They made a microgram in 72days.
Who knows if this will ever be viable, wonder how they would even actually capture the CO2 to begin with.
Nothing against the research, news reports always seem to be eager to report on things.
At least this one only has a pretty optimistic headline, the actual details are pretty far down still.
But how much CO2 was created making the microgram of magnesite?
One step closer to pollution grenades
Sort of a waste of time. There are plenty of minerals out there that already do this and can be man made.
just put a bunch of trees in the air and they'll eat it all
Always the elephant in the room that is almost never talked about with environmentally saving technologies.
I don't mean to knock innovations like this, but science media needs to always have this in mind so we have an idea what is feasible. Of course if they did then they'd become an engineering media outlet instead.
How many horses were used in the production of the first car?
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was an experimental piece of technology used for research purposes and was not yet fully developed industrially or scientifically to reach mass market levels of production?
Looks like asbestos ice cream
Let me eat the f o r b i d d e n i c e c r e a m
This and the tech that captures Co2 to make plastic are the dumbest fucking shit.
TREES. TREES ARE SOLAR POWERED CO2 CAPTURE DEVICES. They require little in the way of resources, they provide ecosystems for an assortment of wildlife, and they produce oxygen.
They also take up a metric fucktonne of space, better to use algae.
Algae is more efficient in the conversion process, but trees capture it really effectively as just plain mass. Plus wood is useful.
the only way this would be useful is if we could mass produce this as well as get it to dispel the dioxide for storage
And producing it creates more, meaning that would be worthless
Typical. Instead of reducing pollution we'll shove it under the rug. BTW, it's been done before:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/270250/aa637a9a-5573-4275-a1e5-4042392e0606/StoringCO2_GastonLagaffe.jpg
I agree. If Climate Change gets bad enough, we should also paint unused ground white because it increases the albedo of the Earth, thus cooling it down. May sound insane, but it's one of the big reasons that Climate Change is expected to be a case of a positive feedback loop. Melting ice decreases reflectivity of Earth, also releasing methane (a very powerful greenhouse gas) trapped into the ice. More forest fires increases CO2 levels too.
When trees die (rot, burned, cut down) the CO2 that they absorbed is released anyway.
Algae sucks up oxygen out of water and kills fish. Tree's dont and they also can fucking fit anywhere. Tree's are fucking hilarious when you consider how they'll grow anywhere given a chance.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we encourage algal blooms in the oceans when they suggest algae-based CO2 reduction methods.
Its the only efficient way to use them. Algae otherwise require manmade lakes or require more CO-2 than they take in to create containment methods.
Is that a Hergé illustration? It looks really similar to the artist who did the Tintin comics.
I don't know what your point is. Absolutely nobody is trying to make algal blooms happen in the ocean in an effort to reduce co2. That's just not how algae is used in co2 farms, ever.
You stuck to one point.
Well it's your given reason for why Algae isn't viable, so yeah, I did.
It's by Belgian cartoonist Andre Franquin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_(comics)
Putting big thin mirrors between us and the sun in space at L1 is a fun and probably lower maintence alternative once it's done than painting the surface and dealing with atmospheric weathering.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.