Now isn’t this process a better idea. Instead of just burying the CO2, and spawning a new industry, this process converts CO2 into a clean burning fuel that can be used in BioFuels.
Much better although I do wonder about how much power, and therefore CO2 generated, the process requires.
It will be interesting to watch because it sounds to me like we have a system that generates power from fossil fuels and some CO2 and then another system that converts the CO2 to Methanol so that it can be fed into the system at the start of the cycle again.
Perhaps these converters should be actually built on the power stations and feed the Methanol straight in. Makes more sense that the CCS technology being mandated.
I’ve always had a bit of difficulty with viruses/virii/virus’s but it seems like they could be our new friends.
Despite our cravings for antibiotics and the ease our doctors seem to hand them out to just shut us up. (My doctor never has. I should sue) Antibiotics have never been the cure for all ills. A miracle drug that has saved untold lives but does not cure everything. Viral infections are one of those immune to antibiotics.
In addition the misuse of antibiotics is what creates all these superbugs that are resistant to antibiotics. A bit like us they can build up immunity if we don’t follow the instructions and people being people stupidity is second nature. This coupled with the fact we inject antibiotics into food animals including fish means we are helping something that wants to evolve and kill us. Unfortunately as with everything else it won’t just kill the people that aided it. It’ll happily kill us all. So much for social justice.
Anyway, a virus itself could be the solution. We can tailor a virus to attack other viruses and the superbugs. Killing them before, hopefully, dying themselves if we do it right. It will bring in a new generation of viral tools to our health armoury and that can only be good.
As an added bonus only one dose is required. Meaning that it makes immunity less likely because of the public not following instructions. That has got to be good as well.
The benefits for any green costs
Just to expand on my reply to James comment about the cost benefits converting CO2 to Methanol.
In private business every project has a cost/benefit analysis done to enable the business to get the best value for their spend. This usually involves all options being considered and the best one, in that businesses view, is chosen and implemented.
In government of course the criteria is different and thus it will not be the best value for money that is chosen but the one that gives whatever criteria is chosen by the selectors. Thus it may be the one where a minister is on the board for example rather than one that is much cheaper. (Just an example)
In costing your projects in the green area though the cost/benefits are treated pretty much as a direct cost and the benefits are it enables the project to go ahead and shuts the whingey whiney greenies up. Excellent benefits on their own btw.
So all that is done is the cost is added to the total costs and then evaluated to see if there is profit to be made. If so it’s a go, if not then it’s halted.
Now the government always knows what is best. Even better than people in the line of business it fiddles with. Because as previously stated their criteria is to cost effectively reduce emissions, for example, whilst the governments is to make sure that the correct mix of foreigners, women and gay people are employed. (The government has many agendas)
Now if the government didn’t specify what green add ons it wanted but specified a few attainable criteria on emissions instead then business would chose the cheapest and the best and emissions would come down. I’m sure it wouldn’t be what the government chooses though.