14 ms·

Really. Just use that energy to absorb CO2 via CaO to CaCO3 and convert it into long chain hydrocarbons using water . Iceland is surrounded by water, after al

Really. Just use that energy to absorb CO2 via CaO to CaCO3 and convert it into long chain hydrocarbons using water . Iceland is surrounded by water, after all. Just don't take too much CO2 out of the environment with that limitless energy :)

avidphantasm 3y ago
What would happen to the hydrocarbons? If they are burned for fuel, the CO2 would go right back into the environment.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  I imagine once you have the nice problem of all planet earth energy coming from renewables, you could start pumping the fuels underground?
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    I'm sure the chemists can come up with something in the ballpark of graphite/wood/carbon fiber which we can use as a building material so that we can stop cutting down trees to make our houses.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      I like that idea. Although a sustainable forest also takes carbon out of the atmosphere. (Same for any trees that would have been burned for fire control). We just need to make sure we are not using trees we didn't plant or have to destroy anyway.
- aimonster2 3y ago
  More plants. Eventually, we'd be down to using just pure hydrogen since the CO2 levels would be just right for plant growth, so no need to capture any more.
- tzs 3y ago
  That's fine. If you take a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, make fuel out of it, and someone burns that fuel instead of burning fossil fuel whose C did not come from the recent atmosphere then the net result is that we end up with a ton less CO2 in the atmosphere than we would have had if they had burned the old C fossil fuel. Fuel made from atmospheric CO2 using clean energy is essentially a disposable battery for storing that clean energy that automatically recycles itself when it is used.
  - yetihehe 3y ago
    If we could at least stop pumping carbon from underground into atmosphere and replace it with carbon already in atmosphere, it would help a lot.
    - loceng 3y ago
      How would it help a lot? The issue with burning things is the pollution it can cause if not filtered properly before emissions released into the air. CO2 feeds plants to grow, which in turn provides more food and habitat for more life. An incongruence in the West vs. the East's strategy is that we in the West have avoided nuclear - which generates zero CO2 - whereas the East's CO2 production (via building new coal power plants weekly) - has been skyrocketing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=CHN~USA~CAN~MEX~DEU~FRA~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... In this scenario with China doing the opposite to the rest of the world, there are exactly zero gains for CO2 reduction - far outweighed by the increase in CO2 production. And in this scenario as well the "polluter" or generator of the most CO2 is being rewarded for their behaviour by producing the cheapest energy possible, which allows their cost of production to be lower than the West, which allows their profits to be higher - for us to buy cheaper products to not only perpetuate but accelerate these current conditions.
      - baq 3y ago
        CO2 is also a greenhouse gas and makes our atmosphere store much more energy than it used to which destabilizes ecosystems in which those plants you want to grow bigger actually live. So yeah, they’ll grow faster, and then they’ll all die. The rest of your argument is orthogonal to the issue. Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere works globally, it doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t reduce emissions.
- retrac 3y ago
  It's effectively a closed cycle, just using the atmosphere as a buffer.
comova 3y ago
can you explain more about how realistic this type of conversion actually is? has it been attempted at any level? @aimonster2
- jayd16 3y ago
  Anything is possible when "limitless energy" is part of the equation.
jteg6886 3y ago
There are ways to capture CO2 from the air but going through CaO is not practical as it is produced from CaCO3.
- yetihehe 3y ago
  IFAIK here CaO is used as a Co2 carrier, not a one time use material.
  - aimonster2 3y ago
    You accumulate CO2 via CaO and then release it via heat provided from the thermal system to go back to CaO. The CO2 is then turned into hydrocarbons. Closed loop. The infrastructure is already in place for hydrocarbons at least until we get to a hydrogen infrastructure. Then you can carbon capture till your heart's content.
loceng 3y ago
The profits from Bitcoin mining so far seems to have won out using this mechanism..
- zeta0134 3y ago
  ... Can we turn CO2 into a physical solid? My chemistry is non-existent but here is a thought experiment: what if harvesting CO2 and using it to press coins was given real monetary value? Just get it out of the air and spend it, however you can figure that out. Would that help? Or is it too easy to synthesize such that the incentive would be immediately gamed?
  - tecleandor 3y ago
    Well, those coins would be uncomfortable to hold in your pocket at 194.7 K (−78.5 °C; −109.2 °F), but there are some initiatives for pulling solid carbon out of it [0]. There's even an XPrize for doing "stuff" with co2 [1]. 0: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119121411.htm 1: https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon
  - amenhotep 3y ago
    A quick comparison: first Google result says we'd need to sequester 20 billion tonnes of CO2 a year to achieve net zero without any other reductions. Another first Google result says the total worldwide reserves of copper amount to 890 million tonnes. Essentially it's either going to be so cheap that trying to use it as currency is impractical, like carrying around pennies, or so overvalued that you'd surely destroy the economy? You'd have to use paper currency backed by tonnes of carbon - which is just a roundabout way to arrive at carbon credits!
  - aimonster2 3y ago
    I don't know. Perhaps we should ask the DeBeers what they think about turning CO2 into valuable solids. They might take issue.
MegaVampShcam 3y ago
The earth already does that. We call it fossil fuels

avidphantasm 3y ago

What would happen to the hydrocarbons? If they are burned for fuel, the CO2 would go right back into the environment.

