
per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on
the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense of
seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider
environmental benefits are misleading.

Nope.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only effects
post-fit -

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction
in the CO2 produced when heating the place.

they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with impunity.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made plain.
Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental impact.

No they dont.

Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good summary
of the sorts of things that should be considered:

http://www.superhomes.org.uk/resourc...tion-material/

That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no
reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and
post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net
benefits by most measures follow.

Corse they do, because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is trivial in the saving of CO2 in the heating of the place.

On 04/01/17 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr 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?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon. It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W

On 04/01/2017 11:55, TimW wrote:




I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

I'm not clear but it seems to be that ammonium bicarbonate is the end
product not just an intermediate stage in CO2 separation.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr 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?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W

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.

Tim W

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.

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

Tim W

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