Can a Trillion Tons of Excess CO2 Be Removed from the Atmosphere/Oceans with Iron Dust? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15228077
Can a Trillion Tons of Excess CO2 Be Removed from the Atmosphere by CO2 removing from the oceans with fertilizing them with 1K tons of iron in the form of tiny dust particles?

He says there are 2 ways to remove CO2 from the oceans which will then pull more out of the air.
1] Scatter maybe 1K tons of iron dust particles all over the oceans. We would need just 2 747s to do it, he said.
2] Make synthetic limestone. He didn't have time to explain the details, but claimed only politics stopped this from being employed for the last 2 or 3 decades.

IMHO, I'm desperate enough to do this now and hope it works.


.
#15228175
Steve_American wrote:Can a Trillion Tons of Excess CO2 Be Removed from the Atmosphere by CO2 removing from the oceans with fertilizing them with 1K tons of iron in the form of tiny dust particles?

If the earth ever really got too warm -- which is highly unlikely, and certainly cannot happen as a result of using fossil fuels -- it would be a trivial matter to just hang a hopper of soluble iron salts off the back of every oil tanker to dribble into the ocean and turn it green. That would increase the earth's albedo, remove teratons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and fertilize all the marine fisheries. It's far too risky to do it now, as it could trigger an Ice Age.
IMHO, I'm desperate enough to do this now and hope it works.

"Desperate" to solve a non-problem? As Trump would say: Sad.
#15228232
Steve_American wrote:
[ b][ size=130]Can a Trillion Tons of Excess CO2 Be Removed from the Atmosphere by CO2 removing from the oceans with fertilizing them with 1K tons of iron in the form of tiny dust particles?[/size][/b]

He says there are 2 ways to remove CO2 from the oceans which will then pull more out of the air.
1] Scatter maybe 1K tons of iron dust particles all over the oceans. We would need just 2 747s to do it, he said.
2] Make synthetic limestone. He didn't have time to explain the details, but claimed only politics stopped this from being employed for the last 2 or 3 decades.

IMHO, I'm desperate enough to do this now and hope it works.

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=APADTH9E_Rw
.



I can donate two pots, and maybe a pan.


= D
#15228310
We're talking gigatonnes of carbon.

So, the short answer is no. The short correct answer is burn a lot less carbon.

The longer answer is that the process will add carbon, even if it's good at taking it away. But that's trivial, the cost would be insane.

You see, there are megatons in the atmosphere, that's larger than a gigaton... most don't know that, and it doesn't matter, they can't wrap their head around it if they did....
#15231057
late wrote:So, the short answer is no. The short correct answer is burn a lot less carbon.

Though it is not as short as "no," the correct answer is "yes."
The longer answer is that the process will add carbon, even if it's good at taking it away. But that's trivial, the cost would be insane.

It would not add carbon, and the cost would be derisory.
You see, there are megatons in the atmosphere, that's larger than a gigaton... most don't know that, and it doesn't matter, they can't wrap their head around it if they did....

There are 1000 megatonnes in a gigatonne.
#15231058
Truth To Power wrote:
Though it is not as short as "no," the correct answer is "yes."

It would not add carbon, and the cost would be derisory.

There are 1000 megatonnes in a gigatonne.



This has been tried before, without much success.

I wouldn't mind seeing another test, but I don't hold out much hope.
#15231141
late wrote:This has been tried before, without much success.

It was very successful. Almost too successful. And cost almost nothing. As implementing this project on a large scale would substantially increase the earth's albedo, cooling the planet, and potentially reducing rainfall by a lot, it should only be undertaken as an emergency measure -- and to date, there is indisputably no emergency. It is becoming more and more obvious that CO2 is simply not a significant driver of the earth's temperature.
#15231149
Steve_American wrote:Can a Trillion Tons of Excess CO2 Be Removed from the Atmosphere by CO2 removing from the oceans with fertilizing them with 1K tons of iron in the form of tiny dust particles?

He says there are 2 ways to remove CO2 from the oceans which will then pull more out of the air.
1] Scatter maybe 1K tons of iron dust particles all over the oceans. We would need just 2 747s to do it, he said.
2] Make synthetic limestone. He didn't have time to explain the details, but claimed only politics stopped this from being employed for the last 2 or 3 decades.

IMHO, I'm desperate enough to do this now and hope it works.


.


