FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Making money from been green
Making money from been green
Jump to: Newest in thread
I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Take a lot of energy to extract CO2 from the atmosphere on any meaningful scale.
Currently that energy is generated in part from burning fossil fuels.
It would result in a net increase of Carbon Dioxide.
However, when the technology for this improves, and when we can power it from renewable energy. It will play a role. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughts"
there’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cough... trees do it for free.
Exactly - people should be encouraged to plant trees. Lots of them.
"
I was reading an article the other day about various natural systems that do/did this for the planet. One of the biggest was plankton, with krill feeding on this and the large Baleen whales feeding on them.
The whales dung then fed the plankton, etc. etc.
In the last century the weight of whales removed from this system equalled the weight of all mammals alive!
Obviously the system crashed. Scientists are trying to reseed it with iron (the important bit in the whale dung apparently).
If this takes off, then the whales take off again, and the whole system could re-start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start "
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you before |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you before"
you can’t do a post without talking down to someone isn’t everything new based on experimental technology ain’t that the point how can you try to find fault with this it’s great news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you beforeyou can’t do a post without talking down to someone isn’t everything new based on experimental technology ain’t that the point how can you try to find fault with this it’s great news "
thats not talking down to you, only in your head perhaps it is?
the fault is that people may grasp onto this a apanacea for the environmental issues we face, it isn't, it's as theamericans would say "a hail Mary". Perhaps when we get a development plan, with the risks and issues outlined, we'll have a better understanding of how much of a chance it has.
And no not everything thats new is based on experimental technology.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you beforeyou can’t do a post without talking down to someone isn’t everything new based on experimental technology ain’t that the point how can you try to find fault with this it’s great news
thats not talking down to you, only in your head perhaps it is?
the fault is that people may grasp onto this a apanacea for the environmental issues we face, it isn't, it's as theamericans would say "a hail Mary". Perhaps when we get a development plan, with the risks and issues outlined, we'll have a better understanding of how much of a chance it has.
And no not everything thats new is based on experimental technology.
"
you where championing nuclear plants in this thread now your talking down carbon capture are you against green energy do you not want to save the planet ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you beforeyou can’t do a post without talking down to someone isn’t everything new based on experimental technology ain’t that the point how can you try to find fault with this it’s great news
thats not talking down to you, only in your head perhaps it is?
the fault is that people may grasp onto this a apanacea for the environmental issues we face, it isn't, it's as theamericans would say "a hail Mary". Perhaps when we get a development plan, with the risks and issues outlined, we'll have a better understanding of how much of a chance it has.
And no not everything thats new is based on experimental technology.
you where championing nuclear plants in this thread now your talking down carbon capture are you against green energy do you not want to save the planet ?"
your question is non-sensical and not aimed at exploring the issues |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you beforeyou can’t do a post without talking down to someone isn’t everything new based on experimental technology ain’t that the point how can you try to find fault with this it’s great news
thats not talking down to you, only in your head perhaps it is?
the fault is that people may grasp onto this a apanacea for the environmental issues we face, it isn't, it's as theamericans would say "a hail Mary". Perhaps when we get a development plan, with the risks and issues outlined, we'll have a better understanding of how much of a chance it has.
And no not everything thats new is based on experimental technology.
you where championing nuclear plants in this thread now your talking down carbon capture are you against green energy do you not want to save the planet ?"
Carbon capture is not the same thing as green energy.
I'd be very interested in reading about the carbon capture plant. Usually they're energy inefficient and produce more CO2 than they capture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughtsthere’s a plant opening at teesport it’s a carbon capture not sure if it’s the first of its kind but atleast it’s a start
it's like this actually
Net Zero Teesside says it aims to develop Britain's first decarbonised industrial cluster at Teesworks, the UK’s largest industrial zone. The project is being delivered by a consortium led by BP and is due to be operational by 2030.
so no plant till 2030 and it's based on experimental technology
I think this has been mentioned to you beforeyou can’t do a post without talking down to someone isn’t everything new based on experimental technology ain’t that the point how can you try to find fault with this it’s great news
thats not talking down to you, only in your head perhaps it is?
the fault is that people may grasp onto this a apanacea for the environmental issues we face, it isn't, it's as theamericans would say "a hail Mary". Perhaps when we get a development plan, with the risks and issues outlined, we'll have a better understanding of how much of a chance it has.
