10 ms·
This makes no thermodynamic sense. CO2 is about the worst "fuel" possible, because it is the end product of combustion. Then, the call it a "capture project",
by appleflaxen 11y ago
This makes no thermodynamic sense. CO2 is about the worst "fuel" possible, because it is the end product of combustion.
Then, the call it a "capture project", with the goal of burning what they create.
It can be carbon capture, or it can create fuel, but not both.
- acdha 11y agoRight now people are getting fuel by pulling stored carbon out of the ground and burning it, increasing the net CO2 in the atmosphere. If a system like this worked, the level of CO2 would stay constant rather than increasing because you're recirculating carbon which was already in the atmosphere. That's still not as good as actually pulling carbon out but if they can make the numbers work, it's to see how that's not a noteworthy improvement.
- Fargren 11y agoI'm by no means an expert in the subject, but what you say sounds suspiciously similar to a perpetual motion machine.
- davesque 11y agoThere's no perpetual motion here. It costs energy to create hydrocarbons. The investors backing this project are interested in combating climate change as well as developing energy storage that is carbon neutral (consumes as much CO2 as it releases into the atmosphere).
- ac29 11y agoNot if the process is powered by carbonless energy sources like Solar, Wind, or Nuclear.
- acdha 11y agoSeconding what ac29 said – this obviously only makes sense if you have a power source which doesn't generate new carbon. Solar in particular could make a ton of sense if you had a viable process which could happen out in relatively cheap desert spaces, but I have no idea whether that could work with the water requirements that the article described.