This First-Ever Plant Sucks CO2 out of the Air and Feeds It to Vegetables

[rangerrebew]

This First-Ever Plant Sucks CO2 out of the Air and Feeds It to Vegetables

    June 10, 2017

by Paul Ratner
 

While there are those who wish to debate the causes of climate change and how much humanity has contributed to it, others look to address greenhouse gas emissions through technology. A first-of-its-kind commercial plant started to operate recently in Switzerland that sucks CO2 from the air to sell to buyers.

The Climeworks AG plant near Zurich is the first one to capture CO2 on an industrial scale, selling about 900 tons of the gas per year to help grow vegetables. That's how much carbon dioxide 200 cars would release.

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/this-first-ever-plant-sucks-co2-out-to-the-air-and-feeds-it-to-vegetables

[thackney]

I read the title and thought "growing, living" plant not manufacturing.

And thought: "don't all garden plants do that?"

[Cripplecreek]

I read the title and thought "growing, living" plant not manufacturing.

And thought: "don't all garden plants do that?"

Yes and they do it for free.

I skimmed a story about this carbon capture project yesterday. It seems that the multi million dollar project captures about as much carbon as 17,000 dollars worth of trees.

I say plant trees to handle the job. Who doesn't love trees?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes and they do it for free.

I skimmed a story about this carbon capture project yesterday. It seems that the multi million dollar project captures about as much carbon as 17,000 dollars worth of trees.

I say plant trees to handle the job. Who doesn't love trees?

There's evidence that CO2 is "greening" the world. Mostly good news (for food production), but bad news for fighting stuff like Kudzu and weeds.

[endicom]

Who doesn't love trees?

Paul Bunyan?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Only downside to trees is mosquitos. One reason why people cut them down around here.

[thackney]

Only downside to trees is mosquitos. One reason why people cut them down around here.

Trees result in mosquitoes?  Standing water is the source around here.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trees result in mosquitoes?  Standing water is the source around here.

I think they like both.

[Cripplecreek]

Trees result in mosquitoes?  Standing water is the source around here.

I think mosquitoes like the shade and shelter of the woods and undergrowth. I know that right here on the lake the mosquitoes aren't too bad unless its very still. If I walk into the overgrown area behind my garage they rise out of the brush like a cloud.

[Free Vulcan]

There's no global warming because there's no greenhouse effect. It's a manufactured fiction not science They could have avoided wasting their money put it to better use toward something else.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

There's no global warming because there's no greenhouse effect. It's a manufactured fiction not science They could have avoided wasting their money put it to better use toward something else.

I wouldn't go that far. There are a few questions here:

1) Is there global warming?
2) If so, is it caused by man?
3) If so, is it significant?
4) If so, how can we be certain of it's significance?
4) If it is significant can we be certain that the steps we will take will not be out of proportion to the problem or won't cause greater problems?

IMO I think there is global warming. Question 2 is where the issue becomes cloudy.

[Idiot]

I wouldn't go that far. There are a few questions here:

1) Is there global warming?
2) If so, is it caused by man?
3) If so, is it significant?
4) If so, how can we be certain of it's significance?
4) If it is significant can we be certain that the steps we will take will not be out of proportion to the problem or won't cause greater problems?

IMO I think there is global warming. Question 2 is where the issue becomes cloudy.

Look at the geologic record...the earth is ALWAYS in transition.  Warming is not a bad thing....Cooling is not a bad thing...we just have to deal with it.

[Cripplecreek]

Look at the geologic record...the earth is ALWAYS in transition.  Warming is not a bad thing....Cooling is not a bad thing...we just have to deal with it.

The rise of mankind took place during an ice age.

Change is good because it forces adaptation.

[EC]

We do. It's one of the reasons humans are so adaptable.

[Wingnut]

The problem with the earth is it has an earthling infestation.  A very invasive, some say parasitic non native species.  How it arrived is not settled science.  Whether they hitched a ride or were deposited into the primordial ooze as a controlled fishbowl experiment by an alien race, or rather the result of some random space debri and waste jettisoned as junk is conjecture.

