There is an alternative to spending $51,197,926,640,000,000 to Get" Rid of Fossil Fuels” and still have ZERO CO2 emissions!

[healthmyths]

There has been an alternative to doing as Biden said: "I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM

and in doing the alternative not have to spend $51.1 quadrillion generating 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and (people keep forgetting...Trucks, as people like Biden think that will resolve the CO2 emissions.
Today the 11,070 power plants or an average of 376,244,806 kWh each for a total 4,165,030,000,000 kWh. Before EV conversions!
LET's support this alternative and keep from having to waste $51.1 quadrillion building an additional 68,038 power plants!

The alternative Direct Air Capture (DAC) systems will reduce or possibly rid the entire CO2 emissions!
CO2 emissions can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes.
DAC is a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.
Using high-powered fans, air is drawn into a processing facility where the CO₂ is separated through a series of chemical reactions.
Then the CO₂ is either permanently stored in underground reservoirs through secure geologic sequestration, or is used to make new products such as building materials and low-carbon fuels. DAC Technology | 1PointFive NOTE: "make new products such as building material. "
Those of you that like Biden want to rid fossil fuels...are evidently unaware that the tires you drive on depend on "fossil fuels"...

• what will replace the 300 million barrels of oil used in making 2 billion tires or
• the 1.4 BILLION barrels per year used to make asphalt which makes up 94% of our ALL our roads.

Products made from petroleum | Ranken Energy Corporation

The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive. Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA

Electricity is the biggest COST!!!
So the cost of cars/trucks EV conversion requiring an additional 68,038 nuclear power plants, will be definitely more expensive than converting CO2 to produce fuels!!!

Carbon Engineering (CE) has broken down the costs of a Direct air capture (DAC) systems
FACT:"In a new research paper based on three years of data from a pilot plant, the CE team shows how it could be done for between $94 and $232 per metric ton. At CE, we've been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below $100USD per ton." https://newatlas.com/direct-air-carbon-capture-cost effective/54964/#:~:text=Previous%20estimates%20have%20put%20the,and%20%24232%20per%20metric%20ton.

In The USA, the total CO2 emissions in 2020 was (6,600,000,000 tons).

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

www.epa.gov

The cost of converting the CO2 to DAC would be $660 billion!
Versus EV conversion of $51.1 quadrillion just for USA's EV required electricity useage of 25,598,963,320,000 kWh!

The cost to convert the world's CO2 at $100/ton of 37.12 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2021 will be $3.712 Trillion.

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2023 | Statista

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.

www.statista.com

FOLKS!!! Do you understand?
We can all keep our gas cars/trucks... we won't have to buy an EV unless we want too!
But more importantly... 129 million American households won't have to pay $1,653,679.80 per month for 20 years to generate the electricity for their EVs!
There is NO NEED to destroy our economy folks!

 

[kyzr]

Uh-huh. Just like fusion power, its always 20-years away from being practical.

What makes no sense is that if you look at the total volume of air surrounding earth, the CO2 removal system would be totally impractical.
You would never capture the 20,000 ft or so or air above the surface.

I call it a scam.

We would still need to generate electricity plus the cost to scrub the CO2.
China is building a new coal plant a week, it makes more sense scrubbing CO2 at the source.
India is the other mega CO2 generator, and there is no way to scrub their CO2 emitters.

 

[Donald H]

Ya'all don't understand. EV's can never replace all gas powered cars. Lifestyle changes are needed for at least 3/4's of the demand for transportation.

No government can be honest about that, on account of the people not being able to accept the facts on the necessity to get off of fossil fuels.

Most Americans still don't accept manmade climate change. It seems that a big part of their reasoning is that the god is in control and will never allow it.

Who's to say they aren't right about the god coming to the rescue of his planet?

