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 RD 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 RD 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
