SILENTSAM69
SILENTSAM69 t1_jaex3to wrote
Reply to comment by SquatchWithNoHeroes in Britain breaks 'green grid' record with latest 100 per cent clean power milestone by Wagamaga
Yeah very true. At least methane is less of a concern considering its cycle is so short lived compared to CO2 taking thousands of years to pull out of the system. I see some getting confused that methane traps more heat, but scientists are less concerned about it. The life cycle of the gas in the atmosphere being a big part of the problem.
SILENTSAM69 t1_jae9zba wrote
Reply to comment by judokid78 in Britain breaks 'green grid' record with latest 100 per cent clean power milestone by Wagamaga
I hate calling it green as it still causes general air pollution. Shipping it is a huge problem. Better to just use the other carbon free sources of energy like renewables, hydro, nuclear, or geothermal, than to burn biomass.
Technically no living organism is a sequestration. Maybe for a human time scale it is, but not the environmental time scale. We could be growing vegetation and treating it as nuclear waste. The best form of long storage being large heavy lawn dart style containers dropped into the north Pacific. Sadly people don't do that with nuclear waste because of public ignorance and the stigma against putting waste in the ocean.
SILENTSAM69 t1_jadt4w2 wrote
Reply to comment by antrky in Britain breaks 'green grid' record with latest 100 per cent clean power milestone by Wagamaga
Poor documentary really since they don't understand how this actually is far greener than burning fossil fuels. It plays into the ignorance of the population who think planting trees helps sequester CO2.
SILENTSAM69 t1_jadsz36 wrote
Reply to comment by ChrisRR in Britain breaks 'green grid' record with latest 100 per cent clean power milestone by Wagamaga
If by clean they only mean a climate change contributed they are not actually wrong.
Most people don't realise that while plants pull CO2 out of their air they do not remove it from the carbon cycle. Only if the plants were treated as nuclear waste, or even better buried in the ocean would that CO2 actually be removed from the carbon cycle.
The problem is that the CO2 released from fossil fuels is being added to the carbon cycle. It had been buried long ago.
SILENTSAM69 t1_jaf3g5w wrote
Reply to comment by frostbiyt in Britain breaks 'green grid' record with latest 100 per cent clean power milestone by Wagamaga
It takes it out of the atmosphere for the short term, but that is still part of the cycle. All organic compounds are part of the cycle. It isn't until it is trapped in rocks that it leaves the cycle.
Creating calcium carbonate is one way to remove it. Geological processes are not very fast though. It would be interesting if we could help speed up that process.
It isn't a popular way to fight climate change,but adding aerosols to the atmosphere would reduce climate change. The aerosols we inadvertantly release actually does reduce climate change now. The problem would be worse if not for it. Adding more internationally is a solution.
Some people say we should not geoengineer the planet. The problem is we already ate doing it unintentionally. It might help if we do it intentionally.