 

[elektra]

CO2 is food for plants

We do not need any scheme to capture CO2

 

[Woodznutz]

There has been an alternative to doing as Biden said: "I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM

and in doing the alternative not have to spend $51.1 quadrillion generating 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and (people keep forgetting...Trucks, as people like Biden think that will resolve the CO2 emissions.
Today the 11,070 power plants or an average of 376,244,806 kWh each for a total 4,165,030,000,000 kWh. Before EV conversions!
LET's support this alternative and keep from having to waste $51.1 quadrillion building an additional 68,038 power plants!

The alternative Direct Air Capture (DAC) systems will reduce or possibly rid the entire CO2 emissions!
CO2 emissions can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes.
DAC is a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.
Using high-powered fans, air is drawn into a processing facility where the CO₂ is separated through a series of chemical reactions.
Then the CO₂ is either permanently stored in underground reservoirs through secure geologic sequestration, or is used to make new products such as building materials and low-carbon fuels. DAC Technology | 1PointFive NOTE: "make new products such as building material. "
Those of you that like Biden want to rid fossil fuels...are evidently unaware that the tires you drive on depend on "fossil fuels"...

• what will replace the 300 million barrels of oil used in making 2 billion tires or
• the 1.4 BILLION barrels per year used to make asphalt which makes up 94% of our ALL our roads.

Products made from petroleum | Ranken Energy Corporation

The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive. Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA

Electricity is the biggest COST!!!
So the cost of cars/trucks EV conversion requiring an additional 68,038 nuclear power plants, will be definitely more expensive than converting CO2 to produce fuels!!!

Carbon Engineering (CE) has broken down the costs of a Direct air capture (DAC) systems
FACT:"In a new research paper based on three years of data from a pilot plant, the CE team shows how it could be done for between $94 and $232 per metric ton. At CE, we've been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below $100USD per ton." https://newatlas.com/direct-air-carbon-capture-cost effective/54964/#:~:text=Previous%20estimates%20have%20put%20the,and%20%24232%20per%20metric%20ton.

In The USA, the total CO2 emissions in 2020 was (6,600,000,000 tons).

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

www.epa.gov

The cost of converting the CO2 to DAC would be $660 billion!
Versus EV conversion of $51.1 quadrillion just for USA's EV required electricity useage of 25,598,963,320,000 kWh!

The cost to convert the world's CO2 at $100/ton of 37.12 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2021 will be $3.712 Trillion.

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2023 | Statista

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.

www.statista.com

FOLKS!!! Do you understand?
We can all keep our gas cars/trucks... we won't have to buy an EV unless we want too!
But more importantly... 129 million American households won't have to pay $1,653,679.80 per month for 20 years to generate the electricity for their EVs!
There is NO NEED to destroy our economy folks!

Very true. There isn't, and will never be, enough 'clean energy' ever produced to build and maintain a 'clean energy' infrastructure. Only nuclear power plants can do that. Also, with exception of nuclear warships and bombs the military runs on petroleum.

 

[Woodznutz]

CO2 is food for plants

Plus, other needed nutrients all in balance. That's why there is no 'explosion' of plant growth due to the abundance of Co2 alone.

 

[elektra]

Plus, other needed nutrients all in balance. That's why there is no 'explosion' of plant growth due to the abundance of Co2 alone.

there has not been an explosion, of CO2

But, food production has increased, your opinion is based on fiction

 

[healthmyths]

Very true. There isn't, and will never be, enough 'clean energy' ever produced to build and maintain a 'clean energy' infrastructure. Only nuclear power plants can do that. Also, with exception of nuclear warships and bombs the military runs on petroleum.

BUT we won't need need the 68,038 power plants costing $51 quadrillion if we consume CO2 via the Direct Air Capture (DAC) system.
As the articles point out a lot of electricity is required to power the high-powered extraction fans for sure, BUT no where near the damages done by EVs both to the environment and to our economy! That is the point. Not whether we need 68,038 nuclear plants or a 1,000... we need to reduce CO2 emissions first!
Then if people want EVs there will be a more methodical and market driven action.

 

[healthmyths]

Uh-huh. Just like fusion power, its always 20-years away from being practical.

