4 ms·
Cool stuff, certainly. But why take C02 from the air, when there are large stationary sources of CO2 readily available, like any bloody thermal power plant? It.
by brrt 11y ago
Cool stuff, certainly. But why take C02 from the air, when there are large stationary sources of CO2 readily available, like any bloody thermal power plant? It... seems very wasteful to me.
EDIT: also, one tonne per day, very wow.
- struppi 11y agoI could imagine that, when you take the CO2 from the air, you could build those plants in remote locations, where it is difficult to get fuel right now. Like, in the desert. But I guess that would work only in theory, because those plants would probably need quite a lot of infrastructure - right?
- brrt 11y agoIt requires a lot of energy to do this, obviously. I don't know the exact details, but my naive assumption is that they require hydrogen as an intermediate, which would also imply they need relatively pure water as a source. Altogether I just don't know why they decided to take this from the air rather than build a plant in any major port with a refinery installed, which would seem to be much cheaper.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y agoNitpick: solar thermal and nuclear power plants are thermal and CO2 free at the point of power generation.
- DennisP 11y agoIt's more of a long-term thing. Hopefully we'll get to a point where those stationary power plants are carbon-free renewable or nuclear plants. At that point, to whatever degree we still have to use liquid fuels, it'd be nice if they were carbon-neutral.