4 ms·

Entropy. It's easier to just not involve carbon at all via some hydrogen cycle than to burn it and have to capture it, or extract it from the air/water. As I m

• dTal 7y ago
  Is it easier, though? Both hydrogen and carbon cycles react atmospheric oxygen with some other element, creating a low-energy molecule that is released into the environment. To be sustainable, the feedstock atom must be segregated from that same waste low-energy molecule, an inherently energy-intensive procedure. This energy must be sustainably sourced by either nuclear or energy ultimately from the sun. Separating hydrogen from water requires electricity, a very low-entropy form of energy. Creating combustible carbon from atmospheric CO2 is as simple as planting something that grows fast - it will use sunlight directly. And that's not even getting in to how much more tractable carbon is to work with than hydrogen. Really, it doesn't matter whether we burn hydrogen or carbon. How much carbon is in flux is irrelevant. The main thing - the only thing - is to stop digging it up. The cycle must be closed. After that, it's safe to let the market decide the most efficient energy cycles.