What makes no sense is that if you look at the total volume of air surrounding earth, the CO2 removal system would be totally impractical.
You would never capture the 20,000 ft or so or air above the surface.

I call it a scam.

We would still need to generate electricity plus the cost to scrub the CO2.
China is building a new coal plant a week, it makes more sense scrubbing CO2 at the source.
India is the other mega CO2 generator, and there is no way to scrub their CO2 emitters.

Everything you said I agree with. MY major point though is LET's at least pursue as VIGOROUSLY as the government is doing to convert to EVs to the DAC systems. Instead of as the government especially is doing is A) Get rid of fossil fuels.. B) concentrating on USE of electricity VERSUS providing electricity... I mean totally irrational to market EVs when stated federal goals is 50% Cars (and again TRUCKS are hardly mentioned YET they use nearly 4 times as much electricity for an EV truck) which is why my calculations of 80% of EV cars/trucks will REQUIRE:25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and trucks which is nearly 5 times what is produced in the USA today! That is the biggest problem! Folks... blackouts will be routine! You won't be able to re-charge your EV if your re-charger doesn't have electricity. Solar panels will work for single dweller users.
Wind Turbines generate about 6 million kWh in a year... divide 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% by 6,000,000 equals: 4,266,494 WTs at cost
in the $2-4 million dollar range. Operation and maintenance runs an additional $42,000-$48,000 per year
4,266,494 WTs at cost of $3,000,000 or total construction costs of: $ 12,799,481,660,000 and annual maintenance of $196,258,718,787.
My whole point is using DAC eliminates the need to use EVs mandatorily ! Let the market determine if they want EVs but with all the information.
I've put this emphasis on EVs up frequently and invariable there will be some one say "well people can charge at night"... The electricity comes from
generators folks!

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

There are, and have been, clean emission vehicles since the early - mid 90's that run on hydrogen (water) and natural gas.

And yet, THESE vehicles have been kept quiet, as they are CHEAP AND EASY to convert gas/diesel engines to running these two clean vehicle fuels.

But thats not what POLTICIANS WANT!!!
They want something they can use and abuse to scam the public into believing is the "next best thing" if they dump billions of OUR tax dollars into these "projects". When ALL they are doing is syphoning this money into THEIR private accounts and using it as bribes and payoffs to other countries for THEIR personal gains!!!!

 

[Independentthinker]

There has been an alternative to doing as Biden said: "I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM

and in doing the alternative not have to spend $51.1 quadrillion generating 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and (people keep forgetting...Trucks, as people like Biden think that will resolve the CO2 emissions.
Today the 11,070 power plants or an average of 376,244,806 kWh each for a total 4,165,030,000,000 kWh. Before EV conversions!
LET's support this alternative and keep from having to waste $51.1 quadrillion building an additional 68,038 power plants!

The alternative Direct Air Capture (DAC) systems will reduce or possibly rid the entire CO2 emissions!
CO2 emissions can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes.
DAC is a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.
Using high-powered fans, air is drawn into a processing facility where the CO₂ is separated through a series of chemical reactions.
Then the CO₂ is either permanently stored in underground reservoirs through secure geologic sequestration, or is used to make new products such as building materials and low-carbon fuels. DAC Technology | 1PointFive NOTE: "make new products such as building material. "
Those of you that like Biden want to rid fossil fuels...are evidently unaware that the tires you drive on depend on "fossil fuels"...

• what will replace the 300 million barrels of oil used in making 2 billion tires or
• the 1.4 BILLION barrels per year used to make asphalt which makes up 94% of our ALL our roads.

Products made from petroleum | Ranken Energy Corporation

The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive. Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA

Electricity is the biggest COST!!!
So the cost of cars/trucks EV conversion requiring an additional 68,038 nuclear power plants, will be definitely more expensive than converting CO2 to produce fuels!!!

Carbon Engineering (CE) has broken down the costs of a Direct air capture (DAC) systems
FACT:"In a new research paper based on three years of data from a pilot plant, the CE team shows how it could be done for between $94 and $232 per metric ton. At CE, we've been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below $100USD per ton." https://newatlas.com/direct-air-carbon-capture-cost effective/54964/#:~:text=Previous%20estimates%20have%20put%20the,and%20%24232%20per%20metric%20ton.

