4 ms·
Yeah, the efficiency the article claims is "per square foot of space" which seems irrelevant. (Well, at least until you learn that they're going to need hundre
by thinkling 9y ago
Yeah, the efficiency the article claims is "per square foot of space" which seems irrelevant. (Well, at least until you learn that they're going to need hundreds of thousands of these things to have a useful impact.)
But even worse is the complete and utter lack of any mention of the amount of energy needed to capture a ton of CO2.
- hinkley 9y agoRight. There's a point where it's cheaper to store renewable energy to use later rather than capture carbon dioxide using the surplus.