EV-based road transportation is not viable

[tautech]

Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?

Consider as we clean up the atmosphere of 150+ years of industrial revolution air pollution we also reduce the solar filtering it provided so with the additional radiation getting to the earths surface more GloBULL warming can take place.

Things are not as straightforward as they might seem.....

[coppice]

Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?

The increase in CO2 is making deserts shrink. Turns out more CO2 means the pores on leaves don't need to open so much, water loss is reduced, and more plants can do well in arid conditions.

[tom66]

CCS for power plants, in general, doesn't really work in the real world.  There's a reason most plants are doing pilot studies here or there but there are limited practical examples.  The energy usage of a hypothetical 99% CCS, that would capture all of the CO2 from a plant, would represent a significant proportion of the production output of that plant.  In any case, it hugely increases the cost of fossil fuel energy, to the point where it would be uncompetitive with renewables, so it could only ever form a small part of the grid.

So why did you throw amine techniques into the discussion? Drax is, apparently, due to get a pile of cash which they need to waste by putting it into some vague unworkable concept of CCS. So, there must be a principal they are pushing. Filling old mines is the only one that comes to mind for Yorkshire. On the other hand they ship in the wood they burn from the US, so maybe they want to send the CO2 back to the US to be pumped into underground US cavities. Its doesn't need to make any sense.

I didn't say I agreed with Drax's method at all?  Amine techniques are just the most common way to do CCS, but they don't capture the other nasties of combustion, like NOx and sulfur (not sure what combusting wood produces without researching it, but coal is pretty dirty... in most countries, coal power is the majority source of atmospheric NOx.)

Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?

No one sensible is suggesting we remove more CO2 than we add - just bring the atmosphere to around what it was in the 1970s or thereabouts.  Even steady state 2025 levels would probably be 'ok' with mitigations.

[tautech]

Starve the atmosphere of CO2 and plant life will suffer.
Then how will we have the wood pellet feedstock to fuel power plants or grow food for the masses ?

No one sensible is suggesting we remove more CO2 than we add - just bring the atmosphere to around what it was in the 1970s or thereabouts.  Even steady state 2025 levels would probably be 'ok' with mitigations.

Yet here 100 yrs ago the storms we are to expect from GloBULL warming were worse and more frequent than we have seen for decades and the CO2 levels were much lower then.
The climate science we have been fed just doesn't add up.