I wonder what kind of products would require that much CO2?Carbon capture is an important emissions reduction technology, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
It involves the capture of CO2 from fuel combustion or industrial processes, transporting it via ship or pipeline,
to be stored underground in geological formations or used as a resource to create products.
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. I have been saying that Exxon and the other large oil companies willEurope had a carbon dioxide shortage a few years back that almost caused a beer crisis.
Also, you can make almost anything you can make from oil with it. oil being hydrocarbon of course. plasticas and polymers, even fuels.
And this is a problem because?Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. I have been saying that Exxon and the other large oil companies will
transition their operations from oil as a source for fuels, to making fuels from captured CO2, and Hydrogen.
Exxon Baytown is currently refitting one of their unit to do this.
One problem with making hydrocarbon fuel is that each gallon of gasoline, needs about 4 lbs of carbon.
It is not at all, but many AGW proponents do not like the idea.And this is a problem because?
What's not to like? It's not like we wanna keep it as carbon dioxide.It is not at all, but many AGW proponents do not like the idea.
I suspect that they have been demonizing the oil companies for so long,
they are unable to come to terms that the oil companies could have the solution to a sustainable energy future.
I agree, if they can make carbon neutral fuels that sell for less than fuels made from oil, everyone will buy themWhat's not to like? It's not like we wanna keep it as carbon dioxide.
Sorry, I was being a bit ironic. I have been saying that Exxon and the other large oil companies will
transition their operations from oil as a source for fuels, to making fuels from captured CO2, and Hydrogen.
Exxon Baytown is currently refitting one of their unit to do this.
One problem with making hydrocarbon fuel is that each gallon of gasoline, needs about 4 lbs of carbon.
If all the carbon comes from atmospheric CO2, and the energy stored in the process is carbon free,Doesn't sound absolutely carbon neutral, but it does sound like a step in the right direction.
Your car will run well on 100 octane fuel. In fact if you drive an old hoopty it might run better, as the higher octane will reduce pre ignition ping.I agree, if they can make carbon neutral fuels that sell for less than fuels made from oil, everyone will buy them
and CO2 emissions will drop by 1/3 globally.
Based on published energy storage efficiencies (60 -80%) this should equate to an oil price of about $96 a barrel, or less.
So far we only have numbers from the Naval Research Labs, and Sunfire Energy in Germany.
Exxon, Shell, and BP, all had big research programs, so I suspect they may have more efficient processes.
Sunfire noted that if the plant were located near a CO2 source, the efficiency could go as high as 81%.
The Naval Research Labs noted one sort of limitation to the Power to Liquid technology.
Artificially assembling Carbon and Hydrogen atoms, make very uniform molecules, so it can only make premium fuel.
in Gasoline this means only 100 octane.
I asked a Ford Mechanic this, and he told me that modern cars all can compensate for better gas, just not worse.Your car will run well on 100 octane fuel. In fact if you drive an old hoopty it might run better, as the higher octane will reduce pre ignition ping.
Can you show me someone who says planting more trees is a bad idea?The easiest way to reduce carbon is just plant more trees. It's funny that climate cultists dont advocate this and want to ban meat and fossil fuels instead.
It is not that anyone says it is a bad idea, only that it will not solve climate change.Can you show me someone who says planting more trees is a bad idea?
Each pound of biomass, requires about 3 lbs of CO2, and I think I get about 100 lbs of leaves each year off of my small oak tree,According to the Arbor Day Foundation, in one year a mature tree will absorb more than 48 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen in exchange.
That's all cool and stuff, but can you show us how many trees we would have to plant to stop climate change?It is not that anyone says it is a bad idea, only that it will not solve climate change.
Implying that a solution is actually needed.
Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change
I frankly think the carbon uptake amounts for trees is way too low.
The Power of One Tree - The Very Air We Breathe
Each pound of biomass, requires about 3 lbs of CO2, and I think I get about 100 lbs of leaves each year off of my small oak tree,
not to mention how much wood mass is added.
A pine tree can grow to telephone pole size in about 25 years, and could weigh as much as 2000 lbs (80 lbs per year) but
all the branches could add another 200 lbs.
I am not sure we have to plant them, nature spreads out forests where it can,That's all cool and stuff, but can you show us how many trees we would have to plant to stop climate change?
longview once again making up bullshit straw man argumentsIt is not at all, but many AGW proponents do not like the idea.
I suspect that they have been demonizing the oil companies for so long,
they are unable to come to terms that the oil companies could have the solution to a sustainable energy future.
So what is your reason to not use hydrocarbon energy storage as a path to energy sustainability?longview once again making up bullshit straw man arguments
He also doesn't know what straw man means.So what is your reason to not use hydrocarbon energy storage as a path to energy sustainability?
Not if Exxon is planning a massive carbon capturing plan.He also doesn't know what straw man means.
News flash: AGW proponents are the ones promoting carbon capture technology. Right wingers are opposing it.
Again, AGW proponents promote carbon capture. Any post you make on the premise that AGW proponents are 100% against carbon capture is a lie and is not going to get a response.Not if Exxon is planning a massive carbon capturing plan.
But again, do you have a viable alternative plan for future energy sustainability?
It is an important question, because fossil fuels will only become more expensive in the long term,
and without a viable replacement, perhaps 80% of our population will starve.
I am not saying anyone is against carbon capture, it is you who are making that up.Again, AGW proponents promote carbon capture. Any post you make on the premise that AGW proponents are 100% against carbon capture is a lie and is not going to get a response.
I've never once seen an AGW proponent say they are against carbon neutral energy. Are you basing all this on some rando you found on Twitter? Because I also don't care about that.I am not saying anyone is against carbon capture, it is you who are making that up.
What I am saying is that quite a few AGW proponents seem to be against the idea of making carbon neutral
hydrocarbon fuels with that captured CO2.
Then you are not looking very close!I've never once seen an AGW proponent say they are against carbon neutral energy.
Show me one of any significance. Note: Some rando on Twitter is going to get you laughed at.Then you are not looking very close!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?