4 ms·
The question that always springs to my mind when "brute force" solutions are brought up is: with what energy? Separating C from O2 inherently takes a bunch of e
by dTal 10y ago
The question that always springs to my mind when "brute force" solutions are brought up is: with what energy? Separating C from O2 inherently takes a bunch of energy, same as reacting them releases a bunch; it's the whole reason we're in this mess. Often the answer is handwaved as "renewables", but then you've pulled a fast one: if you have enough renewable energy to undo the damage done by fossil fuels, you have enough to replace fossil fuels entirely and then some. If we're postulating magic energy sources, far better to use them directly than to try and offset the continued burning of carbon.
- diafygi 10y agoI work in cleantech, and the smart people working on carbon capture and conversion (Opus12, etc.) are assuming renewable prices will drop to the point where they can use excess power to run the catalyst reactions needed. Unlike the grid, carbon capture power doesn't need to be dispatchable. So you don't need to worry about the intermittemcy of solar and wind. The same strategy is true for water desalination. They can run the plants whenever there is cheap power.
- dTal 10y agoSo, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, necessarily; but since it all boils down to power, at that point aren't you basically just using atmospheric carbon as a... battery? Especially if you compressed your sequestered carbon into nifty charcoal bricks and burned them for fuel, instead of wasting all that effort digging up coal...