Hoser John Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36494501 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homefire Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Some One will complain about it. It has nothing to do with Co2. It's about CONTROL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaver hillbille Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Nah, they've been injecting CO2 forever... Just let it escape and make more trees. SCientists always have to overthink it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn90403 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 When you have more CO2 then you have more for trees to process. When they do this then this can happen. Trees give off vapors that play a role in cloud formation. The “pristine” atmosphere our planet had before the industrial revolution may have been cloudier than expected, reports the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Physicists at CERN used a cloud chamber to see whether aerosols—particles that can become the seeds for new clouds—can form from vapors emitted by trees. Previously, scientists thought that sulfuric acid (abundant in our atmosphere thanks to burning fossil fuels) was necessary to form most of these cloud-seeding particles. In the cloud chamber, though, the particles successfully formed without sulfuric acid to help them along. And with help from galactic cosmic rays (which infiltrate our atmosphere from space), the tree vapors turned into cloud-seeding particles 10 times faster. Plant-based vapors and cosmic rays may be how nature produces aerosols (and thus, clouds) without pollution, wrote the scientists, who published the findings today in two papers in the journal Nature. The findings will help scientists better understand how humans have affected Earth's climate and cloud cover. http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/25/11748720/pine-tree-study-rain-climate-change-global-warming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisski Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I'll take the bait. This is the type of stuff that I question if aside from cost, if it truly reduces the carbon footprint. I would like to see the carbon footprint of the drilling site and maintenance station. I think limestone may grow quick by geological standards, but its still slower than watchin ice melt in the winter time. How much CO2 did this site experiment contain? 220 tons. How much is 220 tons....what is produced by the average sedan in 8 months. http://www.yousustain.com/footprint/howmuchco2?co2=220+tons So for my sedan, diesel pick up, and mini-van, I only need to construct 8 of those plants to cover the carbon footprint for my vehicles. Good news is, if I tear down my house, I can fit one of those stations on my property. If I did that, underneath the 2,000 feet of sand / valley fill I don't think its the type of rock they talked about, so I can stand relieved that I won't have to build that plant on my property. Maybe we could annex the entire country of Iceland and turn it into a CO2 recycling area. If that station in the picture in the link took care of 8 months of my Ford Focus's CO2 footprint, I would hate to see how much this would cost per ton of waste. I'm guessing a mere low end of $2000 per ton to a high of $20000 per ton based off drilling several hundred meters, moving equipment, and the three people pictured on site. So, at a measly $2 Million to $20 Million per year, I can stop my sleepless nights about my carbon footprint for my vehicles. All of a sudden, that Tesla Car isn't so pricey....... I can only hope US tax dollars were not used to fund this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.