3 ms·
We can build one CO2 capture factory in Nevada desert to capture excessive CO2 and bury it there. I see no difference.
by v_lisivka 8y ago
We can build one CO2 capture factory in Nevada desert to capture excessive CO2 and bury it there. I see no difference.
- Johnny555 8y agoIt seems easier to not produce the CO2 in the first place than to produce it then run another industrial process to remove it... which in turn uses even more electricity.
- saagarjha 8y agoThe amount of CO2 is orders of magnitude more than the amount of radioactive waste; you cannot just build “one factory in Nevada” and sequester all the carbon dioxide produced.
- v_lisivka 8y agoWe need to capture about 1 trillion of tons of CO2 to return to sane levels, and then capture about 25 billion tons of CO2 annually. It looks doable. See http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capture-plant-live-21494 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capt... .
- Graham67 8y agoThat process absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere at low concentrations (400 ppm) onto stones coated with X-material. Later the stones are heated (using more fuel) to release CO2 at much higher concentrations (more than 75%). Then what? It is a gas. You need to bury the carbon. They suggest feeding it to greenhouses, to grow food, which re-releases it later.
- acidburnNSA 8y agoSix orders of magnitude, to be precise. Nuclear fuel has 2 million times more energy per mass than any chemical fuel or storage system.
- mikestew 8y agoCan we do that today? Well, there’s your difference.
- v_lisivka 8y agoThe problem with CO2 is that we can do it tomorrow, or, even better, somebody else will do that instead of us. With radioactive waste, we _must_ bury it today.