Global Climate Change Science News

[macdoc]

We need to expoit the "window to space" to dump excess heat.

Cooling glass' blasts building heat into space
New coating can be applied to exterior surfaces to reduce AC use, fight climate change

Date:
November 13, 2023
Source: University of Maryland

Researchers aiming to combat rising global temperatures have developed a new 'cooling glass' that can turn down the heat indoors without electricity by drawing on the cold depths of space. The new technology, a microporous glass coating, can lower the temperature of the material beneath it by 3.5 degrees Celsius at noon, and has the potential to reduce a mid-rise apartment building's yearly carbon emissions by 10 percent.

more
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 192100.htm

[Brian Peacock]

WTF are you on about. If you want to babble about conspiracies with Cunt do so other than in the Climate Science thread.

You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick, again. The fossil and finance sector has captured the COP process, and the fossil secotr is now looking to expand its markets, by foul means and fair, despite the scientific evidence. Much of Western media and politics is onboard. The scientific facts are inconvenient truths, but they have little power on their own to influence policy in the context of the prevailing economic and political factors. It's those conditions which empower the COP president and CEO of Adnoc to say there's no evidence showing reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global heating.

[Brian Peacock]

We need to expoit the "window to space" to dump excess heat.

Cooling glass' blasts building heat into space
New coating can be applied to exterior surfaces to reduce AC use, fight climate change

Date:
November 13, 2023
Source: University of Maryland

Researchers aiming to combat rising global temperatures have developed a new 'cooling glass' that can turn down the heat indoors without electricity by drawing on the cold depths of space. The new technology, a microporous glass coating, can lower the temperature of the material beneath it by 3.5 degrees Celsius at noon, and has the potential to reduce a mid-rise apartment building's yearly carbon emissions by 10 percent.

more
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 192100.htm

Why are you spamming this again?

[rainbow]

or not.....
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/01/re-ca ... tervention.
and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16510-3
and
https://sp.copernicus.org/preprints/sp- ... 2023-1.pdf

Facts and figures about CO2 and olivine
2-2.5 BILLION TON CO2 PER YEAR
CO2 is not only produced by human activity. Volcanoes and disintegrating rocks produce 2-2.5 billion tons per year. Olivine is one of the earth’s defence mechanisms. Without it our atmosphere would long ago have become like that on Venus.

100 MICRONS
Human beings produce 30 billion tons of CO2 each year. Nature can’t cope with that amount. Spreading out enough olivine with a size of about 100 microns can help.

1.25 TON CO2
One tonne of olivine can permanently remove 1.25 ton CO2 from the atmosphere. There is enough of it to remove the excess of this greenhouse gas: on or just under the earth’s surface there is a thousand times more than required.

Olivine is the most widely occurring mineral on earth and in many places there are vast massives lying on the earth’s surface. The Mars Explorers have also found it on that planet

ABUNDANT
In Europe olivine is abundant. It is mined in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Italy, Austria, Greece, Cyprus and the Balkans. Turkey also has olivine mines. Olivine is a the most abundant mineral in the Sultanate of Oman, conservative estimates indicate a volume of about 14,700 cubic km!

FEW YEARS
Weathering olivine binds CO2. Sceptics think that it takes 700 years. However, the process is greatly accelerated by the action of heat, movement and water. And also by certain plant growth. Tests have shown that weathering then only takes a few years, rather than centuries.

HARMLESS
Olivine is harmless. Even after reaction with CO2 there are no signs of harmful effects. Olivine on the shoreline is also not a health risk.

https://smartstones.nl/about-olivine/facts-and-figures/

Those papers confirm what I said.
Calcination of carbonates releases as much CO2, plus the energy required to do so - as these materials are able to remove from the atmosphere.

At best they concentrate CO2, but why not remove it at source where it is produced in the first place?
Why produce it in the second place?

The world is doomed if we think this way.

