The problem with most of these schemes is the power needed to take CO2 and do, well, anything really with it. Solar power need energy to build the panels, install them etc. Nuclear has its own issues. The best thing to do is plant forests. There is now a plan in motion to plant a line of trees along the border of the Sahara to stop desertification. This like of trees will do more than any of these other ideas, is cheaper, and has more secondary benefits.
It's funny that its more accurate to think that trees materialize out of thin air, rather than grow out of the ground. Trees are about half carbon and half oxygen. All of the carbon and some of the oxygen comes from C02, which comes from the air. So you plant a seed, which puts up a few leaves. Then over hundreds of years the rest of the tree gradually (with the help of sunlight and water/minerals from the ground) condenses out of the air into an inexplicably solid and complex structure. Here is Feynman explaining it.
I was going to comment exactly the same thing. We definitely CAN turn CO2 into fuel - but the energy cost would be staggering (especially considering that we use fuel, in the first place, FOR it's energy density). Plants would do that much more effectively (without mentioning that plants are clean, which may not be the case with fuel production from carbon oxides) AND that plants actually give us back the oxygen in such compounds. Though personally (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a materials, chemical or any kind of engineer/expert) I think the most energy-efficient way to deal with carbon-based greenhouse gases (or really, any carbon-based pollution) is to crack the molecules in order to turn carbon into graphite/graphene (at ~805kj/mol^-1 for CO2, ~1050kj/mol^-1 for CO and ~1200kj/mol^-1 for methane, it sounds relatively energy inexpensive - considering that CO2 and CO are calculated in PPM and methane in PPB, assuming you can cheaply capture them, you could clear a huge volume of atmosphere - then again, I don't know how much energy/money is involved in capturing these gasses...) Of course, something even more energy-efficient, cheap and effective to reduce carbon dioxide in the air (along with it's less-spoken-of brother, nitrogen oxides) is to actually reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Do plants even filter out N2O?
Wow, this is great question. The answer is... sorta . Trees do remove particulates, lower air temps, retain moisture in soils, retard erosion an of course are a CO2 sink. And yes, the best way is to reduce emissions. But if we can reduce emissions, and reforest parts of the planet, hey why not?Of course, something even more energy-efficient, cheap and effective to reduce carbon dioxide in the air (along with it's less-spoken-of brother, nitrogen oxides) is to actually reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Do plants even filter out N2O?
Indeed - any two effective solutions used together, when feasible, is always a better idea than only implementing a single one. The more we can do for our environment (at least without losing all of the advantages technology brings), the better. Though that answer is VERY interesting - I never realized that trees were such effective pollution-cleaning tools. I'm definitely signing up (if there is any in my town) for a tree-planting activity next spring. That "sorta" is a "yes" for me though - because even though they don't capture massive amounts of it, it does mean that plants, over time, can do that job - and that's good.
biochar could help with this immensely. of course cutting trees down to make it won't help, but we could start harvesting bamboo for this purpose and it might really help give those trees the advantage at the edge of the arable zone. i've always been partial to the theory that with enough biochar the sahara could be another amazon.
Yeah, but there's power and there's "power." Know those semi-worthless solar chargers you can take camping? They've got a goofy little flashlight and a USB port and if you let them sit all afternoon they'll charge your iPhone like 4%? As chargers, they suck. As flashlights, they suck. As pack objects, But as something that will get your GPS up and running again if you're lost on a mountaintop, they're pretty damn badass. Presume your solar synfuel recracker operates at one tenth the efficiency of a refinery. Hit that refinery with a carbon tax that reflects the externalities of their environmental damage, then allow them to defray that cost by paying for direct solar recracking. It will always do a worse job than planting trees, but places we need to plant trees are often places we need to send troops and something like this promotes local industry. Magic bullet? No. Reasonable technology to pursue? Yes. Any commercial economy is going to leverage a whole lot more from building gadgets than from planting trees, especially as we tend to cut ours down for lumber.
Ahhh yes, the rational argument! The best argument! And out here in JesusLand, the wrong argument. We have this abomination to deal with. Solar out here rhymes with Satan and the legislature is actively fighting it. I'd love a real, punitive, carbon tax. I'd love to put solar on every residential rooftop that faces south. If I put solar on my roof as a hedge against our shitty power grid out here, I get penalized thanks to state laws that are protecting coal and the local utilities. And we cannot lease the power back into the grid like other states can. Moving 25 miles north into either Ohio or Indiana, and the picture changes, but that is not in the cards for me for various reasons. Good presumption and maybe a little low. And I completely agree with you. Every way to get energy that is not using carbon is a HUGE net positive. But as you say, there is "power," and then there is "Power." If we cannot move people off coal and have to wait for all the NewsCorp-watching old people to die, at least the trees are something to get everyone dragging along. Doing something, anything at this point, is a lot better than doing nothing.Presume your solar synfuel recracker operates at one tenth the efficiency of a refinery.
Never let it be said that I am anti-tree. Diversification, however, is often its own reward. That plate is amazing. By way of comparison, if you get a customized license plate in CA without it being any particular kind of special interest plate, it's an environmental plate.
Two points on this: First, in some cases it may be better to have them face west rather than south. Second, economies of scale make utility scale solar more cost effective than residential solar. While the wholesale panel costs may be similar, the simplified, standardized construction on a utility site pushes the costs down compared to houses with different construction, shape and sun exposure. I had no idea there was a coal license plate. That's amazing(ly sad). I like trees and should do more to plant more.I'd love to put solar on every residential rooftop that faces south.