4 ms·
I agree we'll probably need some sort of carbon sequestration. I disagree that nuclear is the only possible power source for that (or for that matter, that sequ
by beat 7y ago
I agree we'll probably need some sort of carbon sequestration. I disagree that nuclear is the only possible power source for that (or for that matter, that sequestration is going to be that energy-intensive).
- gizmo686 7y agoHow can sequestration not be energy intensive? Carbon is diffused throughout the atmosphere as relativly low energy statw molecules. Even assuming 100% efficiency, what end state of sequestration would not require significant energy just from conservation of energy.
- beat 7y agoOkay, maybe not energy intensive is the wrong way to put it, but... what about organically capturing carbon? Trees or algae farms? It's energy intensive, but it's solar energy, not generated electricity.
- pfdietz 7y agoThe reaction of CO2 with olivine is mildly exothermic.
- pfdietz 7y agoI'll add that you could have figured out that there must be exothermic ways to sequester CO2, since CO2 naturally is scrubbed from the atmosphere by some process. If this process were not exothermic, CO2 would just accumulate in the atmosphere until the Earth resembled Venus. https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html