4 ms·
My dream is to use carbon capture as 1/3 of a full plan to fix climate change. Once you have the carbon, rather than pumping it into the ground, I would love to
by zackbloom 5y ago
My dream is to use carbon capture as 1/3 of a full plan to fix climate change. Once you have the carbon, rather than pumping it into the ground, I would love to use off-shore nuclear reactors to convert it into gasoline. It might sound a little strange to turn it into something which is just going to get burned, but I firmly believe carbon neutral gasoline and natural gas which was cheaper than drilled would drop carbon emissions much faster than anyone can afford to sequestrate it.
- SamBam 5y agoThat would be carbon neutral, but would not be carbon negative, which is the point of the project.
- zackbloom 5y agoCorrect, my point is I don't believe the quantity of carbon capture which can be deployed will get anywhere close to the amount of carbon being released without a different fundamental economic model.
- dTal 5y agoSequestering carbon while others are emitting it is not net carbon negative. It's just a highly elaborate and inefficient way of moving clean energy around. That's why it's in Iceland - wouldn't be much point in running the plant off fossil fuels would it? If you have clean energy, using it directly to not burn fossil fuels is strictly more efficient than trying to undo the damage done by burning fossil fuels.
- SamBam 5y agoClean energy isn't fungible. Energy created in Iceland can't easily be used in India. If you can create energy in Iceland, which is already nearly 100% renewable for electricity generation, then using it for carbon capture is carbon-negative. If you're claiming it isn't carbon negative because someone somewhere in the world is burning carbon, then the word is meaningless, because you may as well claim that every activity on Earth is generating the exact same amount of carbon -- the average of all the activities.