This post to be periodically edited to better explain how to actually remove the excess CO2.
Everyone is currently still debating whether or not global warming is real. Below, pictured, is about 1% of the fossil fuels burned by humanity… if that.
This is about 1 cubic mile of oil
Instead, they seem to want carbon taxes and entertain seriously flawed ideas of geo-engineering which will not remove the excess CO2. I don’t want to go there. If you do, just search something like “geoengineering CO2”. Perhaps replace the “CO2” with climate change, or (say it with a little evile…) sulfuric acid? Another compound is just SO2, or sulphur dioxide, which is also part of what volcanoes spew into the air.
The skeptics are right about the warmists’ gullibility. And the warmists are right about the skeptics lack of willingness to understand that CO2 is a GHG and that the future is, indeed, threatened. Yes, the gullibility of us renewable energy advocates, that think we can really power the world with just a few more multiples of what’s already installed. What a lack of doing the energy math!
I’ve revised my estimates concerning how much heat we produce compared to the sun. Since the sun delivers about 164 watts per square meter as the average everywhere and all the time (on Earth) and since the sun delivers (almost as much as) all the energy we use in an entire year – every hour, then simple math tells us that we add about 1/8,000ths extra heat to what the sun gives us, and all that energy decays into heat. So, 164 W/m^2 divided by 8,000 is 0.02 W/m^2 extra. We, no matter how clean our energy is, use as much energy to be just about 1/75th what our GHGs already force! Maybe if we remove all of that excess CO2, we’ll be ok.
I figure that FUTUREWORLD will require about 5x the energy we use now, that they will add literally 1/10th of a watt per square meter, extra heat to the world. Now, how much extra heat is caused by infrared radiative forcing? I will trust the scientists and assume it’s what they say. That is about 1.5 or so W/m^2. Therefore, in my last post, I was “slightly” wrong by saying future energy demands are hundreds of times less heat than today’s excess CO2. Future energy demands are about only 15x less heat than today’s excess CO2. Even now, we emit about 75x less heat by all of our energy use, than by the infrared radiative forcing from our CO2 emissions.
Pause for a moment to reflect upon what that means. Our waste products force 75x the heat to the biosphere than our actual energy expenditure!
So, how do we get rid of the extra CO2? Use plants (yes, real green plants) that store carbon deep into the soil. That’s how. The warmists just need to learn about the liquid carbon pathway – which is like learning a better way to do agriculture! Yep, the entire solution to global warming is (almost) that simple!
I say “almost” because we still need to build lots of desalination plants, lots of piping and, of course, much, much more clean energy systems (such as solar, wind, storage and molten salt nuclear reactors).
There will, contrary to the skeptic claims of mitigation being an economic black hole, be MORE prosperity as a result of all the extra infrastructure being built. Global powerlines (not literally 24,000 miles long) and desalination plants should erase poverty, across divided state lines, too.
Here’s more links about how to naturally and safely remove the excess CO2.
https://qr.ae/TUhQzo (Scott Strough’s answer on Quora)
I seriously doubt that there isn’t enough land on Earth to remove a trillion tons of excess CO2. But to be sure, we can do some math. There’s about 197 million sq km of land on Earth. Farmers like to use hectares, so multiply by 100 for total hectares (1 hectare is 1/100th of a sq km). That’s 19.7 billion. We have to sequester about a trillion tons of excess CO2, which amounts to about 270 billion tons of carbon that will be converted from CO2 by photosynthesis and put back into the ground (divide CO2 by about 3.666 to get the carbon only). 270 billion tons of carbon divided by the ~20 billion hectares to put it in equals about 14 tons of carbon that needs to be put in every hectare on Earth, each being a square 328 feet on a side.
I know some say it’s impossible while others say it’s totally possible. A quick search reveals that:
Scientists say that more carbon resides in soil than in the atmosphere and all plant life combined; there are 2,500 billion tons of carbon in soil, compared with 800 billion tons in the atmosphere and 560 billion tons in plant and animal life.
So, we have to sequester slightly more than a tenth of what’s already in the soil, back into the soil.
I’d say “terraform the deserts”, too! That way, we can build lots of prosperity producing infrastructure, like that needed to build awesome 3d cities…
No, we DON’T want less energy!
Another idea is algae. It, unlike all the other plants, can be more easily grown in 3d.
Still another idea is to brute force it and suck it out of the air using nuclear energy, preferably the almost unlimited energy possible from molten salt reactors. Yep, Alvin Weinberg, one of the greats of the 20th century, deemed necessary to replace light water reactors (LWR) with molten salt fuel because it’s even safer than the engineered safety of reactors that rely upon pressurized water. He got fired for that in the pretense of yet another better reactor, (under the Nixon admin), the sodium cooled fast reactor. That was all just a farce by the oil tycoons, evidently, because that was canceled, too (by the Clinton admin)!
Nuclear aside, we’ll need literally hundreds of thousands of square miles of solar and hundreds of multiples of wind power, just to match the energy content of present day fossil fuels combustion. Yes, intermittent and diffuse sources require lots of land, to the tune of about the inverse of their capacity factors. Because we have to store close to that inverse (-1) just to make them the 24/7 reliable energy source we all need! To better explain how much solar and wind energy we need to not only power FUTUREWORLD but to remove excess CO2, consider that solar’s capacity factor (the rated wattage divided by the actual wattage given in a year which is about 22%) will require that a full on 100% of our energy supplies need to be supplied (in solar only scenario). That’s fully 4 or 5x initial installation plus extra for the inefficiency of storage. Thus if storage is 90% eff round trip (only the many variations of lithium batteries can do this good), we’ll need about 11.1% more solar, just to make up for the inefficiency of that storage. If the storage is pumped hydro, which is only about 75% efficient, then we’d need about 33% solar and if the storage is molten salt (which is like 99% eff, but requires that a steam generator lose most of that to make electricity) then we’d need 3x the solar, because only a third of that heat energy is converted into electricity!
Probably the best way to remove excess CO2 is to grow about a continent’s worth of biofuels. Pick the best plant that stores carbon in the soil and that is good for being burned for generation electricity. And then apply bio-CCS.
Of course, we’ll have to use lots of energy to build the infrastructure needed to water such large amounts of land. The best energy source is probably the Stable Salt Reactor