And no not everything thats new is based on experimental technology.
you where championing nuclear plants in this thread now your talking down carbon capture are you against green energy do you not want to save the planet ?
Carbon capture is not the same thing as green energy.
I'd be very interested in reading about the carbon capture plant. Usually they're energy inefficient and produce more CO2 than they capture. "
I can’t help you there I don’t know much about it tbh it’s a new site down at teesport it’s trying to be the biggest green site in the U.K. if they produce more co2 than they capture I don’t see the point of them then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The technology is old now but still functional .all subs and space stations and space vehicals use carbon dioxide scrubbers it been going since man went to the moon all it needs is to build carbondioxide scrubbers in a tower formation .then charge companies to extract from the air as much as they pump into the air and sell on the carbon dioxide
Its money for nothing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The technology is old now but still functional .all subs and space stations and space vehicals use carbon dioxide scrubbers it been going since man went to the moon all it needs is to build carbondioxide scrubbers in a tower formation .then charge companies to extract from the air as much as they pump into the air and sell on the carbon dioxide
Its money for nothing"
Is it that simple?
What about the energy input required to enable the process. How much CO2 is scrubbed vs that generated by the input energy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We have huge areas of peat bogland in Ireland which apparently capture more Co2 than rainforest per acre.
Lots of people here own Bogland as we cut it and harvest it for fuel (turf). Perhaps we could be paid to capture carbon rather than cutting it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"We have huge areas of peat bogland in Ireland which apparently capture more Co2 than rainforest per acre.
Lots of people here own Bogland as we cut it and harvest it for fuel (turf). Perhaps we could be paid to capture carbon rather than cutting it"
I hear this said a lot about peat bogs, but isn’t it really just hundreds of years of photosynthesised plant matter lying in natural graves?
A tree has hundreds, thousands, even millions of photosynthesising leaves that are converting CO2 into ever taller and ever thicker trees.
I personally think that it might be hard to create new peat bogs, but it isn’t hard to start planting trees. This should be a really big priority for everyone and we can all do our bit as simply as pruning off 20-30 willows between November and February and simply sticking the cut end into the ground. It really couldn’t be easier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We have huge areas of peat bogland in Ireland which apparently capture more Co2 than rainforest per acre.
Lots of people here own Bogland as we cut it and harvest it for fuel (turf). Perhaps we could be paid to capture carbon rather than cutting it
I hear this said a lot about peat bogs, but isn’t it really just hundreds of years of photosynthesised plant matter lying in natural graves?
A tree has hundreds, thousands, even millions of photosynthesising leaves that are converting CO2 into ever taller and ever thicker trees.
I personally think that it might be hard to create new peat bogs, but it isn’t hard to start planting trees. This should be a really big priority for everyone and we can all do our bit as simply as pruning off 20-30 willows between November and February and simply sticking the cut end into the ground. It really couldn’t be easier."
I don't know or understand the science behind it.
No new bogs can't be created but would be great if we could be paid to not cut our bogs and receive subsidies for carbon capture |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We have huge areas of peat bogland in Ireland which apparently capture more Co2 than rainforest per acre.
Lots of people here own Bogland as we cut it and harvest it for fuel (turf). Perhaps we could be paid to capture carbon rather than cutting it
I hear this said a lot about peat bogs, but isn’t it really just hundreds of years of photosynthesised plant matter lying in natural graves?
A tree has hundreds, thousands, even millions of photosynthesising leaves that are converting CO2 into ever taller and ever thicker trees.
I personally think that it might be hard to create new peat bogs, but it isn’t hard to start planting trees. This should be a really big priority for everyone and we can all do our bit as simply as pruning off 20-30 willows between November and February and simply sticking the cut end into the ground. It really couldn’t be easier.
I don't know or understand the science behind it.
No new bogs can't be created but would be great if we could be paid to not cut our bogs and receive subsidies for carbon capture
"
I don't think the bogs capture the carbon (or not significantly).
It's that they have been capturing the carbon for a long time.
Therefore the issue is using them for fuel, building, gardening etc. Is releasing the carbon.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We could just use less power, vibrator, plastic, batteries, there's a cucumber in the fridge! Get some exercise  "
Use less power you say? .... Hmmm.... You mean change what I do and how I do it a tiny bit? Fuck no that'll never catch on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We could just use less power, vibrator, plastic, batteries, there's a cucumber in the fridge! Get some exercise
Use less power you say? .... Hmmm.... You mean change what I do and how I do it a tiny bit? Fuck no that'll never catch on. "
Time to make it expensive. That will change habits! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"We could just use less power, vibrator, plastic, batteries, there's a cucumber in the fridge! Get some exercise
Use less power you say? .... Hmmm.... You mean change what I do and how I do it a tiny bit? Fuck no that'll never catch on.
Time to make it expensive. That will change habits! "
Guilt got the better of me 6 years ago when electricity was 5.5p per KW. Having fitted Air Conditioners for heating and cooling, I put Solar panels up. At 5.5p, it was 7 year payback.
People laughed at me at the time as I didn't use the Government MCS rip off scheme which meant I couldn't export surplus for payment, so instead use it for hot water. The system worked out £10K cheaper so no big loss. The same people are now moaning at electricity price rises, mines gone up £10 per month.
Since then, electricity went up drastically and real payback dropped to the 5 years, at todays rates, it would be 3 years. So now paid for and enjoy £800'-£1000's worth of free electricity per year. With FREE Air Conditioning in summer.
I agree, high prices will make people do something and if this the only way, so be it.
Sit down with a calculator and work out the costs of a loan and use money saved on energy bills to pay it. If you have savings, then the money saved beats any available interest rate from a bank.
For those bleeting they can't afford it, these will qualify for the Green Homes Grant and others - so there is no excuse.
I have reduced domestic CO2 from electricity and heating by over 7 tonnes a year at a cost of £4k which is now paid back. My import electricity was £140 last year which is mainly running the cooker.
Next year, I will be re-spending the money again to upgrade batteries to cover 100% of the cookers demand and be able to use 5p/kw electricity overnight from Grid renewables during the next day if Solar production has been poor.
More panels being added ready for an EV too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We could just use less power, vibrator, plastic, batteries, there's a cucumber in the fridge! Get some exercise
Use less power you say? .... Hmmm.... You mean change what I do and how I do it a tiny bit? Fuck no that'll never catch on.
Time to make it expensive. That will change habits!
Guilt got the better of me 6 years ago when electricity was 5.5p per KW. Having fitted Air Conditioners for heating and cooling, I put Solar panels up. At 5.5p, it was 7 year payback.
People laughed at me at the time as I didn't use the Government MCS rip off scheme which meant I couldn't export surplus for payment, so instead use it for hot water. The system worked out £10K cheaper so no big loss. The same people are now moaning at electricity price rises, mines gone up £10 per month.
Since then, electricity went up drastically and real payback dropped to the 5 years, at todays rates, it would be 3 years. So now paid for and enjoy £800'-£1000's worth of free electricity per year. With FREE Air Conditioning in summer.
I agree, high prices will make people do something and if this the only way, so be it.
Sit down with a calculator and work out the costs of a loan and use money saved on energy bills to pay it. If you have savings, then the money saved beats any available interest rate from a bank.
For those bleeting they can't afford it, these will qualify for the Green Homes Grant and others - so there is no excuse.
I have reduced domestic CO2 from electricity and heating by over 7 tonnes a year at a cost of £4k which is now paid back. My import electricity was £140 last year which is mainly running the cooker.
Next year, I will be re-spending the money again to upgrade batteries to cover 100% of the cookers demand and be able to use 5p/kw electricity overnight from Grid renewables during the next day if Solar production has been poor.
More panels being added ready for an EV too.
"
Well done you and shame on those that mocked you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The technology is old now but still functional .all subs and space stations and space vehicals use carbon dioxide scrubbers it been going since man went to the moon all it needs is to build carbondioxide scrubbers in a tower formation .then charge companies to extract from the air as much as they pump into the air and sell on the carbon dioxide
Its money for nothing"
The problem is that any form of carbon dioxide scrubber takes energy to run it. In a submarine it is a nuclear reactor.
To be any use whatsoever, the full life cycle carbon cost of a carbon dioxide removal device has to be lower than the amount of carbon it removes from the air. This includes the carbon cost of making the device (digging up metal ores, smelting into metals, all the manufacturing equipment, the electric drills used during assembly, the sandwiches eaten by the workmen, everything), the cost of running the device (lots of electricity, lots of maintenance), and the cost of disposing of the machine at life end. It is really difficult to make this sum come out as a benefit!