There are many technologies which can do it but overall it needs scale and it doesn't produce profit while being expensive. We can also make diamonds out of CO2 and so on. Long story short all of them don't look very economically viable solutions.
#15231153
JohnRawls wrote:There are many technologies which can do it but overall it needs scale and it doesn't produce profit while being expensive. We can also make diamonds out of CO2 and so on. Long story short all of them don't look very economically viable solutions.


I think you forgot that corps need (or will need) to off-set their oil burning.

Dumping iron ions into the ocean is cheap and can absorb more CO2 than planting trees on non-farm land. And we can't convert farms to forests if we want to feed 8 B people.
. . . For example, you could put a system into a cargo container and put on a ship that is crossing the ocean anyway. Then use a small hose to just slowly pump the water and iron ions into the sea as the ship moves. I've not done any calculation, but if you need a lot of such containers, they can be built. The cost of dumping their contents is very small.

Oh my God. Did you compare this plan to making CO2 into diamonds as a real comparison?

This plan has been tried and it did work, maybe too good. People ae just afraid of the unintended consequences. Why the fuck are people more afraid of acting than of not acting? If we don't act 90% of us will die by 2100 and maybe 101% of us in 200 years.
.
#15231174
Steve_American wrote:I think you forgot that corps need (or will need) to off-set their oil burning.

Dumping iron ions into the ocean is cheap and can absorb more CO2 than planting trees on non-farm land. And we can't convert farms to forests if we want to feed 8 B people.
. . . For example, you could put a system into a cargo container and put on a ship that is crossing the ocean anyway. Then use a small hose to just slowly pump the water and iron ions into the sea as the ship moves. I've not done any calculation, but if you need a lot of such containers, they can be built. The cost of dumping their contents is very small.

Oh my God. Did you compare this plan to making CO2 into diamonds as a real comparison?

This plan has been tried and it did work, maybe too good. People ae just afraid of the unintended consequences. Why the fuck are people more afraid of acting than of not acting? If we don't act 90% of us will die by 2100 and maybe 101% of us in 200 years.
.


Companies won't introduce technologies that are not cost/efficient or provide a profit. That is that.
#15231178
Steve_American wrote:Then why are some paying poor nations to plant trees?
It seems like some are off-setting their emissions.


And is it working? How is our CO2 levels doing?
#15231185
JohnRawls wrote:And is it working? How is our CO2 levels doing?


I didn't claim or say that that plan is working. It isn't. Planting trees is a dumb thing to do to off set massive emissions. We should do it, but not let Exxon keep emitting if they plant a few trees.

I said that such actions prove that you assertion that corps only do anything to make a profit is not true.
#15231187
Truth To Power wrote:
It was very successful.



I've been following the science since the 80s.

So this wholesale rewrite of reality is only about the millionth time I've seen that one pulled. 30 years ago, Koch had his guys going to old folks homes trying to get retired scientists to sign denier statements. They hire smarter people now, that's the only difference.

However, I would love to see that experiment tried again. Just so I can take this from 99% to 100%...
#15231245
late wrote:I've been following the science since the 80s.

70s here...
So this wholesale rewrite of reality is only about the millionth time I've seen that one pulled. 30 years ago, Koch had his guys going to old folks homes trying to get retired scientists to sign denier statements. They hire smarter people now, that's the only difference.

<yawn>
However, I would love to see that experiment tried again. Just so I can take this from 99% to 100%...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fert ... xperiments
#15231257
Truth To Power wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fert ... xperiments



Liebig's law of the minimum is a principle developed in agricultural science by Carl Sprengel (1840) and later popularized by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor).

Needs to be scaled up, and prob needs to run for a few years, assuming it works as well as printed on the tin.

The doubts remain..Big Oil is always selling excuses, this looks like one of them.
#15231266
late wrote:Liebig's law of the minimum is a principle developed in agricultural science by Carl Sprengel (1840) and later popularized by Justus von Liebig. It states that growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor).

It's not like no other limiting nutrient could be supplied. The appeal of iron is that it seems to be the limiting factor in a lot of places, only very small amounts are needed, and it is very cheap to supply.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Oh, boy - forceful ethnogenesis is painful. I've[…]

https://youtu.be/dCJMQgfHXNI A brief overview of t[…]

Abortion on wheels

What must be done, must be done.

If it is not about punishing the pregnant person […]