Patrick
@patrick-pizza.bsky.social
Adding to what others said, only 1/3 of our cumulative emissions are from land-use changes while 2/3, and rising!, are from fossils.
Remediating that amount of material will need some sort of industrial processes, otherwise we’ll be stacking logs like it’s the Carboniferous Period.
Remediating that amount of material will need some sort of industrial processes, otherwise we’ll be stacking logs like it’s the Carboniferous Period.
May 19, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Adding to what others said, only 1/3 of our cumulative emissions are from land-use changes while 2/3, and rising!, are from fossils.
Remediating that amount of material will need some sort of industrial processes, otherwise we’ll be stacking logs like it’s the Carboniferous Period.
Remediating that amount of material will need some sort of industrial processes, otherwise we’ll be stacking logs like it’s the Carboniferous Period.
The potential from ecosystem restoration is around 2.1 Gt CO2/year for <100 $/ton CO2, Table 7.3 in section 7.4.1.
If DAC hits its goal of 100 $/t around 2050 and we compare with restoration's co-benefits, their breakeven could be around 3-4 Gt/year.
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...
If DAC hits its goal of 100 $/t around 2050 and we compare with restoration's co-benefits, their breakeven could be around 3-4 Gt/year.
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...
Chapter 7: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)
.
www.ipcc.ch
May 19, 2025 at 8:48 PM
The potential from ecosystem restoration is around 2.1 Gt CO2/year for <100 $/ton CO2, Table 7.3 in section 7.4.1.
If DAC hits its goal of 100 $/t around 2050 and we compare with restoration's co-benefits, their breakeven could be around 3-4 Gt/year.
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...
If DAC hits its goal of 100 $/t around 2050 and we compare with restoration's co-benefits, their breakeven could be around 3-4 Gt/year.
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...
Tangential, but what was the inside baseball on IWG not finalizing new estimates after the 5th Circuit dismissed the lawsuit two years ago?
Were they worried about further challenges, or was it so EPA could issue estimates in a final rule instead of relying IWG's EO based authority?
Were they worried about further challenges, or was it so EPA could issue estimates in a final rule instead of relying IWG's EO based authority?
January 22, 2025 at 5:44 PM
Tangential, but what was the inside baseball on IWG not finalizing new estimates after the 5th Circuit dismissed the lawsuit two years ago?
Were they worried about further challenges, or was it so EPA could issue estimates in a final rule instead of relying IWG's EO based authority?
Were they worried about further challenges, or was it so EPA could issue estimates in a final rule instead of relying IWG's EO based authority?
The polymer macromolecules in common plastics don't generally assemble into complexes with long-range order as frameworks. Also when the strands clump to form plastics, it's by intermolecular interactions rather than fully crosslinking with covalent bonds.
November 30, 2024 at 3:10 PM
The polymer macromolecules in common plastics don't generally assemble into complexes with long-range order as frameworks. Also when the strands clump to form plastics, it's by intermolecular interactions rather than fully crosslinking with covalent bonds.
IGCC looks unworkable even for BECCS, but this isn't accurate.
Their goal never was sequestration but making money with EOR to claim clean coal's economics. During the brief period gasification actually worked, they hit their target of a 65% pre-combustion capture rate and delivered 100 kt CO2.
Their goal never was sequestration but making money with EOR to claim clean coal's economics. During the brief period gasification actually worked, they hit their target of a 65% pre-combustion capture rate and delivered 100 kt CO2.
November 20, 2024 at 7:57 PM
IGCC looks unworkable even for BECCS, but this isn't accurate.
Their goal never was sequestration but making money with EOR to claim clean coal's economics. During the brief period gasification actually worked, they hit their target of a 65% pre-combustion capture rate and delivered 100 kt CO2.
Their goal never was sequestration but making money with EOR to claim clean coal's economics. During the brief period gasification actually worked, they hit their target of a 65% pre-combustion capture rate and delivered 100 kt CO2.