• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CO2 Capture

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
66,514
Reaction score
22,170
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm not in favor of a carbon tax, but if we were to ever implement one, I would like to see it used to pay providers of carbon capture. I think the best way to do this with current technology, would be to pay wind and solar farms to channel any excess power into such systems, that they cant sell at market value. Say for example a solar farm gets $0.05 per kWh when they sell it, and they get nothing for excess power not needed. Why not pay them from the carbon tax, $0.01 for every kWh used to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere?

I came across this article from Nature Geoscience that intrigued me:

Energy for air capture


However, the ultimate physical constraint on air capture is the energy required to power the systems. At present it takes 30–60 GJ to chemically remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere
​

Such energy requirements simply are not feasible unless it is derived from energy that would otherwise be wasted.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not in favor of a carbon tax, but if we were to ever implement one, I would like to see it used to pay providers of carbon capture. I think the best way to do this with current technology, would be to pay wind and solar farms to channel any excess power into such systems, that they cant sell at market value. Say for example a solar farm gets $0.05 per kWh when they sell it, and they get nothing for excess power not needed. Why not pay them from the carbon tax, $0.01 for every kWh used to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere?

I came across this article from Nature Geoscience that intrigued me:

Energy for air capture


However, the ultimate physical constraint on air capture is the energy required to power the systems. At present it takes 30–60 GJ to chemically remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere
​

Such energy requirements simply are not feasible unless it is derived from energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Click to expand...

That's quite right, i should think.the cheapest capture would probably be trees, where the wood is cut and stored, till there is better technology.
 
Or

for carbon capture, land is set (purchased with the funds from carbon tax) aside for the growth of a fast growing wood product, where the wood is harvested, and used only for long term uses like retaining walls or for beach protection.

Carbon capture in other ways is very energy intensive, and produces other waste products
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Or

for carbon capture, land is set (purchased with the funds from carbon tax) aside for the growth of a fast growing wood product, where the wood is harvested, and used only for long term uses like retaining walls or for beach protection.

Carbon capture in other ways is very energy intensive, and produces other waste products
Click to expand...

Don't need to pay for wood being used for such purposes. Just remove harsh logging restrictions and require replanting for such a pupose.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Don't need to pay for wood being used for such purposes. Just remove harsh logging restrictions and require replanting for such a pupose.
Click to expand...

Cutting down old growth forests or those that have a high level of diversity of plants and animals should not be done, but creating tree farms using marginal land currently used for corn production (as an example) could be used for the planting of trees for this purpose.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Cutting down old growth forests or those that have a high level of diversity of plants and animals should not be done, but creating tree farms using marginal land currently used for corn production (as an example) could be used for the planting of trees for this purpose.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of places in my state that can be used as tree farms, and the loggers would make revenue from the sales. No CO2 tax needed to entice such things. Just let them make a fair profit.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not in favor of a carbon tax, but if we were to ever implement one, I would like to see it used to pay providers of carbon capture. I think the best way to do this with current technology, would be to pay wind and solar farms to channel any excess power into such systems, that they cant sell at market value. Say for example a solar farm gets $0.05 per kWh when they sell it, and they get nothing for excess power not needed. Why not pay them from the carbon tax, $0.01 for every kWh used to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere?

I came across this article from Nature Geoscience that intrigued me:

Energy for air capture


However, the ultimate physical constraint on air capture is the energy required to power the systems. At present it takes 30–60 GJ to chemically remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere
​

Such energy requirements simply are not feasible unless it is derived from energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Click to expand...

I don't know the details but i suspect that the maths would be something like;

Wind farm of 20MW capacity, drawing subsidy for 20MW, generates on an occaisional fluke, 15MW. 5 are wanted by the grid as this is the same moment that all the wind farms are having their good day for the year.

The 10MW availible for use as the power for carbon capture for tha tone day a year are then fed into the carbon capture plant which was built at massive cost to the taxpayer ($500M?) to find that although it has a rating of 20MW and a life span of 20 years it's not working because the sudden shock of doing something is too much for it and the staff so they just keep quiet about it again.

Don't give them ideas.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not in favor of a carbon tax, but if we were to ever implement one, I would like to see it used to pay providers of carbon capture. I think the best way to do this with current technology, would be to pay wind and solar farms to channel any excess power into such systems, that they cant sell at market value. Say for example a solar farm gets $0.05 per kWh when they sell it, and they get nothing for excess power not needed. Why not pay them from the carbon tax, $0.01 for every kWh used to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere?

I came across this article from Nature Geoscience that intrigued me:

Energy for air capture


However, the ultimate physical constraint on air capture is the energy required to power the systems. At present it takes 30–60 GJ to chemically remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere
​

Such energy requirements simply are not feasible unless it is derived from energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Click to expand...

Capturing the CO2 is the easy part. Storing it for centuries without leakage? Never been done, never been demonstrated, success doubtful.
 
Paper that is filed away, trees used for long term lumber projects like homes,
are all type of carbon capture.
People have to remember that the 3 lbs of CO2 emitted when a lb of fuel is burned,
is also the same amount of CO2 consumed when a lb of biomass is created.
 
Poor Debater said:
Capturing the CO2 is the easy part. Storing it for centuries without leakage? Never been done, never been demonstrated, success doubtful.
Click to expand...
When they speak of "chemically removing" carbon from the atmosphere, it is different than pressurizing it. They are making something else from the CO2. They are making hydrocarbon chains, or carbon, or something else.

If you read the paper I linked, you might know that.
 
Lord of Planar said:
When they speak of "chemically removing" carbon from the atmosphere, it is different than pressurizing it. They are making something else from the CO2. They are making hydrocarbon chains, or carbon, or something else.

If you read the paper I linked, you might know that.
Click to expand...

Good god the way some go on here you'd think this was plutonium waste and not a highly beneficial gas. Demonizing something that is a part of our own breathing cycle is utter madness.

It used to be a standing joke that one day they would find a way to tax the very air we breath. I'm certainly not laughing now :shocK:
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not in favor of a carbon tax, but if we were to ever implement one, I would like to see it used to pay providers of carbon capture. I think the best way to do this with current technology, would be to pay wind and solar farms to channel any excess power into such systems, that they cant sell at market value. Say for example a solar farm gets $0.05 per kWh when they sell it, and they get nothing for excess power not needed. Why not pay them from the carbon tax, $0.01 for every kWh used to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere?

I came across this article from Nature Geoscience that intrigued me:

Energy for air capture


However, the ultimate physical constraint on air capture is the energy required to power the systems. At present it takes 30–60 GJ to chemically remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere
​

Such energy requirements simply are not feasible unless it is derived from energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Click to expand...

Oooor you can plant some trees
 
flogger said:
Good god the way some go on here you'd think this was plutonium waste and not a highly beneficial gas. Demonizing something that is a part of our own breathing cycle is utter madness.

It used to be a standing joke that one day they would find a way to tax the very air we breath. I'm certainly not laughing now :shocK:
Click to expand...

Yep, the joke was not clever enough. They are not taxing the air we breath in.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom