Another air capture perspective: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/33/13156.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes
"Air capture research is still in its infancy and the practicality of large-scale deployment needs to be further explored. The inability to produce accurate cost estimates for a nascent technology, however, should not be considered a reason for withholding support. Indeed, air capture is clearly feasible, and there are several lines of argument that suggest that its cost could well come down to a level that would make air capture economically interesting. Air capture would provide a different approach to reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There is abundant R&D to be undertaken with regard to the various possible materials, components, and workings of air capture technology. Given the enormity of the global climate challenge, we think this R&D needs to be scaled up urgently." As I've said before while manmade air capture may be at it's infancy, natural biogeochemical air capture continues to remove 55% of our CO2 emissions from the air* and is what is saving the planet right now. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in learning how to cost effectively and safely increase/modify/enhance this existing, proven, "free" air capture technology before trying to very expensively reinvent it from the ground up? And what is the motivation for concentrating molecular CO2 from air when nature and thermodynamics tells us this is the last thing you want to do? *http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
