5 ms·
Because it always takes more energy than just not burning the carbon in the first place. "Always" in the exact, scientific, ironclad sense of the word "always"
by fallingfrog 8y ago
Because it always takes more energy than just not burning the carbon in the first place. "Always" in the exact, scientific, ironclad sense of the word "always".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- avmich 8y ago> Because it always takes more energy than just not burning the carbon in the first place. "Always" in the exact, scientific, ironclad sense of the word "always". So what? You're implicitly checking if energy is "lost", for some definition of energy loss. But that's not what's discussed here. Nobody's proposing a perpetuum mobile, we're just talking about environment. The question is, is it better to not burn in the first place or burn and then clean up? And the answer, perhaps surprisingly, is not obvious.
- m_mueller 8y agoYes, the article actually does a decent job at discussing this. For city driving it almost certainly doesn’t make sense compared to going electric. Neither does it make sense as an alternative to going to a carbon-free electric grid. Where it does make sense is in industrial processes where energy is not the largest cost factor, or the parts of transport industry where energy density and charging speed the most important characteristic (e.g. air travel, long-haul trucking).
- avmich 8y agoI'm impressed by achievements of Sustainable Energy Solutions, a company in Utah, which specializes in energy-efficient cleanup of CO2-rich exhausts from power plants. Particularly the efficiency of the approach is worthy of attention, in my opinion. https://sesinnovation.com/ https://sesinnovation.com/