3 ms·
https://www.twelve.co https://www.twelve.co is doing this (with fuels as well as other carbon-derived chemicals). Trouble is, this is carbon recycling, not carb
by kokanee 4y ago
https://www.twelve.co https://www.twelve.co is doing this (with fuels as well as other carbon-derived chemicals). Trouble is, this is carbon recycling, not carbon sequestering. It's better than the status quo, but I'm more excited about ideas that either sequester GHGs permanently or replace industrial GHG-generating processes permanently.
- psadri 4y agoThe first step is to reduce emissions, then stop them all together and finally sequester them to return to pre-climate-change level. I'd welcome all solutions along that spectrum.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoThere's no fundamental difference between burning a synthetic fuel or burning a fossel fuel and sequestering the resulting carbon. Both are zero-carbon. Yes, sequestration can go negative-carbon, but that doesn't help anybody who has a difficult to replace fuel burning process.
- pcl 4y agoStoring liquids (or solids) from at STP is far simpler than storing it in gaseous form. If we can cheaply extract CO2 or methane from the atmosphere and make liquid from it, we could sequester it in all sorts of trivial ways.
- kokanee 4y agoSure, but that's not what Twelve is doing or what the "I should start an oil company" comment suggested. They're talking about extracting CO2 to make fuel, and then burning it again in the same petroleum-based economy.
- pcl 4y agoYeah sure. And that ties into all our existing infrastructure, which seems fair. If we can extract and burn and extract and burn and keep going with that loop (without dinosaur input), then all that extract-burn cycle is zero-carbon. We can then separately decide to pump some of that cycle’s output into easy liquid storage, thus going carbon-negative.