49 ms·
You actually end up with net negative carbon if you burn natural gas and use the energy to do CO2 capture (albeit just barely). This is because the carbon-carbo
by elil17 3y ago
You actually end up with net negative carbon if you burn natural gas and use the energy to do CO2 capture (albeit just barely). This is because the carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen bonds of a hydrocarbon have more energy in them than the carbon-oxygen bonds in the CO2 that is released from combustion.
- sanderjd 3y agoThis is an interesting factoid!
- Turskarama 3y agoI'm not sure if you meant to do this on purpose but... Factoid actually means something that sounds true but isn't, which is exactly the case with the post you're referring to because they didn't account for the extra losses on top of the base thermodynamics.
- bmacho 3y agoThe word 'factoid' means what the communicating parties agree it means. As per my observation, on HN it currently means something like "a small probably unimportant but interesting fact" (wiki definition for factlet[0]). I don't like it, but HN is not the place to cultivate our own language, dang will shadowban and eventually ban us :\ Best we can do is using the word factlet, and hope people will switch to it. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid#Versus_factlet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid#Versus_factlet
- alexey-salmin 3y agoNo, because capturing the CO2 from the atmosphere at 0.04% concentration takes much more energy.
- appplication 3y agoWhat you’re describing is the reason combustion is exothermic, but doesn’t really have much bearing on the efficiency of carbon capture as a process.