To All,
The article linked to below answers a few of my questions from last year regarding the efficiency of Olivine as a geoengineered solution to carbon emissions.
As I said at the time the apparent benefits had hidden costs in terms of energy required to extract, transport, process and deliver to the ocean. The issue of global quantities required to absorb the carbon compared to what is globally available which I also asked to be clarified with no response has been only partially answered in this particular piece.
In this respect they do say that the amount required to facilitate the absorption of about 9% carbon dioxide is substantial (3 billion tonnes) and would require an industry equivalent to the current coal mining industry and therefore equally destructive to ecosystems. You cannot dig a hole without digging up some natural habitat be it a lush rainforest or a desert. Each has its role and function in the greater scheme of things. Neither is in plentiful supply.
When I challenged the idea last year no-one from the AMEG cartel, who were promoting geoengineering the planet, was willing to come forward with the necessary details to answer my legitimate questions.
It was only when I received an article from a friend in the US that some of those questions were answered. The article relates to some serious research into Olivine as a solution to carbon capture in the oceans. Despite previous claims it appears to be yet another dead end.
But what I also find interesting is the last two paragraphs references to two other solutions. They too are now being also deemed equally doubtful. One of them being cloud seeding.
Kev C
http://www.terradaily.com/m/reports/Climate_Rock_fix_for_oceans_is_badly_flawed_study_999.html
|