That's the most likely scenario for carbon abatement.
Still, it doesn't hurt to dream a little either. The ultimate process
CO2 + sunlight => carbon nanotubes + O2
Then use the nanotubes for structural and construction materials,
aircraft, motor vehicles, roads, 8 mile high skyscrapers . . . .
If you can get a useful product then you can always claim you aren't
"geo engineering." You are merely creating and selling a product.
Geo engineering has an even worse stigma than burning fossil fuels.
Certainly not! Intent is everything here same as in the law. The
intent of burning fossil fuels is to generate heat, not CO2.
That's why it is so important to call the carbon based byproduct a
"product" rather than a "byproduct." The term "byproduct" implies
that you are really producing or doing something else which is more
important. In this case that "more important" goal could be
politically incorrect "geoengineering." But everything will be A-OK
from a PR POV if you are merely creating and selling a useful
"product" and ignoring the consumption of giga tons of CO2.
In that case you are about as much a geoengineer as any farmer.
Or are you one of those who thinks agriculture doesn't alter the
Depends on your definitions of "cause" and "symptoms.".
If you define the cause as being "the existence of humans" then, my
answer is "yes." Killing off 5 billion humans just isn't a political
winner, especially if I'm going to be one of those you want to kill
On the other hand if you define the cause as "too much CO2 in the
atmosphere" then we're not addressing the symptoms with such a CO2 + X
+ light => CX + O2 process..
We're addressing the causes.
Warmer conditions are caused by having too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Human created PV is an order of magnitude more efficient than any
plant at converting light to low entropy energy. A human created sea
water irrigated plant might have similar numbers: And you don't have
to manufacture it either. Just do what Monsanto does with all their
GM seeds. Make it so the farmer must go back to Monsanto for more
seeds every year.
This would make trials/testing safe and if the impact is too damaging
to marine life they can try something else.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.