quickthrower2 3y ago
I imagine once you have the nice problem of all planet earth energy coming from renewables, you could start pumping the fuels underground?
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  I'm sure the chemists can come up with something in the ballpark of graphite/wood/carbon fiber which we can use as a building material so that we can stop cutting down trees to make our houses.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    I like that idea. Although a sustainable forest also takes carbon out of the atmosphere. (Same for any trees that would have been burned for fire control). We just need to make sure we are not using trees we didn't plant or have to destroy anyway.
aimonster2 3y ago
More plants. Eventually, we'd be down to using just pure hydrogen since the CO2 levels would be just right for plant growth, so no need to capture any more.
tzs 3y ago
That's fine. If you take a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, make fuel out of it, and someone burns that fuel instead of burning fossil fuel whose C did not come from the recent atmosphere then the net result is that we end up with a ton less CO2 in the atmosphere than we would have had if they had burned the old C fossil fuel. Fuel made from atmospheric CO2 using clean energy is essentially a disposable battery for storing that clean energy that automatically recycles itself when it is used.
- yetihehe 3y ago
  If we could at least stop pumping carbon from underground into atmosphere and replace it with carbon already in atmosphere, it would help a lot.
  - loceng 3y ago
    How would it help a lot? The issue with burning things is the pollution it can cause if not filtered properly before emissions released into the air. CO2 feeds plants to grow, which in turn provides more food and habitat for more life. An incongruence in the West vs. the East's strategy is that we in the West have avoided nuclear - which generates zero CO2 - whereas the East's CO2 production (via building new coal power plants weekly) - has been skyrocketing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=CHN~USA~CAN~MEX~DEU~FRA~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... In this scenario with China doing the opposite to the rest of the world, there are exactly zero gains for CO2 reduction - far outweighed by the increase in CO2 production. And in this scenario as well the "polluter" or generator of the most CO2 is being rewarded for their behaviour by producing the cheapest energy possible, which allows their cost of production to be lower than the West, which allows their profits to be higher - for us to buy cheaper products to not only perpetuate but accelerate these current conditions.
    - baq 3y ago
      CO2 is also a greenhouse gas and makes our atmosphere store much more energy than it used to which destabilizes ecosystems in which those plants you want to grow bigger actually live. So yeah, they’ll grow faster, and then they’ll all die. The rest of your argument is orthogonal to the issue. Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere works globally, it doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t reduce emissions.
retrac 3y ago
It's effectively a closed cycle, just using the atmosphere as a buffer.

comova 3y ago

can you explain more about how realistic this type of conversion actually is? has it been attempted at any level? @aimonster2

jayd16 3y ago
Anything is possible when "limitless energy" is part of the equation.

jteg6886 3y ago

There are ways to capture CO2 from the air but going through CaO is not practical as it is produced from CaCO3.

yetihehe 3y ago
IFAIK here CaO is used as a Co2 carrier, not a one time use material.
- aimonster2 3y ago
  You accumulate CO2 via CaO and then release it via heat provided from the thermal system to go back to CaO. The CO2 is then turned into hydrocarbons. Closed loop. The infrastructure is already in place for hydrocarbons at least until we get to a hydrogen infrastructure. Then you can carbon capture till your heart's content.

loceng 3y ago

The profits from Bitcoin mining so far seems to have won out using this mechanism..

zeta0134 3y ago
... Can we turn CO2 into a physical solid? My chemistry is non-existent but here is a thought experiment: what if harvesting CO2 and using it to press coins was given real monetary value? Just get it out of the air and spend it, however you can figure that out. Would that help? Or is it too easy to synthesize such that the incentive would be immediately gamed?
- tecleandor 3y ago
  Well, those coins would be uncomfortable to hold in your pocket at 194.7 K (−78.5 °C; −109.2 °F), but there are some initiatives for pulling solid carbon out of it [0]. There's even an XPrize for doing "stuff" with co2 [1]. 0: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119121411.htm 1: https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon
- amenhotep 3y ago
  A quick comparison: first Google result says we'd need to sequester 20 billion tonnes of CO2 a year to achieve net zero without any other reductions. Another first Google result says the total worldwide reserves of copper amount to 890 million tonnes. Essentially it's either going to be so cheap that trying to use it as currency is impractical, like carrying around pennies, or so overvalued that you'd surely destroy the economy? You'd have to use paper currency backed by tonnes of carbon - which is just a roundabout way to arrive at carbon credits!
- aimonster2 3y ago
  I don't know. Perhaps we should ask the DeBeers what they think about turning CO2 into valuable solids. They might take issue.

MegaVampShcam 3y ago

The earth already does that. We call it fossil fuels