Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are we relying on nature to reduce man-made emissions?

  • 20-05-2019 9:47am
    #1
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭


    Anybody who has been to school has sat in a science class where a teacher plopped some chemical paraphernalia on a bench, and promptly made oxygen and water out of thin air (well out of hydrogen peroxide, anyway)

    There must be a very simple explanation as to why we are relying on trees to convert our carbon dioxide into oxygen, as opposed to our doing this on an industrial scale ourselves, using chemicals. Methane, similarly, doesn't seem like a very complicated compound -- why can't we catch it and break it down into less destructive compounds?

    I've done the obligatory google search on this, and all I could find is that someone else (unsurprisingly) has had the same thought

    http://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/

    So why aren't we doing it?


Comments

  • #2
    Sir Guy who smiles
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Sir Guy who smiles


    Some chemical reactions produce energy; for example, the burning of carbon containing compounds to produce CO2. In fact, this is the main source of man made atmospheric CO2.

    Some chemical reactions consume energy; for example, most reactions which remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

    To remove CO2 from the atmosphere they way you propose would consume a lot of energy-if energy was as readily available as that, we wouldn't need to release the CO2 in the first place.


  • #3
    pablohoney87
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭pablohoney87


    Much of that Idea would be similar to everyone opening their fridges to reduce global warming.

    The production and distribution of these chemical solutions is not carbon neutral. Without having the mass balance to hand I would say it would only be increasing the carbon in the atmosphere.


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »
    Some chemical reactions produce energy; for example, the burning of carbon containing compounds to produce CO2. In fact, this is the main source of man made atmospheric CO2.

    Some chemical reactions consume energy; for example, most reactions which remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

    To remove CO2 from the atmosphere they way you propose would consume a lot of energy-if energy was as readily available as that, we wouldn't need to release the CO2 in the first place.
    Nuclear? Solar? There must be several ways of powering machines which are capable of converting methane and other gases which don't have a detrimental greenhouse impact.

    Even if this were expensive, surely it can't be as expensive as putting the entire planet on a fairly lickety-split about-turn? Why is this not an interim measure?


  • #5
    Sir Guy who smiles
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Sir Guy who smiles


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Nuclear? Solar? There must be several ways of powering machines which are capable of converting methane and other gases which don't have a detrimental greenhouse impact.

    Even if this were expensive, surely it can't be as expensive as putting the entire planet on a fairly lickety-split about-turn? Why is this not an interim measure?

    If nuclear and solar ( or the means to harness them) were that plentiful we wouldn't need to burn fossil fuel at all.

    Every system has inefficiencies; the solar/nuclear power that might replace natural gas burning equivalent to 100 tonnes of CO2, when passed through all the wires and stuff (stop me if I'm being too technical) might only power the CO2 absorber to remove 98 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. Further carbon would have been released by the manufacture of these devices. It is much more efficient to use the nuclear/solar power to replace carbon-producing power.


  • #6
    Sir Guy who smiles
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Sir Guy who smiles


    Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »
    If nuclear and solar ( or the means to harness them) were that plentiful we wouldn't need to burn fossil fuel at all.

    Every system has inefficiencies; the solar/nuclear power that might replace natural gas burning equivalent to 100 tonnes of CO2, when passed through all the wires and stuff (stop me if I'm being too technical) might only power the CO2 absorber to remove 98 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. Further carbon would have been released by the manufacture of these devices. It is much more efficient to use the nuclear/solar power to replace carbon-producing power.

    If there is no political/business will to do that, there is even less to use power to reabsorb already released CO2.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement