4 ms·
I did a back of the envelope calculation or maybe better a guesstimate on this awhile back. At perfect conversion efficiency you could turn emitted CO2 back to
by jimmyswimmy 8y ago
I did a back of the envelope calculation or maybe better a guesstimate on this awhile back. At perfect conversion efficiency you could turn emitted CO2 back to carbon using 15-20 average sized nuclear power plants. If you realistically get 10% overall efficiency then maybe you need 200 of them. All that assumes you can actually build chemical cells that don't need continuous replacement. It also just compensates for current emissions, and doesn't turn the clock back. My numbers could be very wrong in either direction.
My takeaway was just like losing weight. It's more effective to eat less than to exercise. Here, it's bound to be better to burn less.
This was an electrochemical approach however. It's possible some bio guy will figure it out using photosynthesis.
- Lavery 8y agoJust to address the "also just compensates for current emissions" point--the way this tends to be thought of in the research is that, if you assume a completed Step 1 of "develop perfect carbon capture technology", Step 2 is "apply that solution to power plant smokestacks and fuel those power plants by burning and replanting trees / crop waste (corn stalks etc)". So you're not carbon negative on the capture process itself, but can be on the broader system by converting to a fuel source that regenerates through carbon capturing via photosynthesis. This poses it's own problems though, one of which being the enormous amount of land you would need to dedicate to this process to have a meaningful impact.
- astrodust 8y agoThe problem here is that uranium extraction and other elements of nuclear power production (e.g. concrete manufacturing) is itself carbon intensive process and takes a while to pay off.