Hi there, CD. Interesting posts. I see you doing a little shadow boxing, a jab here and a jab there, trying to score a few points, wanting to be part of the action, but he is a hard target. And I see that you are a tad environmentally conscious, i.e.
"
ps lets get this carbon neutral feed for food security going hey"so I will give you something to wet your appetite. If you want to wind me up just call "Urea", or in your case " carbon neutral feed for food security" as "carbon neutral".
Note the following Page 15 of the report.
Note the closed loop of carbon production and sequestration. If they can achieve that, and I am not going to try dispute it, it will be an excellent result.
CCS at $5.0 per tonne of CO2. $5.0 million per year. Unbelievably good value, particularly in view of prices up to $100 per tonne are being quoted around the world.
Now take a look at the last box. They sequestrate 25% of the CO2, while 75% of the CO2 is used in the manufacture of urea. Nicely stored (for the time being).
Now move further down the box, note the little bag with the green leaf. That, young fellow, is where the carbon is, ready to be distributed around the world to do good and bad. When the farmer puts in on the field, all or most of it will take up moisture, a couple of oxygen molecules, turn into copious amounts CO2, and contribute to global warming. Not good.
In some countries the use of granulated urea is under review, and in others it has to be improved by coating it with urease inhibiters,
More urea, more global warming. Perhaps you should look to H2 stocks, just a thought.
Urea it is definitely not carbon sequestration. It is a necessary product but also a global warming problem. If you disagree or not, please discuss. J L.
(20min delay)