• 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!

Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here.

FreeWits

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
279
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here. Previously, the prediction was that scrubbing emissions from the atmosphere would cost $600/ton, but those predictions by climate change scientists were exaggerated once again. The fact is that we can currently scrub emissions for $250/ton, and by 2021, the cost will be around $100/ton. THERE IS ALREADY A WORKING PROTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

According to this article, the global GDP is between $75T and $110T. At $100/ton, apparently the cost would be between 3% and 5% of the global GDP to completely eliminate the problem of carbon emissions. So if we say 4% of a $100T global economy, the total cost is around $4T. $4T is a lot of money, but given the problem, it's very doable, and offsetting that cost are the investment opportunities. Carbon scrubbers can actually turn the carbon into fuel, so not only can this help produce profits, we can lower the cost of fuel as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...imate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/
 
Not to wander too far off your thread, but I've always wondered why they don't pull CO2 from the air to carbonate soft drinks. :<]
 
Not to wander too far off your thread, but I've always wondered why they don't pull CO2 from the air to carbonate soft drinks. :<]

From 2007:

The CO2 in carbonated drinks is the same CO2 that is spewed from tailpipes and power plants and causes global warming. In fact, the CO2 that makes the bubbles in your soda comes from those same power plants. Instead of being released into the atmosphere as a global-warming gas, the CO2 is captured from power plant exhaust, purified and sold to the nation's bottlers and soft drink fountain suppliers. When you pop the tab, however, the CO2 escapes into the atmosphere anyway...

Today, the CO2 captured for producing soda is only a very small percentage of the total CO2 from power plants, but the technology for large-scale carbon capture and storage looks to be just around the corner. Spurring action from industry and governments has proved difficult, however, because the long-term economic, social and environmental costs of CO2 pollution are not included in the price we pay for energy.

CO2: They Should Bottle That Stuff - The Environment - TIME
 
While it is premature to say the problem is solved, such advances in technology are certainly steps in the right direction.
 
While it is premature to say the problem is solved, such advances in technology are certainly steps in the right direction.

Not really. The technology has been tested for years, and scientists agree that the technology works. The CO2 can be scrubbed right now for about $250/ton. When I say the problem is solved, I'm speaking technologically. The only thing left is the commitment, which given the opportunity for investment to then resell the fuel, really doesn't seem like it should be much of a problem. Plants are currently being built, which is why they say by 2021 the costs should be down to $100/ton. What else needs to be discovered technologically?
 
Not really. The technology has been tested for years, and scientists agree that the technology works. The CO2 can be scrubbed right now for about $250/ton. When I say the problem is solved, I'm speaking technologically. The only thing left is the commitment, which given the opportunity for investment to then resell the fuel, really doesn't seem like it should be much of a problem. Plants are currently being built, which is why they say by 2021 the costs should be down to $100/ton. What else needs to be discovered technologically?

What to do with it.
 
Sounds like a new reason for taxation.
 
But the energy to do this still has to come from somewhere. The only way that you can achieve net zero carbon emissions is by converting as much CO2 to fuel as fuel burned to produce CO2. This would mean that all the world's energy (plus some more to cover conversion losses) would have to come from nuclear plus renewables, which isn't going to happen overnight.
 
Not really. The technology has been tested for years, and scientists agree that the technology works. The CO2 can be scrubbed right now for about $250/ton. When I say the problem is solved, I'm speaking technologically. The only thing left is the commitment, which given the opportunity for investment to then resell the fuel, really doesn't seem like it should be much of a problem. Plants are currently being built, which is why they say by 2021 the costs should be down to $100/ton. What else needs to be discovered technologically?

That is a fair distinction.
 
Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here. Previously, the prediction was that scrubbing emissions from the atmosphere would cost $600/ton, but those predictions by climate change scientists were exaggerated once again. The fact is that we can currently scrub emissions for $250/ton, and by 2021, the cost will be around $100/ton. THERE IS ALREADY A WORKING PROTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

According to this article, the global GDP is between $75T and $110T. At $100/ton, apparently the cost would be between 3% and 5% of the global GDP to completely eliminate the problem of carbon emissions. So if we say 4% of a $100T global economy, the total cost is around $4T. $4T is a lot of money, but given the problem, it's very doable, and offsetting that cost are the investment opportunities. Carbon scrubbers can actually turn the carbon into fuel, so not only can this help produce profits, we can lower the cost of fuel as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...imate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/

I know a cheaper alternative: Trees. And I hear there is a version of Trees that runs entirely on renewable energy! ;)
 
Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here. Previously, the prediction was that scrubbing emissions from the atmosphere would cost $600/ton, but those predictions by climate change scientists were exaggerated once again. The fact is that we can currently scrub emissions for $250/ton, and by 2021, the cost will be around $100/ton. THERE IS ALREADY A WORKING PROTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

According to this article, the global GDP is between $75T and $110T. At $100/ton, apparently the cost would be between 3% and 5% of the global GDP to completely eliminate the problem of carbon emissions. So if we say 4% of a $100T global economy, the total cost is around $4T. $4T is a lot of money, but given the problem, it's very doable, and offsetting that cost are the investment opportunities. Carbon scrubbers can actually turn the carbon into fuel, so not only can this help produce profits, we can lower the cost of fuel as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...imate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/

What problem specifically are you worried about that calls for so mouch money to be spent?
 
