Thanks for this. I heard about Heirloom on NPR's How I Built This on March 9 and thought it sounded like total nonsense. Use limestone to make limestone. I even sat down and sketched out my version of your lime cycle resembling a perpetual motion machine.
Carbon capture is a ridiculous concept. The expenditure far outweighs any benefit, when you look at all of the components, which they never do. Their simplified calculations are the scam.
It is likely better to inject the emitted carbon dioxide into a fracked basalt formation and have it combine with metals in the basalt, like they do in Iceland, than to do anything with limestone. That does not make sense. It makes even more sense to ride an electric bike for commuting. I have done 16000 miles over the last 5 years (25,744kms) saving 363.6 gallons (1376.4 liters) which emits 3240 kg CO2 or 3.2 tons of carbon dioxide, or 834kg of Carbon. The electricity is from solar panels on my roof. It only takes 4 square feet of panels (0.37m2) to keep it charged. The material cost for the power is relatively low. There is an embodied energy cost for the bike and panels, but that is less than a 1/40th of a Tesla Model 3 and 1/100th of the embodied energy in a Ford Lightning pick-up. These numbers speak for themselves. The hardest part is convincing others to follow this example and ride a bike. Safety is the biggest concern stated publicly anyway, though I think there is a high aversion to exercise. I commute 8 miles one way on hilly terrain and am 69 year old, the excuses run a bit thin with folks less than a third of my age. So Lloyd, how do you convince others to commute on a bike?
But does it make sense to pursue this as one of multiple ways to address climate change on the principle that there is no one single solution to any aspect of the problem?
Thanks for this. I heard about Heirloom on NPR's How I Built This on March 9 and thought it sounded like total nonsense. Use limestone to make limestone. I even sat down and sketched out my version of your lime cycle resembling a perpetual motion machine.
Carbon capture is a ridiculous concept. The expenditure far outweighs any benefit, when you look at all of the components, which they never do. Their simplified calculations are the scam.
It needs to be a big deal
Electric cars are not the answer. Renewable powered nationwide high-speed rail and local light rail is the answer.
It is likely better to inject the emitted carbon dioxide into a fracked basalt formation and have it combine with metals in the basalt, like they do in Iceland, than to do anything with limestone. That does not make sense. It makes even more sense to ride an electric bike for commuting. I have done 16000 miles over the last 5 years (25,744kms) saving 363.6 gallons (1376.4 liters) which emits 3240 kg CO2 or 3.2 tons of carbon dioxide, or 834kg of Carbon. The electricity is from solar panels on my roof. It only takes 4 square feet of panels (0.37m2) to keep it charged. The material cost for the power is relatively low. There is an embodied energy cost for the bike and panels, but that is less than a 1/40th of a Tesla Model 3 and 1/100th of the embodied energy in a Ford Lightning pick-up. These numbers speak for themselves. The hardest part is convincing others to follow this example and ride a bike. Safety is the biggest concern stated publicly anyway, though I think there is a high aversion to exercise. I commute 8 miles one way on hilly terrain and am 69 year old, the excuses run a bit thin with folks less than a third of my age. So Lloyd, how do you convince others to commute on a bike?
But does it make sense to pursue this as one of multiple ways to address climate change on the principle that there is no one single solution to any aspect of the problem?