[Free Vulcan]

I wouldn't go that far. There are a few questions here:

1) Is there global warming?
2) If so, is it caused by man?
3) If so, is it significant?
4) If so, how can we be certain of it's significance?
4) If it is significant can we be certain that the steps we will take will not be out of proportion to the problem or won't cause greater problems?

IMO I think there is global warming. Question 2 is where the issue becomes cloudy.

The Greenhouse Effect is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If anything CO2 helps cool the earth, not warm it. The atmosphere is also nothing like a glass paned greenhouse,  a completely misapplied analogy still hanging around from the 1880's.

If the nuts and bolts of your theory fall apart, then you pretty much have nothing to build on, and the rest of AGW theory is just alot of shoveled horsecrap.

[Joe Wooten]

Nothing new about this technology. There are several major corporations that supply CO2 for industrial purposes by sucking it out of the atmosphere. This process has been around for over a century.

[Cripplecreek]

Nothing new about this technology. There are several major corporations that supply CO2 for industrial purposes by sucking it out of the atmosphere. This process has been around for over a century.

Its part of the process of refining natural gas isn't it?

[Joe Wooten]

Its part of the process of refining natural gas isn't it?

That's where most of it comes from, but there are still plants that extract CO2 and N2 from the atmosphere.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The Greenhouse Effect is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

How so?

[Cripplecreek]

How so?

Any kind of atmosphere creates at least some kind of greenhouse effect. Its why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Mercury doesn't have the atmosphere to hold the heat. Its also a big part of why temperatures on earth don't drop by 2 or 3 hundred degrees after sunset.

Too many conservatives are falling into the false dichotomy trap on too many issues. Just because they may be wrong about global warming doesn't mean there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is known demonstrable science. My porch on the south side is made of sliding glass doors on 3 sides and it may be 10 degrees outside but if its a sunny day it may be 40 degrees on the porch.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Any kind of atmosphere creates at least some kind of greenhouse effect. Its why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Mercury doesn't have the atmosphere to hold the heat. Its also a big part of why temperatures on earth don't drop by 2 or 3 hundred degrees after sunset.

Too many conservatives are falling into the false dichotomy trap on too many issues. Just because they may be wrong about global warming doesn't mean there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is known demonstrable science. My porch on the south side is made of sliding glass doors on 3 sides and it may be 10 degrees outside but if its a sunny day it may be 40 degrees on the porch.

They listen to the magic men on AM radio too much. There are intelligent rebuttals to AGW theory, but denialism isn't one of them.

[thackney]

Its part of the process of refining natural gas isn't it?

Natural Gas is cleaned up but not really refined.  They separate out water, CO2, N2, H2S, NGLs, etc.  A few fields have significant Helium, sometimes other contaniments​.

[Free Vulcan]

How so?

The Global Warming model states that CO2 traps heat and 'forces' it back to the surface. How does a colder body radiate heat to a warmer one? It works the other way around.

If anything CO2 would radiate it in the other direction, to the colder outer space.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The Global Warming model states that CO2 traps heat and 'forces' it back to the surface. How does a colder body radiate heat to a warmer one? It works the other way around.

Heat radiates from the sun to the earth, no way is the earth hotter than the sun. 

[Joe Wooten]

The Global Warming model states that CO2 traps heat and 'forces' it back to the surface. How does a colder body radiate heat to a warmer one? It works the other way around.

If anything CO2 would radiate it in the other direction, to the colder outer space.

No, it does not. CO2 traps heat by reflecting infrared radiation, but only up to a point, and after that everything else radiates out the atmosphere. Venus is a hell planet only because the atmosphere is so much thicker that Earth's, roughly by a factor of 93. There ain't enough CO2 on Earth to re-create that kind of atmosphere as most of it is in carbonate rocks like limestone. Human activities will not force this on us despite whatever the late Carl Sagan says.....

[Free Vulcan]

Heat radiates from the sun to the earth, no way is the earth hotter than the sun. 

Yes, the sun is warming, earth colder, and the sun radiates toward the earth.

[Free Vulcan]

No, it does not. CO2 traps heat by reflecting infrared radiation, but only up to a point, and after that everything else radiates out the atmosphere. Venus is a hell planet only because the atmosphere is so much thicker that Earth's, roughly by a factor of 93. There ain't enough CO2 on Earth to re-create that kind of atmosphere as most of it is in carbonate rocks like limestone. Human activities will not force this on us despite whatever the late Carl Sagan says.....

