JDNSW is spot on. It's the first thing that struck me, having done quite a few years of thermodynamics in my physics degrees. The breakthrough will have some good applications but it is not the solution to limit global warming. Only non CO2 emitting processes can do that long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Hey here’s a novel idea...stop land clearing and plant trees.
Our collective obsession with trying to reinvent nature is simply bonkers.
Been going on for a long time - since about 40,000 years ago in Australia!
It's true you know, at least in economics. 1+2 = 2 when some suit has stolen 1 and is protected by the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Tried checking the background of the journal, on first thought that it might be a cash for comment pro industry set up, but seems legit scholarly.
At a guess the only way the process will work, if it has high energy demands, is solar power - but then why not use that level of solar investment for regular use, and have the trees/oceans absorb the carbon - or can we have our cake and eat it? Carbon pellet propelled vehicles, easy to refuel. MPG?
Most solar / wind farms, at some stage during the day / wind period, produce more DC ergertrons than they can convert to grid power or the grid doesn't need that power at that time. They can put batteries there to charge but those fill up quickly. If you could get this process in a suitably priced / sized plant, it could soak up the extra power and would start to wind back the CO2 clock. It might also give the the energy farms something else to sell, if nothing else you could use it for steel production.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Cheers Glen
The future for steel production is probably hydrogen (possibly produced electrolytically on site, and the oxygen used for part of the process - carbon fuel is not an absolute requirement, although some is needed to provide carbon content in the steel - probably from using some methane in the fuel rather than solid carbon though.
Perhaps could be used for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, but as I said earlier, it seems to me that the well established photosynthesis process (i.e. plants) would be far cheaper and more effective.
there is no way you can use one form of energy to make another form of energy without loss.
you CANNOT perpetuate.
You mean careful, sustainable land management? ...much longer than that. 80,000+ years on this continent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
...But brought to an abrupt halt particularly over the past 100 years with epic mechanical land clearing...and ongoing around the world today despite both western science and indigenous knowledge knowing better.
It seems this hydrogen and even methane might one day be able to be produced in quantity from renewable solar and wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Germany's Uniper makes head start in converting wind power to gas | Reuters
"You mean careful, sustainable land management? ...much longer than that. 80,000+ years on this continent."
Yep, totally agree. If you went back in time to 100,000 years ago Australia looked a lot different. But don't forget that a huge chunk of Australia had it's ecosystems completely and irreversibly changed by the introduced fire regimes. Plants and animals that didn't fit the new frequent burn offs were kaput and essentially died out. The new, more open bush which allowed for easier hunting of animals that we are used to seeing today was the result, but this new biosphere was carefully maintained over generations to ensure a food source. Unlike the damage that more recent Australians have wrought to the poor place! ALL humans have an impact on the earth, just some are less destructive than others as they manage to live much better WITHIN the system. Us humans we are kind of good at wrecking the place!