I know a cheaper alternative: Trees. And I hear there is a version of Trees that runs entirely on renewable energy! ;)

Trees won't turn Carbon into gasoline and jet fuel, though.
 
What problem specifically are you worried about that calls for so mouch money to be spent?

Money spent? Do you not see the incredible investment opportunity here to make money? These scrubbers can collect the CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn that CO2 into gasoline and jet fuel. The companies running these scrubbers can then sell that gasoline and jet fuel. This can longer the costs of fuel for people as well as well as improving national security through energy independence. We're literally talking about possibly being able to prevent wars here if we can produce enough fuel for the military that we no longer have to depend as heavily on protecting oil reserves. This is big stuff, so I'm surprised you are blinded to the great opportunities in front of us.
 
Carbon scrubbers...you mean...trees?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Trees won't turn Carbon into gasoline and jet fuel, though.

Well, technology already exists to convert wood pulp to oil, kerosene, gasoline, etc. The added bonus of Trees is that if you don't actually need the hydrocarbon fuel you are left with a tree.
 
Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here. Previously, the prediction was that scrubbing emissions from the atmosphere would cost $600/ton, but those predictions by climate change scientists were exaggerated once again. The fact is that we can currently scrub emissions for $250/ton, and by 2021, the cost will be around $100/ton. THERE IS ALREADY A WORKING PROTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

According to this article, the global GDP is between $75T and $110T. At $100/ton, apparently the cost would be between 3% and 5% of the global GDP to completely eliminate the problem of carbon emissions. So if we say 4% of a $100T global economy, the total cost is around $4T. $4T is a lot of money, but given the problem, it's very doable, and offsetting that cost are the investment opportunities. Carbon scrubbers can actually turn the carbon into fuel, so not only can this help produce profits, we can lower the cost of fuel as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...imate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/

$4T to solve an imaginary problem. No thanks.
 
But the energy to do this still has to come from somewhere. The only way that you can achieve net zero carbon emissions is by converting as much CO2 to fuel as fuel burned to produce CO2. This would mean that all the world's energy (plus some more to cover conversion losses) would have to come from nuclear plus renewables, which isn't going to happen overnight.

You don't need net zero carbon emissions necessarily. It would be a positive, but we could just turn it into the fuel and then take less fuel out of the ground. And, we can just keep re-scrubbing the atmosphere if need be.
 
I'd rather focus resources on real problems.

We aren't a resource-based economy. We are a profit-based economy. These scrubbers will create profit and reduce the costs of fuel. What are you, a Communist?
 
Global warming is solved, Carbon Scrubbers are here. Previously, the prediction was that scrubbing emissions from the atmosphere would cost $600/ton, but those predictions by climate change scientists were exaggerated once again. The fact is that we can currently scrub emissions for $250/ton, and by 2021, the cost will be around $100/ton. THERE IS ALREADY A WORKING PROTOTYPE AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

According to this article, the global GDP is between $75T and $110T. At $100/ton, apparently the cost would be between 3% and 5% of the global GDP to completely eliminate the problem of carbon emissions. So if we say 4% of a $100T global economy, the total cost is around $4T. $4T is a lot of money, but given the problem, it's very doable, and offsetting that cost are the investment opportunities. Carbon scrubbers can actually turn the carbon into fuel, so not only can this help produce profits, we can lower the cost of fuel as well.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...imate-change-suggests-major-new-study/562289/

Well, at $250 a ton, our annual emissions will cost in excess $2.5 trillion annually.
 
We aren't a resource-based economy. We are a profit-based economy. These scrubbers will create profit and reduce the costs of fuel. What are you, a Communist?

We will have to see what the scrubbers will do.
 
Money spent? Do you not see the incredible investment opportunity here to make money? These scrubbers can collect the CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn that CO2 into gasoline and jet fuel. The companies running these scrubbers can then sell that gasoline and jet fuel. This can longer the costs of fuel for people as well as well as improving national security through energy independence. We're literally talking about possibly being able to prevent wars here if we can produce enough fuel for the military that we no longer have to depend as heavily on protecting oil reserves. This is big stuff, so I'm surprised you are blinded to the great opportunities in front of us.

Where is all the energy coming from?

You seem to be assuming a perpetual motion engine somewhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom