Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Entropy says carbon capture is going to require a lot of enthalpy, from somewhere.  It's a really bad equation.

TANSTAAFL.

That said, if you can use renewables to provide the energy needed for carbon capture, to avoid adding to GHG emissions (since you're just re-emitting what was already burned once), it might help slow the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels. 

And now, THAT said, it probably doesn't pencil out, can't scale, and will ultimately amount to nothing. 

I would just use the energy to power the grid, not force it into a thermodynamically really bad upside down effort.  To me, it's a gimmick, something meant to get headlines, not reality.

Oh, no argument there. Some startup needs extra VC funding, so they publicize something that is a niche right now but they think can scale 5 years from now... And will always be 5 years away. 

I do think carbon capture is one area that should be significantly looked at, though. That article I posted a couple months back about growing plants and then burying them underground in airtight holds with salt to dry everything out enough to inhibit decomposition seems like a better option. You use the sun's energy (w/o requiring photovoltaics) to grow those crops, so it's much simpler and seems more likely to scale at a more reasonable cost. 

Per the other article that was posted about AZ and cotton, maybe if we could subsidize farmers to grow this instead of cotton, and bury it in the AZ desert, it might actually do something useful. 

Yeah, I've noted before we have plants already doing this, inefficiently but "free" for land and water.

South Georgia has a lot of land not good for much, tree farms mostly.  Plant eucalyptus and bury the trees after 7 years and repeat.

Yep, but also as noted, plants are great at this--until they die and decompose. Then all the carbon they have sequestered gets released. 

The issue is that burying is hard unless you can actually stop the decomposition. Just burying something won't do it. So burying in a way to stop that carbon from escaping I think most have determined would require high expense--the idea of burying in a airtight environment with high salt content might be a low-cost method.  

Worth investigating to see if it can scale at least IMHO. 

Extreme heat: Global ocean temperatures are now hotter than ever (cnbc.com)

Articles lay out the problem, which is necessary, but nobody deals with a proposed actual solution, other than "do something" ...

I'd think all the melting glaciers would be cooling the oceans

Ha.  The mass balance here is way off of course.

I keep reading fears that the oceanic currents may well get changed majorly in time, perhaps soonish.  That theory seems to come and go and come.

Champagne's taste could change forever, thanks to climate change (cnbc.com)
Champagne's taste could change forever, thanks to climate change (cnbc.com)

I think the wine industry is most sensitive to any climate changes of all the ag products.  They should notice first, and many say they already have.  And it most cases, they can't move further north to offset it because of geography and soil etc.

Napa is unusual in that going south gets a cooler climate.  We could see Lake and Mendocino counties becoming more and more relevant in CA wines.

The problem is that much of the wine growing regions can't move for geographic/terroir reasons (and legal reasons).  And yes, folks can open up new more northerly areas, but not very profitably, at least initially.  Oregon of course has a pretty extensive and well regarded wine region, as does Washington state, (in a different area entirely).