In all the examples you give like submarines, space ships etc, the lifetime cost is of no matter. The job is to remove a comparatively small amount of CO2 from a small space, it does not matter that this only comes at the expense of thousands of times that much CO2 being produced elsewhere.
There is a proven, simple, cheap, self maintaining method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It just isn't very technological or sexy. And the human race currently is destroying thousands of these devices every day, rather than encouraging their use. It's called the tree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"The technology is old now but still functional .all subs and space stations and space vehicals use carbon dioxide scrubbers it been going since man went to the moon all it needs is to build carbondioxide scrubbers in a tower formation .then charge companies to extract from the air as much as they pump into the air and sell on the carbon dioxide
Its money for nothing
The problem is that any form of carbon dioxide scrubber takes energy to run it. In a submarine it is a nuclear reactor.
To be any use whatsoever, the full life cycle carbon cost of a carbon dioxide removal device has to be lower than the amount of carbon it removes from the air. This includes the carbon cost of making the device (digging up metal ores, smelting into metals, all the manufacturing equipment, the electric drills used during assembly, the sandwiches eaten by the workmen, everything), the cost of running the device (lots of electricity, lots of maintenance), and the cost of disposing of the machine at life end. It is really difficult to make this sum come out as a benefit!
In all the examples you give like submarines, space ships etc, the lifetime cost is of no matter. The job is to remove a comparatively small amount of CO2 from a small space, it does not matter that this only comes at the expense of thousands of times that much CO2 being produced elsewhere.
There is a proven, simple, cheap, self maintaining method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It just isn't very technological or sexy. And the human race currently is destroying thousands of these devices every day, rather than encouraging their use. It's called the tree."
Agreed!
As long as it’s about money it never works, it should be run at for what it is not for what it costs in labour and running costs.
Capitalism will always destroy any good idea  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
CO2 recovery is energy intensive and not viable. You can argue that renewable energy is free or you can burn more fossil fuel yo cover it.
The reality is, ALL fossil fuels should now be left in the ground and energy generated from better sources that don't require secondary work to remove its emissions.
What's the point? Do you have investment in fossil fuels?
It's banging an old drum that now needs putting in the cupboard and move forward with wind, solar and other less damaging energy.
As I said earlier, £4k investment here has cancelled all but 7 tonnes, if 10 million more of us did the same, Grid loading will be significantly reduced and with decent size batteries, 90% self sufficient.
Paying people to generate their own was the biggest mistake. It should have been sold as saving money and the environment and monetary value left out of it.
I could export excess at 3p/kwh but why, when I can use it against a gas boiler to heat hot water saving 7p/kwh and with batteries, offset against 20p/kwh electricity during the evening.
This week hasn't been good, today 850watts, yesterday 5kw, day before 430watts rest of week around 650 to 1500, tomorrow sunny so 6-7kw.
Its Winter, and I need Grid power but in summer 25-32kw/day, next year 38-48kw/day. Lots hot water, lots of air conditioning and car charging for free.
Buying in overnight at least almost guarantees it is from renewable and 5p/kwh to use tomorrow.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I am no expert but hear goes
1) too much carbon dioxide in air
Navy subs stay under the ice with a full crew for a month rebreathing air that has had carbon dioxcide taken out using carbon scrubing machines.
Make a tower and fill it with carbon scrubbers then charge companys to take from the air as much carbon dioxide as the pump into the enviroment.
Also as a benafit sell the carbondioxide that is extracted as all fizy drinks need carbon dioxide for the fiz.
So money from companies to cansel out the carbon dioxide and mony selling it to fizzy drinks companies .
Going green can make money.
Youre thoughts"
Hats off for thinking in the right terms, although specifically I don't think that this works.
Nuclear submarines are very small compared to the atmosphere.
However the basic idea of nuclear power and renewable being a way to make money is bang-on. Unsurprisingly fossil fuel producers would prefer that we thought that it was hard an expensive. They have, and still do, get huge subsidies. Renewables are subsidised to a lower extent and are still cheapwr and can easily provide a similar number of jobs and wealth with less associated pollution and climate change.
Trees are also a far prettier way to fix carbon out of the atmosphere than a man made facility  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Many companies produce CO2 either from burning gas, fuel oil, brewing etc. That CO2 is put to atmosphere. Do you think they could stand the cost of having to pay for the CO2 to be removed? Everyone else gets away Scott free because they get someone else to do the dirty work (that produces the CO2) for them?
