This machine draws CO2 straight out of the atmosphere to help reduce climate change

www.fastcompany.com...

This can be used anywhere to extract CO2 and store it for use later. Uses include greenhouses and beverage companies. We just need a few
hundred thousand more.

LiveScience

Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.

a reply to: stormcell

I am afraid I am at a loss as to how this happened. Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement and thusly doomed the Earth to a fiery death to happen very soon based on the reactions we all saw. Now we are to believe that even without the US involvement in the Paris Agreement, forward momentum in the C02 removal field has been noted?

It's almost as if that single event wasn't the ELE it was claimed to be.

a reply to: network dude

There is NO PROBLEM with c02 levels in the atmosphere. Plants will grow more, there will be more water(and oxygen) in the atmosphere, animals will slowly get bigger again and everything will be fine.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Scam!

Ooohh! It is online! Cool!

They are sitting on a gold mine and don't even know it. If I was them, I would get a supercritical CO2 turbine like the one linked below. Then you put electricity back on the grid and make money. When your done using the CO2 you sell it to customers and make money. Nobody buying? Use some of the electricity, and a catalyst, and turn it into carbon nanotubes and sell those and make money. You could make either precursor chemicals, sell those, and make money. Or just make ethanol yourself, sell that, and make money.

They just need to realize that it is FREE CO2. And then, make money. You can brag to the ladies that you are saving the environment while you make money from thin air.

UtilityDrive.com - Toshiba ships turbine for NET Power supercritical CO2 carbon capture plant

Does the Paris Accord have any "restrictions" on this device ?

This could be a big interference with the "Agenda".

I love the idea of carbon removal. Far more sensible than making everyone poor with carbon taxes that offer little in the way of an actual solution.

Stack these babies up everywhere, they only have a footprint the size of a tree.

a reply to: network dude

They're in Switzerland. Trump can't baby Huey all over them. Besides, all the money has been spent by Obama's push and is already making this technology happen. Trump is late and they started the party without out him. Same with green batteries for grid-level storage and coal.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Ooohh! It is online! Cool!

They are sitting on a gold mine and don't even know it. If I was them, I would get a supercritical CO2 turbine like the one linked below. Then you put electricity back on the grid and make money. When your done using the CO2 you sell it to customers and make money. Nobody buying? Use some of the electricity, and a catalyst, and turn it into carbon nanotubes and sell those and make money. You could make either precursor chemicals, sell those, and make money. Or just make ethanol yourself, sell that, and make money.

They just need to realize that it is FREE CO2. And then, make money. You can brag to the ladies that you are saving the environment while you make money from thin air.

UtilityDrive.com - Toshiba ships turbine for NET Power supercritical CO2 carbon capture plant

Free market, baby.

Another example of the power of the profit motive.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: network dude

They're in Switzerland. Trump can't baby Huey all over them. Besides, all the money has been spent by Obama's push and is already making this technology happen. Trump is late and they started the party without out him. Same with green batteries for grid-level storage and coal.

I was kidding. I think this is fantastic news, no matter what you think about AGW.

a reply to: TomLawless

Step 1. Suck CO2 from the atmosphere

Step 2. ??

Step 3. Profit

a reply to: stormcell

Maybe governments all around the world need to set aside billions of dollars and start building these at a rapid pace. This would be more productive than sitting around and discussing how to stop climate change. We really need to have governments join together and focus their best scientific minds to solve many of our environmental problems. The amount of landfill waste we produce really concerns me.

Having taken a break from political threads here on ATS, I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to find a freaking thread that doesn't mention political figures.

This is starting to seriously suck.

a reply to: toysforadults

Ahh so the reptilians are waiting for us to Carbonate the Earth before coming back.

Joking aside so if global warming is happening this would leave reptiles as the Top dogs again.

a reply to: network dude

AGW? Like the fuse rating system?

Sorry. Spent most of the day reading about dimensions and math. Sarcasm battery must be low. Could also be a blown fuse!!

A less than symbol got me, sorry.

Wow, we built a tree.

Stoked!!

In addition to electrical energy the Climeworks process requires hot water at 100 °C and cooling water at -15 °C. Climeworks Plants are engineered for integration of customer utilities if available to optimize energy consumption. In the absence of available heating and cooling Climeworks offers pre-engineered optional solutions.

Climeworks

Future direct-air capture plants will cost up to $400 per metric ton of captured carbon dioxide to operate, Gebald said, with carbon sequestration adding an additional $10-$20 to that cost per ton.

Article information was taken from.


It would appear the energy requirements of running these things would be substantial in both heating and cooling. I'd suspect that currently it would mean producing more carbon for the energy to run these in most area's and I don't find anything explaining how that would counter the CO2 reduction to get a real number.

On a large scale they would require a great deal of energy from current power plants to both heat and cool the water and increase the demand on existing power plants.

Somehow I think the voluntary planting of many more trees in denuded areas of the world would do far more good, for far less money.

Maybe fifty years from now this would be affordable.

Sorry, having trouble getting this to post.

Really

Have we forgot how plants grow?

Photosynthesis

Hope that helps.