3 ms·
But the burden of proof is clearly on carbon capture then. Most carbon we produce is caused by burning of energy-dense fuel, leaving well: heat, smoke, gas di
by moritzwarhier 3y ago
But the burden of proof is clearly on carbon capture then.
Most carbon we produce is caused by burning of energy-dense fuel, leaving well:
heat, smoke, gas dissipation and some forms of energy that are useful to us.
If I understood basic thermodynamics at school, this process is irreversible and claims to the contrary are charlatanery.
- TekMol 3y agoWe don't have to reverse the process of creating energy from fuel. Firstly, we only need to seperate carbon and oxygen. Secondly, we get thousands of times more energy from the sun than we need. So even if seperating carbon and oxygen requires energy, that is not fundamentally a problem.
- ctack 3y agoSo it would be like using our solar potential to capture and then turn atmospheric carbon into fuel again. Probably battery storage will be cheaper, right? Clear to see how cynical it is if you keep pumping carbon out of the ground at the same time as trying to reclaim some bit of it from the atmosphere.
- brazzy 3y ago> We don't have to reverse the process of creating energy from fuel. > Firstly, we only need to seperate carbon and oxygen. Separating carbon and oxygen is literally reversing the process of creating energy from fuel. That's how physics works. Please stop trying to make arguments when you don't even understand the fundamentals of the subject.
- kaba0 3y agoAt that point, why don’t just stop the ever-increasing rate of CO2 release we do? Sounds much easier than recreating millions of years worth of photosynthesis that did the same thing (coal, oil is from plants mostly that lived many millions of years ago) we conveniently dig up.