Does it? That's the old 'glass pane' greenhouse effect theory first postulated in the 1880's. But does our atmosphere actually act like a glass pane greenhouse? Does CO2 act like that? I've read papers from scientists that dispute that.

[rodamala]

There's no global warming because there's no greenhouse effect. It's a manufactured fiction not science They could have avoided wasting their money put it to better use toward something else.

@Free Vulcan

I admit that I haven't read the full article... but I would wager you a cold beer that it was not "their money" being wasted.

[Joe Wooten]

Does it? That's the old 'glass pane' greenhouse effect theory first postulated in the 1880's. But does our atmosphere actually act like a glass pane greenhouse? Does CO2 act like that? I've read papers from scientists that dispute that.

Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not a Warmista, does satellite measurements of IR radiation out into space by the planet and compares that to IR measurements at the surface. There is a significant difference between the two, but as I said before, the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gasses is small and varies slightly by the total concentration of these gasses (all of them). Analyses  show that after CO2 reaches a certain concentration, it no longer traps more heat, but allows it to pass on through. This little fact is what drives the warmistas nuts about Dr. Spencer, because he proves more CO2 WILL NOT result in more heat staying in the atmosphere.

Also, he has proven the correlation between CO2 concentration and "global average" temperature is very weak, orders of magnitude weaker than assumed by ALL the climate models. So weak in fact as to be statistically insignificant.

[Cripplecreek]

Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not a Warmista, does satellite measurements of IR radiation out into space by the planet and compares that to IR measurements at the surface. There is a significant difference between the two, but as I said before, the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gasses is small and varies slightly by the total concentration of these gasses (all of them). Analyses  show that after CO2 reaches a certain concentration, it no longer traps more heat, but allows it to pass on through. This little fact is what drives the warmistas nuts about Dr. Spencer, because he proves more CO2 WILL NOT result in more heat staying in the atmosphere.

Also, he has proven the correlation between CO2 concentration and "global average" temperature is very weak, orders of magnitude weaker than assumed by ALL the climate models. So weak in fact as to be statistically insignificant.

I know here in the north I love those cloudy winter nights because they usually aren't the bitter cold like the clear nights. Of course that's water vapor.

[Joe Wooten]

I know here in the north I love those cloudy winter nights because they usually aren't the bitter cold like the clear nights. Of course that's water vapor.

Yep. I live in the frozen steppes of Northern Illinois and can vouch that cloudy nights are much warmer than clear dry ones ones. Water vapor has a VERY strong heat trapping effect, but after a certain point it won't trap any more heat either. There are limits to the greenhouse effect the warmistas refuse to acknowledge.

[Free Vulcan]

Dr. Roy Spencer, who is not a Warmista, does satellite measurements of IR radiation out into space by the planet and compares that to IR measurements at the surface. There is a significant difference between the two, but as I said before, the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gasses is small and varies slightly by the total concentration of these gasses (all of them). Analyses  show that after CO2 reaches a certain concentration, it no longer traps more heat, but allows it to pass on through. This little fact is what drives the warmistas nuts about Dr. Spencer, because he proves more CO2 WILL NOT result in more heat staying in the atmosphere.

Also, he has proven the correlation between CO2 concentration and "global average" temperature is very weak, orders of magnitude weaker than assumed by ALL the climate models. So weak in fact as to be statistically insignificant.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes much more sense than the 'glass pane' atmosphere they try to push.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yep. I live in the frozen steppes of Northern Illinois and can vouch that cloudy nights are much warmer than clear dry ones ones. Water vapor has a VERY strong heat trapping effect, but after a certain point it won't trap any more heat either. There are limits to the greenhouse effect the warmistas refuse to acknowledge.

One of the biggest claims with AGW theory is that increasing warmth would put more moisture in the air, and we'd get more storms and insurance claims would increase. This is a claim that can actually be proven false, and was. Warren Buffett himself mentioned this and was hardly given any attention on the subject. Actuaries have run the numbers and have found there are no more claims for storm damage than there were 30-40 years ago.