Combine the syngas tech with Pyrolysis tech. Use the oldschool tech of turning bio-waste into charcoal for soil sequestration. Then you can also capture and use the volatile gas and/or liquid components that are also produced as a feedstock for syngas and chemical conversion into valuable fuels. I imagine a fleet of mobile and semi-stationary pyrolysis plants cycling through many of our largest biowaste producers, including agriculture and forestry sectors, then dumping the charcoal to be worked into the land, whereas the liquid pyrolysis oil volatiles are shipped back for further processing into various fuel or chemical products.
The "dirty" secret with natural gas, is that small chain hydrocarbons substitute CO2 production, with H2O (water vapor). The bad thing about this, is that water vapor is a worse GHG than CO2 is. Scientists like to say that water comes out of the air faster than CO2, but this has to change, as fossil fuel use, and especially hydrogen burning, puts more H2O into the atmosphere into the air, just like they did when they started fixating on carbon. My concern is that we have gotten so concerned about CO2 in the air causing temperatures to rise (history shows that the link goes the other way), that no one wants to find out why the historical record shows CO2 going up and down. That's not science, that's hysteria. If you're more interested in making your rivals suffer, than learning the truth, then maybe science isn't your bag, Baby.
The amount of water in the air has nothing to do with how much extra water exist on this planet. Share of water in the air depends on one thing, given adequate minimum local water supply, temperature, as taught in 7th grade science.
@@Nill757 ... you do realize that water _vapor_ has higher molecular energy levels, due to its creation as part of an energy-releasing reaction, yes? This extra energy contributes to it staying in the air longer... and intercepting more heat.
@@blackmephistopheles2273 So? Yes water vapor is the primary GHG, warming up the planet about 33C deg over what it would be if it just a rock in space w no atmosphere. The amount of water vapor is constant for a given temperature. The amount of CO2 is doubling.
Carbon capture projects miss the problem entirely, and why that occurs baffles me. There is no infrastructure or tech for burying the current 30B tons per year of carbon back in the ground. These hand waiving notes at the end of these discussions about, oh yeah about that captured CO2, the 1000x too small for the problem injection in oil wells, only to produce *more* carbon via oil, reflects the unserious mindset of global carbon abatement.
Surprised this video isn't getting a huge audience. It's the moral argument for natural gas development that people keep making, but explained clearly :p
Interesting, very interesting indeed. I used to see it more of like a useless solution, but it seems we need it to buy us time, and we will probably need it to reverse some eefects later.
7:18 I don't agree with this statement. In absolute terms china is 1st and india is 4th largest co2 emitter. China is technically the largest but usa is 2nd and russia is 3rd largest. Now if you compare in per capita terms things would look very different. I am not saying your intent was bad or anything but statements like this encourage some people in west to put the entire climate change blame on india and china. Thus leading to stupid online racism. Again not saying you're a racist.
I appreciate that because that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying Chinese or Indian people were bad. I was citing a DOE study illustrating these are high polluting countries, and by simply switching from coal to gas you could reduce global emissions by over 40%. That's just two countries. Imagine if everyone did that.
It kinda reminds of some try to make a perpetual motion machine, by connecting a motor and generator together. It's a shame that they can't use the carbon to make diamond for structures and building materials.
