Message from @amlam

Discord ID: 593632548488478752


2019-06-27 02:33:51 UTC  

```Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.
Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, "the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day," Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain's University of Durham, said in an email. Patrick Allard of the Paris Institute for Global Physics (IPGP) gave what he described as a "top-range" estimate of 300,000 tonnes per day. Both insisted that these were only approximate estimates. Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development. A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005. Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount โ€“ less than a third of one percentage point โ€“ of global emissions of greenhouse gases.```

1 in 10000 definitely off, but within the last 10000 years would be equal probably

2019-06-27 02:34:28 UTC  

There is such thing as a supereruption, but like I said, we'd know if it happened

2019-06-27 02:35:27 UTC  

There was a supereruption 70,000 years ago that sent the world into a volcanic winter for several years and produced a subsequent thousand-year cooling period according to **SCIENCE**

2019-06-27 02:35:58 UTC  

Damn it Indonesia

2019-06-27 02:36:12 UTC  

Stop farting so violently

2019-06-27 02:36:34 UTC  

I'm pretty sure Lake Toba alone released more CO2 than humanity has

2019-06-27 02:38:54 UTC  

isn't there a company that is developing a carbon extraction that turns it into feul pellets?

2019-06-27 02:39:15 UTC  

Yes

2019-06-27 02:39:25 UTC  

They're experimenting with carbon capture here in BC

2019-06-27 02:39:27 UTC  

Something Microsoft or Bill Gates invested in in Canada

2019-06-27 02:39:51 UTC  

If it's scalable then they can work on maybe turning it back into fuel

2019-06-27 02:40:11 UTC  

problem solved, no cap and trade needed, alernative feul as bonus. Environmental crisis averted

2019-06-27 02:40:16 UTC  

I think it's a good idea but it's not a replacement or anything

2019-06-27 02:40:50 UTC  

Really we're going to have to move to a system other than one size fits all, as annoying as that may be

2019-06-27 02:41:22 UTC  

nuclear

2019-06-27 02:41:44 UTC  

Theyโ€™re doing carbon capture research in the states as well

2019-06-27 02:42:08 UTC  

Iโ€™ve seen a few postdocs for it lately while job searching

2019-06-27 02:43:08 UTC  

Yeah they're no where near going to be able to revert it, but density is pretty good on it, also it takes power to use it, but better than solar or lithium

2019-06-27 02:43:20 UTC  

Nuclear helps with electricity gen, but currently that's not a viable avenue for tankers or planes, unless you plan on making nuclear tankers and aircraft and talking people into hopping onboard

2019-06-27 02:43:37 UTC  

Electric planes ๐Ÿ˜Ž

2019-06-27 02:43:48 UTC  

Charged by nuke plants ๐Ÿ˜Ž

2019-06-27 02:44:12 UTC  

AFAIK we don't have batteries sufficient for large scale transport

2019-06-27 02:44:32 UTC  

They'll probably be oil fueled for some time

2019-06-27 02:44:38 UTC  

neighborhood nukes

2019-06-27 02:44:48 UTC  

And then there's the issue of plastics

2019-06-27 02:45:08 UTC  

100 years using waste from larger plants, eats it's own poop

2019-06-27 02:45:14 UTC  

Electric planes yuck

2019-06-27 02:45:45 UTC  

I don't really see how you'd make carbon capture viable in its own right. The energy to capture the CO2 and convert it to fuel is going to be more than the energy you get from the fuel

2019-06-27 02:46:27 UTC  

Have to be through chemical or biological processes

2019-06-27 02:46:35 UTC  

Comes with the other issues

2019-06-27 02:47:01 UTC  

The idea would be to use hydrogen in the conversion process iirc

2019-06-27 02:47:25 UTC  

Future direct-air capture plants will cost up to $400 per metric ton of captured carbon dioxide to operate, Gebald said, with carbon sequestration adding an additional $10-$20 to that cost per ton.

2019-06-27 02:48:19 UTC  

operational costs need to fall to about $100 per ton of captured carbon for the technology to be scalable.

2019-06-27 02:50:02 UTC  

Remember when it was $10000

2019-06-27 02:50:13 UTC  

carbon dioxide is removed and piped into nearby greenhouses, which will use 900 metric tons of captured carbon to grow crops each year.

2019-06-27 02:51:25 UTC  

this article was from 2017 so they might be closer now

2019-06-27 02:52:07 UTC  

Aircraft Carriers are already nuclear powered. It wouldn't be to much different to get tanker ships to run on nuclear. Nuclear planes won't happen

2019-06-27 02:52:37 UTC  

They had nuclear planes back in 45

2019-06-27 02:53:03 UTC  

really? didn't know that

2019-06-27 02:53:18 UTC  

Japan knows it

2019-06-27 02:53:22 UTC  

๐Ÿ”ฅ