Reduce hydrocarbon usage and swap to hydrogen, if we have to use a gaseous fuel (and we do). It's the only way to do it cleanly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I saw an environmental activist a few weeks ago saying carbon neutral wasn't enough, and that we should aim to be producing zero carbon as "it was the only way to save the planet".
I'm guessing he missed the year 2 biology class where they taught photosynthesis.
Yes, we need less carbon. The last thing we need is no carbon.
A few years ago I decided to up my green game and started using my green bin properly. I was totally gobsmacked at how much went into the green bin, and how little went into the grey bin.
It's shocking what we waste on a day to day basis.
Winston |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
In respect to your green or grey bin, it ends up pretty much the same and just what happens to the end result changes - landfill or bagged as compost.
The veggies you but in there will ultimately break down using processes that themselves create CO2 and CH4. Technically, this does not add to CO2 in the air, however, methane is an issue as it is more potent and hence the agreement to reduce output of it, although it does break down.
Farting and burping pigs, sheep, cows, horses, humans and more as well as the excreta also increase methane and breathing on the output of CO2.
Scientists sometimes assume people understand when the loosely use the term 'Zero Carbon' they are either referring to removing Carbon from a process or Zero emissions of CO2.
The problem is, we need to actually reverse the damage we've done as currently the atmosphere has greenhouse gas to raise global temp by 1.5 to 2.6 degrees. If we reached Net Zero tomorrow, what happens to the climate, it stays how it is today with messed up weather, droughts, fires, very heavy rain and melting ice.
Net Zero is NOT enough, we need be be Negative, in other words, stop producing gasses and activity remove more as quickly as possible which will be a term later Net Negative.
Only then can the Earth start to recover from the damage caused. So when you here the term Zero Carbon, it means levelling off emissions, not remove 'all' CO2 from the air or Carbon from the planet.
If a factory produces 25 tonnes of CO2 per year using a process that cannot be changed or modified and does nothing, CO2 increase per year is 25 tonnes. However, if they plant trees, enough to absorb 25 tonnes then the Net output from the factory is NET ZERO.
Some CO2 emissions can never be avoided but any emissions can be offset somewhere else. Take the exhaust from a gas fired power plant, recover the heat for heating and blow the exhaust into a greenhouse where strawberries or tomatoes are growing. Thus reduces the CO2 output and the heat used for good purpose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In respect to your green or grey bin, it ends up pretty much the same and just what happens to the end result changes - landfill or bagged as compost.
The veggies you but in there will ultimately break down using processes that themselves create CO2 and CH4. Technically, this does not add to CO2 in the air, however, methane is an issue as it is more potent and hence the agreement to reduce output of it, although it does break down.
Farting and burping pigs, sheep, cows, horses, humans and more as well as the excreta also increase methane and breathing on the output of CO2.
Scientists sometimes assume people understand when the loosely use the term 'Zero Carbon' they are either referring to removing Carbon from a process or Zero emissions of CO2.
The problem is, we need to actually reverse the damage we've done as currently the atmosphere has greenhouse gas to raise global temp by 1.5 to 2.6 degrees. If we reached Net Zero tomorrow, what happens to the climate, it stays how it is today with messed up weather, droughts, fires, very heavy rain and melting ice.
Net Zero is NOT enough, we need be be Negative, in other words, stop producing gasses and activity remove more as quickly as possible which will be a term later Net Negative.
Only then can the Earth start to recover from the damage caused. So when you here the term Zero Carbon, it means levelling off emissions, not remove 'all' CO2 from the air or Carbon from the planet.
If a factory produces 25 tonnes of CO2 per year using a process that cannot be changed or modified and does nothing, CO2 increase per year is 25 tonnes. However, if they plant trees, enough to absorb 25 tonnes then the Net output from the factory is NET ZERO.
Some CO2 emissions can never be avoided but any emissions can be offset somewhere else. Take the exhaust from a gas fired power plant, recover the heat for heating and blow the exhaust into a greenhouse where strawberries or tomatoes are growing. Thus reduces the CO2 output and the heat used for good purpose."
I know that Zero Carbon means removing Carbon from a process or Zero emissions of CO2.
The activist I was referring to clearly didn't.
Winston. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
