4 ms·
Converting CO2 back to fuels to be burnt in combustion engines sounds counterproductive to me. If the goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2, then it would be better
by gnode 8y ago
Converting CO2 back to fuels to be burnt in combustion engines sounds counterproductive to me. If the goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2, then it would be better to more permanently sequester it in carbon-rich building materials, for instance.
- DennisP 8y agoDepends. Assuming we keep using hydrocarbon fuels to some extent, and want to be carbon neutral, we have to either (1) create them from atmospheric CO2, or (2) absorb the atmospheric CO2 emitted from fossil hydrocarbons, and sequester it somewhere. Which we should do depends on which is cheaper and more scalable.
- usrusr 8y agoMany things might be better served with other technologies, but we won't ever see long distance air travel without hydrocarbons (well, non-nuclear air travel...)