12 Dec '11, 4pm

Financial, Energy Costs of Scrubbing CO2 Directly From Atmosphere Grossly Underestimated

Scott Smithson /CC BY-ND 2.0 Reducing CO2 emissions at the source, or better yet, not emitting them in the first place, is the better option. Some (again) damning commentary on the practical and financial efficacy of geoengineering via scrubbing CO2 directly from the atmosphere , rather than preventing them at the source: A study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere would cost 10-20 times as much as at the source. Researcher Jennifer Wilcox, of Stanford University, quoted in Mongabay : Direct air capture sounds great in theory. In reality though a lot of energy is required. Using fossil-based energy sources to capture and regenerate the carbon dioxide could readily result in more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere than is captured. For direct air capture to be feasible, carbon-free energy, such as solar or wind...

Full article: http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/financial-ener...

Tweets

A new study (via @mongabay) finds that people in the Ivory Coast benefit directly from forests:

A new study (via @mongabay) finds that people i...

news.mongabay.com 12 Dec '11, 7pm

Environmental campaign blocks palm oil project in Cote d' Ivoire wetland (04/25/2009) Environmentalists have thwarted plan...

Modern computerized air-traffic control could save CO2 equivalent of Denmark's economy! via @Michael_GR

Modern computerized air-traffic control could s...

treehugger.com 13 Dec '11, 7pm

Bringing Air-Traffic Control in the 21st Century If you are going somewhere in a vehicle that burns a lot of fossil fuels,...