In The USA, the total CO2 emissions in 2020 was (6,600,000,000 tons).

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

www.epa.gov

The cost of converting the CO2 to DAC would be $660 billion!
Versus EV conversion of $51.1 quadrillion just for USA's EV required electricity useage of 25,598,963,320,000 kWh!

The cost to convert the world's CO2 at $100/ton of 37.12 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2021 will be $3.712 Trillion.

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2023 | Statista

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.

www.statista.com

FOLKS!!! Do you understand?
We can all keep our gas cars/trucks... we won't have to buy an EV unless we want too!
But more importantly... 129 million American households won't have to pay $1,653,679.80 per month for 20 years to generate the electricity for their EVs!
There is NO NEED to destroy our economy folks!

Assuming that man made Climate Change is real there is only one way and one way only to solve the problem. We need to get rid of people. No matter what we do or how many trillions we spend, if Climate change is due to people and the number of people continues to grow, the planet is screwed and will never be saved.

 

[Votto]

There has been an alternative to doing as Biden said: "I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM

and in doing the alternative not have to spend $51.1 quadrillion generating 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and (people keep forgetting...Trucks, as people like Biden think that will resolve the CO2 emissions.
Today the 11,070 power plants or an average of 376,244,806 kWh each for a total 4,165,030,000,000 kWh. Before EV conversions!
LET's support this alternative and keep from having to waste $51.1 quadrillion building an additional 68,038 power plants!

The alternative Direct Air Capture (DAC) systems will reduce or possibly rid the entire CO2 emissions!
CO2 emissions can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes.
DAC is a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.
Using high-powered fans, air is drawn into a processing facility where the CO₂ is separated through a series of chemical reactions.
Then the CO₂ is either permanently stored in underground reservoirs through secure geologic sequestration, or is used to make new products such as building materials and low-carbon fuels. DAC Technology | 1PointFive NOTE: "make new products such as building material. "
Those of you that like Biden want to rid fossil fuels...are evidently unaware that the tires you drive on depend on "fossil fuels"...

• what will replace the 300 million barrels of oil used in making 2 billion tires or
• the 1.4 BILLION barrels per year used to make asphalt which makes up 94% of our ALL our roads.

Products made from petroleum | Ranken Energy Corporation

The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive. Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA

Electricity is the biggest COST!!!
So the cost of cars/trucks EV conversion requiring an additional 68,038 nuclear power plants, will be definitely more expensive than converting CO2 to produce fuels!!!

Carbon Engineering (CE) has broken down the costs of a Direct air capture (DAC) systems
FACT:"In a new research paper based on three years of data from a pilot plant, the CE team shows how it could be done for between $94 and $232 per metric ton. At CE, we've been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below $100USD per ton." https://newatlas.com/direct-air-carbon-capture-cost effective/54964/#:~:text=Previous%20estimates%20have%20put%20the,and%20%24232%20per%20metric%20ton.

In The USA, the total CO2 emissions in 2020 was (6,600,000,000 tons).

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

www.epa.gov

The cost of converting the CO2 to DAC would be $660 billion!
Versus EV conversion of $51.1 quadrillion just for USA's EV required electricity useage of 25,598,963,320,000 kWh!

The cost to convert the world's CO2 at $100/ton of 37.12 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2021 will be $3.712 Trillion.

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2023 | Statista

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.

www.statista.com

FOLKS!!! Do you understand?
We can all keep our gas cars/trucks... we won't have to buy an EV unless we want too!
But more importantly... 129 million American households won't have to pay $1,653,679.80 per month for 20 years to generate the electricity for their EVs!
There is NO NEED to destroy our economy folks!

You assume the powers that be desire a solution to a problem rather than just exploiting a problem to be used to control you via their solutions to the said problem they provide you.

 

[kyzr]

Everything you said I agree with. MY major point though is LET's at least pursue as VIGOROUSLY as the government is doing to convert to EVs to the DAC systems. Instead of as the government especially is doing is A) Get rid of fossil fuels.. B) concentrating on USE of electricity VERSUS providing electricity... I mean totally irrational to market EVs when stated federal goals is 50% Cars (and again TRUCKS are hardly mentioned YET they use nearly 4 times as much electricity for an EV truck) which is why my calculations of 80% of EV cars/trucks will REQUIRE:25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and trucks which is nearly 5 times what is produced in the USA today! That is the biggest problem! Folks... blackouts will be routine! You won't be able to re-charge your EV if your re-charger doesn't have electricity. Solar panels will work for single dweller users.
Wind Turbines generate about 6 million kWh in a year... divide 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% by 6,000,000 equals: 4,266,494 WTs at cost
in the $2-4 million dollar range. Operation and maintenance runs an additional $42,000-$48,000 per year
4,266,494 WTs at cost of $3,000,000 or total construction costs of: $ 12,799,481,660,000 and annual maintenance of $196,258,718,787.
My whole point is using DAC eliminates the need to use EVs mandatorily ! Let the market determine if they want EVs but with all the information.
I've put this emphasis on EVs up frequently and invariable there will be some one say "well people can charge at night"... The electricity comes from
generators folks!

If you agree with what I said. DAC systems are totally impractical because they can't scrub air unless its near the surface.
EVs will only go as far as market prices let them.
No one will pay for DAC. People will ride bikes or live in company provided housing rather than pay for daily commutes if they become unaffordable.

 

[EMH]

There is an alternative.

Notice the truth that Co2 does nothing.

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2.


The Co2 fraud ("Global Warming") is the most pathetically obvious science fraud of all time. The only warming the "warmers" have is urban heat sink effect. Nothing else is warming. Earth data is as follows


NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO Breakout in Canes
NO Ocean Rise
NO Ongoing net ice melt


Ice dictates climate. Ice is on land near poles. Land moves. That is what causes climate change, not Co2, and not Sun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DAC is a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.
Using high-powered fans, air is drawn into a processing facility where the CO₂ is separated through a series of chemical reactions.

I can't think of a bigger waste of money and energy than DAC.

 

[healthmyths]

If you agree with what I said. DAC systems are totally impractical because they can't scrub air unless its near the surface.
EVs will only go as far as market prices let them.
No one will pay for DAC. People will ride bikes or live in company provided housing rather than pay for daily commutes if they become unaffordable.

Currently, the International Space Station uses an absorption method to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. The absorption is accomplished in a chemical reaction using a sorbent called lithium hydroxide (LiOH). This method relies on the exothermic reaction of lithium hydroxide with carbon dioxide to create lithium carbonate (Li2CO3)(s) and water (H2O). Lithium hydroxide is an attractive choice for space flight because of its high absorption capacity for carbon dioxide and the small amount of heat produced by the reaction.

Educator Guide: The Air Up There: Making Space Breathable | NASA/JPL Edu

In this lesson, students will use stoichiometry just like NASA scientists in order to equip space missions with breathable air for our astronauts.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

 

[Crick]

There has been an alternative to doing as Biden said: "I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM

and in doing the alternative not have to spend $51.1 quadrillion generating 25,598,963,320,000 kWh to power the 80% of all cars and (people keep forgetting...Trucks, as people like Biden think that will resolve the CO2 emissions.
Today the 11,070 power plants or an average of 376,244,806 kWh each for a total 4,165,030,000,000 kWh. Before EV conversions!
LET's support this alternative and keep from having to waste $51.1 quadrillion building an additional 68,038 power plants!