[Brian Peacock]

mac hopes that the right combination of novel future tech will retrospectively solve today's problems tomorrow.

[Brian Peacock]

WTF are you on about. If you want to babble about conspiracies with Cunt do so other than in the Climate Science thread.

N.B. I assumed that your post here was a response to the my post immediately above. I thought it was an attempt to present evidence for AGW, which isn't disputed, even though the current COP president and CEO of Adnoc had done just that.

[macdoc]

"ARE" solving AGW.....a million small Manhattan projects.
The solutions are already available ...the will to undertake them is lacking with a few exceptions.

And DON'T FUCKING ATTRIBUTE POSITIONS TO ME I DON'T HOLD...
.........

current COP president and CEO of Adnoc had done just that

Does he now??
....if so prove it or you are cut from the same cloth as Cunt.

Now keep your political shite out of the Climate Science thread
.....start your own if you want a bully pulpit to wail from

[Brian Peacock]

"ARE" solving AGW.....a million small Manhattan projects.
The solutions are already available ...the will to undertake them is lacking with a few exceptions.

And DON'T FUCKING ATTRIBUTE POSITIONS TO ME I DON'T HOLD...
.........

current COP president and CEO of Adnoc had done just that

Does he now??
....if so prove it or you are cut from the same cloth as Cunt.

Now keep your political shite out of the Climate Science thread
.....start your own if you want a bully pulpit to wail from

I really don't understand this. The president of COP28, who is the CEO of Adnoc, told an online meeting of delegates that there's no evidence that reducing CO2 will reduce global heating. I posted a link to the article, and linked to it again in my response. He also used his position as COP President to taut for business for Adnoc, has been caught processing all official COP emails through the Adnoc servers, and as the CEO of Adnoc is planning to ramp up production over the next decade. Do a google search for the Adnoc hack.

...the will to undertake them is lacking with a few exceptions.

This is the issue, and if it isn't a political stumbling block then I really don't know what is. "A few exceptions" don't count for anything in the face of rapid heating. I don't think the political dimension can be ignored - to do so is to bury one's head in the sand and not face up to the scale of the issue. That those who have contributed least to climate change are most affected by it is a political issue. That climate change disproportionately impacts the poor, women, and children is a political issue. That a lack of action today is going to cause more suffering in the future is a political issue.

First and foremost we have to transform the global energy economy in order to give us the breathing space to develop the science and experiment with all the little Manhattan projects. This can only be achieved through a process of rapid managed decline and replacement - and we can't rely on the sector itself to do that for us. As long as fossil dominates the global energy economy the CO2-ppm will continue to rise, as is has done by another record amount this year. If you want the world to remain inside its planetary boundaries, and see the possibility of a post-scarcity Star Trek future for you grandkids' grandkids, then seriously thinking about and addressing the political factors that are holding back and blocking progress on mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change has to be at the top of the list, no?

Don't we both want a widespread, active, dynamic political will to deal with global heating to be the norm rather than the exception? I mean, what's the alternative? Letting the markets decide? Crossing our fingers and hoping the fossil and financial sectors see the error of their ways in time?

[JimC]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/ ... /103189436

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have increased over the past year despite most of the world committing to net zero targets, according to new research.

The Global Carbon Project releases its carbon budget each year, with this year's figures showing a 1.1 per cent increase in emissions across the world.

The report found there was no sign of the rapid and deep decrease in total emissions needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Brian is right that serious political changes need to occur, starting with totally removing any representatives of the fossil fuel industry from any future climate change conferences.

But at the same time, we do need a variety of technological breakthroughs to start operating. But it will take real political action to give new technologies the resources they need to ramp up rapidly, and to remove any form of public money support from the fossil fuel industry.

[macdoc]

no and no
The FF industry will be part of the effort and are an interested party. Who do you think has the infrastructure to bury carbon? Every oil field ever drilled has the potential to sequester CO2.
https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storag ... gic%20time.

