At first glance, a promising and often cited method that will help reduce energy emissions and at the same time reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Go to the consequences? A disaster for everyone.
What are negative carbon crops? A person who grows or grows to be evaluated later in (vital) energy. Add the disputed carbon balance to them by taking care to capture and store the carbon produced during combustion / pyrolysis. Something like fire without koue. These technologies, abbreviated BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage), are often changing now as part of the climate crisis approach and repeated again and again in nvrzch IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). At first glance, it looks very promising.
Negativity is beautiful, not neutral
BECCS combines the natural ability of plants to capture atmospheric carbon and incorporate it into their biomass, as it is now known for neutral carbon fuels, and adds to this the controversial phase of release of carbon into the atmosphere during combustion. Since the process carbon is rebalanced and not returned to the atmosphere (it ends up storing, it gets stored underground), the mechanism appears to be, at least, paper, negative carbon. The problem is that, in the end, the fire is never smoky and only carefully designed reality answers. to?
Researchers from the Potsdam Center for Climate Research have criticized BECCS in a positive and innovative way. They decided not to rate it as if it didn’t work, but wondered what it would look like if it really was. For its effect to be truly noticeable in keeping the average global temperature below 1.5 ° C, it needs to be deployed on a truly colossal scale. And the first dog buried. Millions of hectares (6 million square kilometers) powered by bioenergy crops, which support energy, that would deposit millions of hectoliters of water. Which, it may not seem, is nowhere in abundance.
Bioenergy means drought and hunger
In practice, it appears that the widespread and widespread use of BECCS would put 4.58 billion people at risk by 2100 due to lack of drinking water. If BECCS were introduced today with the magic wand, it would be an honor for 2.28 billion people. So, wouldn’t you totally reject BECCS right away and try to fit it into a small space rather than in such a jumbo flour? Then only 300 million people will be honored for this acute water shortage. But at the same time, that would not be enough to keep the global average temperature rise below 3 ° C and it is not known for long.
Additionally, changing the entire process in energy (and agriculture) with the introduction of BECCS would cost massive investment, as well as costly support for the necessary carbon storage technologies. These are trillions of dollars, but they could miss the effect (when used proportionally) or they could cause global drought (when used optimally). Not to mention the disastrous effects of BECCS methods on Food security and biodiversity. Thus, this method is practically not applicable on the South American continent and in Africa. Bioenergy boxed, separate, and negative carbon provide a cure that results in the disease-afflicted planet Earth from the disease itself.
Researchers from the Darkness of Potsdam Fabiana Stanzela pipout that these results were a little restrictive. No. But their approach definitely deserves attention. Hundreds have emerged in recent years about how to keep the global average temperature rise below 1.5 ° C. How these promising climates are actually the best insights into its future implementation: to what extent its plan will be implemented, how widespread it will be to make its impact truly noticeable, and what that will mean for people and producers alike. BECCS, recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is certainly not a good idea, but a recipe for disaster.
Dle tte |
I gave the author links
Fashion Community (11)
Such research cannot be excluded. I see an intrinsic error shredding the entire system from here, thoroughly checking and scanning it. And based on their findings on the characteristics of this, the reason for how the global ecosystem behaves will be reversed.
According to the Spring of the Hour, I just conclude that this was the cuckoo for my grandmother and grandfather, he went to sack in the palace.
This is not how it went.
I do not understand. It’s an oven in which PR has grown.
Explain it, “research like this cannot be mocked”? Is it because the researchers did not research anything, just imagine what it would be like if the “climate change of planet carbon due to negative harvests” actually materializes? There’s nothing wrong with this oven, so it’s just not true, so it stands to reason that it didn’t really work.
On the other hand, it tells about clock fountains etc., for fun.
Do you really think that a global application of this growing plant just to capture carbon dioxide and store the resulting CO2 fusion in underground storage is a good idea? Know that when you combine substances that also contain vodka, the water forms a wild form, which does not condense on its own without refrigeration, and is more likely to be a glassy gas than the damned carbon dioxide gas that you “even” let out you eat.
Water does not bind us. There is a so-called pipeline, so there is no problem getting water from Grenisco.
J vm, it took too long on Paroubkov Mars.
The simplest one is the furnace to grow green plants (woody plants, field crops, or mosquitoes), it is simply charred (medium technology) and the carbon in the semi-liquid state is compressed back into the drilled oil wells.
With minimal costs, I can automatically and forcefully switch to normal.
Perhaps the discovery of semi-liquid carbon was the Nobel Prize. Have you ever applied for a patent for at least a semi-liquid carbon case, or are you fooling again?
I see. And what about “millions of hectares (6 million square kilometers) used for bioenergy crops, energy subsidies …” today? to? Other crops that consume water? In my opinion, the beast is built on water. Literally and break through. 🙂
Well, the whole “green policy” is very strange ..
1) Only carbon dioxide is emitted, but what kind of side of the equation is C + 02 ?? That is, on the one hand, we burn oxygen (its concentration in the air decreases) and on the other hand, carbon dioxide increases because it is empty. It is also necessary to completely disable all incinerators. Then be calm and mister.
2) As for planting a tree, it should not be irrigated except during Hajj, in the country in which trees grow, perhaps only in the early years. But how to enforce the growth city in this way (there will be enough oil, it is naturally replenished, if you do not know …), also for a national planting with timber – for afforestation.
3) The agreement is that wood is a “sustainable and zero-emissions source” and Europe is moving toward wood heating. Who allowed it, this is not normal, because for how long before all the forests in the world disappear, if you move from coal to defo ?? In 5-10 years ??? And then what? Vdyt lesy is one of the top O2 producers (and a consumer of CO2) on the planet..Just Grean Dead, nothing else.
Greetings, if you are not normal in the upper bodies of the European Union, etc., and stick to people, the world will not laugh for the better.
4) But on the contrary, it can be disclosed first. It is an exception that the European Union will disintegrate within 3-5 years and then return to normal. We eat at pelomov times, outside ..