Carbon Dioxide Suckers Galore

Carbon dioxide Suckers galore

14/6/2018

Sucking carbon from the atmosphere: the new way to solve "climate change"?

Nat'l NewsWatch: B.C. company says it is sucking carbon from air, making fuel

It sounds like spinning straw into gold: suck carbon dioxide from the air where it's contributing to climate change and turn it into fuel for cars, trucks and jets.
A British Columbia company says in newly published research that it's doing just that — and for less than one-third the cost of [at least 7] other companies working on the same technology.

Bloomberg Opinion: "New technology means we might not need so many electric cars"

If you buy that, well, they say there's one born every minute. It's highly unlikely that so many countries' plans to enforce electric vehicles are all for naught. Electric cars will more than likely be a boon to the carbon engineering industry. Think of the coal that could be burned to produce the electricity to recharge them.

The US government lists all the perils of coal, but then hastens to show how it works to "reduce" the effects.

From The Economist:

Mr Trump’s latest proposal would direct regional grid operators to buy power from coal and nuclear plants, which have been struggling to compete with natural gas and renewable-energy sources for years. The cost, however, would be borne by consumers, and could come to as much as $12bn a year.

Even some global warming believers warn "...it's not all blue skies and rainbows".

From Wired:

Carbon removal technologies, promising though they may be, are overhyped, says David Keith, an applied physicist at Harvard and Carbon Engineering's founder. "And the overhyping has become a political trick." That hype, he says, makes it easier for policymakers to avoid drafting near-term mitigation strategies and exceed their carbon budgets, in hopes that their debt will be repaid at some point in the future.

Exceed their carbon budgets? Won't companies be freely allowed their emissions in order to fill the atmosphere with carbon, and help expedite this new way of making an all-round killing?

Think of the competition! Each of the carbon engineering companies will be buying TV Ads claiming that the product of the others just doesn't cut it.

Now THAT'S peer review!

But it does answer a question, for me at least, as to why conservative governments have been fighting the carbon tax. It would be interesting to see how many politicians have sunk some bucks into the production of this new fuel. Carbon taxes were created to reduce emissions but, given this new technology, that wouldn't be good; no, not at all.

The Liberal government may have known this as well. If so, then they've just been intoning the scriptures while planning how to get away with sinning. How many of their members are investing in Carbon Engineering?

The whole EU had to have known as well, which may be why the US felt so confident in maintaining the status quo, and Trump expressing his love of coal.

As with so many other issues, the climate hooey has always been about the Markets! And duping us all into reducing our consumption for the war effort. What other explanation can there be?

If this Carbon Engineering thing really does take off, how safe will the product be? Remember the long-delayed process we went through with gasoline -- the restrictions on lead, for instance? Can't help wondering what hidden gems will be found in this new kind of fuel.

Or will it be used only for warfare while car drivers are forced to go in hock for electric, fuelled by coal and its delicious emissions? Delicious in that coal burning will also fuel the carbon engineering enterprise. So, win, win all 'round.

Who will be in charge of the brakes? At what point will these competing companies have sucked all of the cO2 out of the atmosphere, killing the vegetation that depends on it to thrive? Questions abound, n'est ce pas?

It does sound a bit like a variation of the hockey stick theory dramatically promulgated by Al Gore, which, incidentally, is currently being litigated in a Canadian court:

From AIER: ‘Hockey Stick’ Climate Change Enforcer Checked Hard in Canadian Case

The Principia Scientific article, penned by John O’Sullivan, former editor of the conservative magazine National Review, says [Canadian Climatologist Tim] Ball’s research contrasts favorably with Mann’s in part because it includes a graph that uses “more reliable” and widely available public data.
Published July 4, O’Sullivan’s piece makes no attempt to hide its glee at Mann being knocked off his skates. “Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a ‘hoax’,” O’Sullivan writes.
Mann, who heads Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, will “likely” become the subject of a criminal investigation, O’Sullivan writes. While Mann appears to be sprawled on the courtroom ice, he is still one of the climate change partisans’ most feared enforcers.

See Prof.Tim Ball's videos on YouTube. The guy's got both brains and guts.

Note: The company "Carbon Engineering" is part-owned by Malthusian philosopher Bill Gates and he hasn't expanded his wealth by investing in unmarketable projects -- the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, which doesn't give a hoot about the horrific claims against it.