The technology is already available, more is being developed every day - democratic decision making is the major hurtle.....that's why China leads in decarboning...they at least can make decisions and execute instead of waffling.

[JimC]

You are too optimistic about the motivations of the fossil fuel lobby, mac. They have no interests apart from profit, and are desperate to hang on to the political power they have wielded for decades. Sequestering CO2 is a mere afterthought for them - they will not take any actions for the future of the planet unless forced to.

But you know that I have at least some optimism for improvements to the technology associated with renewable energy, and have some hope that market forces will help to accelerate the transition...

[macdoc]

Of course they intend to make money on it

What is carbon capture and storage (CCS)? It’s capturing CO2 that otherwise would be released into the atmosphere, and injecting it into geologic formations deep underground for safe, secure and permanent storage. It’s a readily available technology that can significantly reduce emissions from sectors like refining, chemicals, cement, steel and power generation.

ExxonMobil is a global leader in CCS – a position further enhanced by our acquisition of Denbury Inc.

Our carbon capture and storage network just got a lot bigger

With our acquisition of Denbury Inc., ExxonMobil has significantly expanded our carbon capture and storage (CCS) network in the U.S. – giving us even more options to economically reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for key U.S. industries. Our combined assets now include:

More than 1,500 miles of CO2 pipeline owned and operated – largest network in the U.S.
Access to more than 15 onshore sites for CO2 storage
The potential to reduce CO2 emissions by > 100 million metric tons a year

No other industry has the infrastructure and geological experience to sequester carbon on a giant scale....and they expect to be paid for it.

To capture CO2 in the US, climate tech startups partner with oil and gas Unlike some other companies developing CO2-sucking technologies, Climeworks has avoided working with oil and gas. That’s changing as the Swiss startup tries to enter the US market.

By Justine Calma, a science reporter covering the environment, climate, and energy with a decade of experience. She is also the host of the Hell or High Water podcast.
Apr 22, 2023, 4:54 AM GMT+10|2 Comments / 2 New

https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/21/2369 ... re-oil-gas

It has been made abundantly clear that mitigation through reduced emmissions is inadequate....sequestration is a must.

It is widely recognised that a broad portfolio of emissions reduction and carbon management solutions is required to reduce and remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the system to meet future emission targets. Some of these technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), are viewed as contentious. However, several decades of experience with geological storage projects across the world have shown that CO2 can be stored securely in the right setting with very low risk of leakage.

Nature-based solutions – such as reforestation and soil carbon farming – will contribute towards Australia’s emissions reduction efforts. But they are unable to deliver at the magnitude required to meet our targets. Excessive reliance on land-based carbon credits will inevitably lead to competition with other land use options. This could be at the expense of vital industries such as agriculture.

This is why the deployment of engineered solutions such as large-scale carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) continues to be important. All global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%), involve rapid and deep and in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emission reductions in all sectors, including transitioning to very low- or zero-carbon energy sources, such as renewables or fossil fuels with CCS.

The IEA World Energy Outlook 2022 notes that under a net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, global CCUS facilities will have to increase their capacity. This is from the current level of 45 megatons (Mt) of CO2 each year, to 1.2 gigatonnes (Gt) per year in 2030, and to 6.2 Gt per year in 2050.

The Final Results of the 2023 Net-Zero Australia study indicate all scenarios for Australia to reach net zero by 2050 will require the development of a large CCUS industry, capable of storing 80 to 1000 Mt of CO2 per year.

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articl ... 0sandstone.

[pErvinalia]

Carbon capture is like fusion energy. It's always just around the corner.

[JimC]

I don't totally dismiss it, but it will only be one avenue amongst many. The fossil fuel industry has every possible motivation to hype it up, and to infer that they are the only way it can be done...

[Brian Peacock]

What's the efficiency of carbon capture/storage and what's the plan for rolling it out at the scale and in the time frame necessary? Remember, we're supposed to be getting to net zero and we have 6 years of the carbon budget left.