4 ms·

Isn't it counterproductive to turn it into fuel to be burned? It seems like that would leave us at best at no net new carbon dioxide, when we really should be s

by vonnik 10y ago

Isn't it counterproductive to turn it into fuel to be burned? It seems like that would leave us at best at no net new carbon dioxide, when we really should be sucking CO2 out and sequestering it away. How about we turn it into bricks or something...

jp555 10y ago
like how a tree uses solar energy to turn air (CO2) into wood?
lrem 10y ago
Ever heard of concrete? ;)
the_duke 10y ago
Well, there is nothing out there that can equal the energy density of fossil fuels, which would be essential for powering trucks, buses, airplanes, ships, tanks .... And if we ever get batteries to be competitive, it's a long, long way of.
drcode 10y ago
A car using this stuff wouldn't need to refuel as frequently as one that uses a battery (environmental concerns are an orthogonal issue)
neltnerb 10y ago
It's counterproductive in the sense that you'd be guaranteed to reduce carbon emissions more (globally) if you were to instead just not burn fossil fuels at all. If you took the solar cell part and just used that electricity to displace carbon fueled power plants, you'd end up ahead. That said, for a little while at least, having liquid fuels is inherently given a bonus relative to electricity only. Of course, you can just make those from the original fossil fuel sources as well... Honestly it seems like a bit of a mess since each team solving problems locally rarely has all the expertise needed to see the impact globally. I certainly don't, though I've been studying it for many years. I very much appreciate that things like the CA-GREET models have been trying hard to make it easier to apply wide systems analysis expertise to understand a small part of the overall system without spending years doing the math. But probably it will end up needing to be solved by AlphaGo...

4 ms·

Isn't it counterproductive to turn it into fuel to be burned? It seems like that would leave us at best at no net new carbon dioxide, when we really should be s

by vonnik 10y ago

jp555 10y ago
like how a tree uses solar energy to turn air (CO2) into wood?
lrem 10y ago
Ever heard of concrete? ;)
the_duke 10y ago
Well, there is nothing out there that can equal the energy density of fossil fuels, which would be essential for powering trucks, buses, airplanes, ships, tanks .... And if we ever get batteries to be competitive, it's a long, long way of.
drcode 10y ago
A car using this stuff wouldn't need to refuel as frequently as one that uses a battery (environmental concerns are an orthogonal issue)
neltnerb 10y ago
It's counterproductive in the sense that you'd be guaranteed to reduce carbon emissions more (globally) if you were to instead just not burn fossil fuels at all. If you took the solar cell part and just used that electricity to displace carbon fueled power plants, you'd end up ahead. That said, for a little while at least, having liquid fuels is inherently given a bonus relative to electricity only. Of course, you can just make those from the original fossil fuel sources as well... Honestly it seems like a bit of a mess since each team solving problems locally rarely has all the expertise needed to see the impact globally. I certainly don't, though I've been studying it for many years. I very much appreciate that things like the CA-GREET models have been trying hard to make it easier to apply wide systems analysis expertise to understand a small part of the overall system without spending years doing the math. But probably it will end up needing to be solved by AlphaGo...