6 Comments

Penny link

14/6/2018 08:17:56 pm

Hey YaYa:
thanks for letting me know about the Tim Ball videos
I'll check them out tomorrow :)

15/6/2018 09:40:58 am

I also want to add that this idea of sucking carbon out of the air is absurd to the nth degree
First of all, let's say it even works...
at what cost?
money wise?

and at what cost to everything living?

- like all the plants and trees- whose very survival depends on taking in carbon from the air- since carbon is plant food.

Is this sucking carbon aka life out of the air going to kill everything that grows?

check the video out included in a post from last year

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2017/09/where-do-trees-get-their-mass.html

Where do trees get their mass?

Notice I ended my post with this comment?

"I'm going to hug a tree today and thank it for giving me oxygen, while I aspirate my carbon for it's food"

If you haven't noticed every year prior to the emergence of spring's greenery the carbon cult starts shrieking about the carbon in the atmosphere- this is a well known and documented cycle- the Keeling curve

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2017/05/hysteria-reigns-as-co2-levels-cross-410.html

in 2017 that carbon rate was around 410
in 2018 it was virtually unchanged and has undoubtedly dropped down as the plants and trees inhaled the carbon- the hysteria inducing media never mentions that fact.

YayaCanada.ca

15/6/2018 12:13:14 pm

Thanks Penny! Will check out those links. Hadn't heard of the Keeling curve.

If you Google this: carbon dioxide rice vitamins - you will see a mass of recent "scientific" articles stating that excess carbon dioxide in the air is taking the vitamins out of rice and making it non-nutritious.

This appears to be a sudden, massive campaign in support of the "suckers". It's a bit unnerving when you can see the propaganda wheels turning right before your eyes!

15/6/2018 07:08:18 pm

I had seen the claims regarding the rice, but, had read it was an extremely limited study- not that it matters to the true believers- that said.. carbon is for plants and I know that greenhouse growers use carbon too increase crop production

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth (in general- Keeling curve) AND production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata."

In other words no carbon= no greens
less plants/less trees/less photosynthesis = Less Oxygen= Less Life

The whole thing is like one big death cult promotion- it scares me!

It's not that governments are unaware of this reality- it's that most people are unaware of this reality- in fact governments count on this ignorance so people like Bill Gates can do what they do best- extract wealth through fictions and frauds

15/6/2018 07:11:43 pm

now I know html code doesn't work- oh well
here's a bit more

"During particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.
Sources of Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide can be obtained by burning carbon-based fuels such as natural gas, propane, and kerosene, or directly from tanks of pure CO2. Each source has potential advantages and disadvantages. When natural gas, propane or kerosene is burned, not only CO2 is produced, but also heat is generated that can supplement the normal heating system. However, incomplete combustion or contaminated fuels may cause plant damage. Most sources of natural gas and propane have sufficiently low levels of impurities, but notify your supplier of your intention to use the fuel for CO2 supplementation. Sulphur levels in the fuel should not exceed 0.02% by weight. Combustion of fuels also generates moisture. For natural gas it is estimated that about 1.4 kg of water vapour is generated for each m3 of gas burned. For propane the amount of moisture generated per kg of CO2 is slightly less than it is for natural gas."

This increased CO2 is commonly done in greenhouses to get more food per year/growing season

YayaCanada

15/6/2018 09:34:43 pm

It is a death cult, Penny. I think they know that the population is not going to die off naturally for at least a million years, if it ever does, but the greater the population, the more difficult it is to control. I don't know if I feel scared; I do feel sad, though, that humankind is so competitive and divisive, instead of cooperative.

You mentioned: "Tulips, and Easter lilies" - both Spring flowers that grow before leaves come out on the trees. The position of the earth in relation to the Sun affects production and/or requirement of C02. Tim Ball talks about this in debunking the C02 climate change theory, and about the effects of the Milankovitch Cycles.

Man-made climate change enthusiasts tend to discount the effects of those cycles, while doubters tend to include them in their arguments.

The Tim Ball Video video includes it a little over half-way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbo8Ods8M0

And another fairly short video goes into careful detail about the Milankovitch cycles while suggesting that it does have an effect on "climate change".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUcn07enz4

Carbon dioxide Suckers galore

Leave a Reply.