The alternative Direct Air Capture (DAC) systems will reduce or possibly rid the entire CO2 emissions!
CO2 emissions can be used to produce fuels and chemical intermediates through several conversion routes.
DAC is a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere.
Using high-powered fans, air is drawn into a processing facility where the CO₂ is separated through a series of chemical reactions.
Then the CO₂ is either permanently stored in underground reservoirs through secure geologic sequestration, or is used to make new products such as building materials and low-carbon fuels. DAC Technology | 1PointFive NOTE: "make new products such as building material. "
Those of you that like Biden want to rid fossil fuels...are evidently unaware that the tires you drive on depend on "fossil fuels"...

• what will replace the 300 million barrels of oil used in making 2 billion tires or
• the 1.4 BILLION barrels per year used to make asphalt which makes up 94% of our ALL our roads.

Products made from petroleum | Ranken Energy Corporation

The chief cost factor is typically electricity, accounting for between 40-70% of the production costs, and hence very low average grid electricity prices are required for CO2-derived methanol and methane to be competitive. Putting CO2 to Use – Analysis - IEA

Electricity is the biggest COST!!!
So the cost of cars/trucks EV conversion requiring an additional 68,038 nuclear power plants, will be definitely more expensive than converting CO2 to produce fuels!!!

Carbon Engineering (CE) has broken down the costs of a Direct air capture (DAC) systems
FACT:"In a new research paper based on three years of data from a pilot plant, the CE team shows how it could be done for between $94 and $232 per metric ton. At CE, we've been working on direct air capture since 2009, running our pilot plant since 2015, and we now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below $100USD per ton." https://newatlas.com/direct-air-carbon-capture-cost effective/54964/#:~:text=Previous%20estimates%20have%20put%20the,and%20%24232%20per%20metric%20ton.

In The USA, the total CO2 emissions in 2020 was (6,600,000,000 tons).

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

www.epa.gov

The cost of converting the CO2 to DAC would be $660 billion!
Versus EV conversion of $51.1 quadrillion just for USA's EV required electricity useage of 25,598,963,320,000 kWh!

The cost to convert the world's CO2 at $100/ton of 37.12 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2021 will be $3.712 Trillion.

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2023 | Statista

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 60 percent since 1990 and are now at their highest ever levels.

www.statista.com

FOLKS!!! Do you understand?
We can all keep our gas cars/trucks... we won't have to buy an EV unless we want too!
But more importantly... 129 million American households won't have to pay $1,653,679.80 per month for 20 years to generate the electricity for their EVs!
There is NO NEED to destroy our economy folks!

You want to spend $3.7 trillion/year, forever, so you can keep burning diesel?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Currently, the International Space Station uses an absorption method to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. The absorption is accomplished in a chemical reaction using a sorbent called lithium hydroxide (LiOH). This method relies on the exothermic reaction of lithium hydroxide with carbon dioxide to create lithium carbonate (Li2CO3)(s) and water (H2O). Lithium hydroxide is an attractive choice for space flight because of its high absorption capacity for carbon dioxide and the small amount of heat produced by the reaction.

Educator Guide: The Air Up There: Making Space Breathable | NASA/JPL Edu

In this lesson, students will use stoichiometry just like NASA scientists in order to equip space missions with breathable air for our astronauts.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

OMG!
If you want to absorb carbon dioxide, plant a tree.
All the other plans in this thread are an expensive waste of money and energy
and they'll lower our standard of living even more than the typical green idiocy.

 

[kyzr]

Currently, the International Space Station uses an absorption method to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. The absorption is accomplished in a chemical reaction using a sorbent called lithium hydroxide (LiOH). This method relies on the exothermic reaction of lithium hydroxide with carbon dioxide to create lithium carbonate (Li2CO3)(s) and water (H2O). Lithium hydroxide is an attractive choice for space flight because of its high absorption capacity for carbon dioxide and the small amount of heat produced by the reaction.

The space station is a small closed system.
Earth's atmosphere is not.

 

[healthmyths]

The space station is a small closed system.
Earth's atmosphere is not.

NO SHIT!!! The EARTH has trees growing on it too! Supposedly there is .04% of the atmosphere is CO2. The Direct Air Capture (DAC) would take of of lower and surface and mimicking the trees, with technology, CO2 extraction would be possible.