piperTom February 6, 2016 11:29 AM First, in order to make any significant difference to the atmosphere, you'd have to remove billions of tons of carbon - Billions of Tons! Second, this process consumes hydrogen. Today, we get hydrogen from -- you guessed it -- fossil fuels. And you just assume that atmospheric CO2 is a crisis. gizmowiz February 6, 2016 06:48 PM Love that term 'Fossilized Sunshine'. The next time I have an argument with an ICE lover I'll inform him that he is driving a solar car but just doesn't know it! yorik February 6, 2016 09:02 PM Has anybody considered using this newfangled process called photosynthesis? I guess not many people know about it yet, or maybe 6th grad education isn't what it used to be. iperov February 7, 2016 06:39 AM Good news. Let's terraform Venus inchiki February 7, 2016 09:15 PM If i could buy a counter top hand wound carbon capture device it would help to remove some of my climate change guilt. ivan4 February 7, 2016 09:51 PM Where did this obsession of removing plant food from the atmosphere come from? If it is the idea of climate scientists then why don't they heavily attack water vapour - it is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2 ever will be. UW February 8, 2016 01:00 PM I'm surprised how strong the anti-science crowd is, here on Gizmag. Yes, atmospheric CO2 is a problem if you like liveable climates, piperTom, and no, water vapour is not our problem, ivan4, a primer on radiative forcing can be had on scienceofdoom.com . Also, there is enough evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist because it is restricted by the availability of other types of elements. Billy Sharpstick February 8, 2016 01:27 PM Hasn't anyone noticed that the products of alcohol combustion are water and CO2?! So this my be a great way of producing alcohol, but you can't make the argument that it is permanently removing or sequestering CO2. And how does the production cost of this compare with other fuels? I see that it requires heat. Catweazle February 8, 2016 02:02 PM If this process was of any value (which it isn't for reasons of thermal efficiency and because atmospheric CO2 is not a problem at current or future conceivable concentrations anyway - rather the opposite, in fact) it would run many times more efficiently if it recovered CO2 directly from combustion gases containing 10% or more CO2, instead of having to pump and compress 250+ times the volume to recover the 0.04% or so present in the atmosphere.As for *UW* with "Also, there is enough evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist because it is restricted by the availability of other types of elements."The peer reviewed evidence in the serious scientific publications - as opposed to that from crackpot alarmist sites - very clearly proves you completely wrong."CO2 fertilisation is increasing plant growth both on land and in the oceans.Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue."http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm-------------"Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growthCoccolithophores -- tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web -- have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period. This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced."http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160116215419.htmNote that the second link also debunks the alarmist myth of ocean acidification destroying carbonate-shelled organisms. Robert in Vancouver February 8, 2016 02:13 PM Recent study by University of Potsdam and others says that we would be in an ice age today if CO2 levels were any lower than they are. With an ice age, you can't grow any food or raise animals like chickens or cows. We would quickly starve to death.