3 ms·

I'm sure this is useful in some situations, but their example of converting the co2 from a power plant makes no sense to me. You burn carbon-fuel and oxygen to

I'm sure this is useful in some situations, but their example of converting the co2 from a power plant makes no sense to me. You burn carbon-fuel and oxygen to get energy (and most of the energy comes from the oxygen actually), then use the energy to release half the oxygen from the co2 back again. What's the point? Perhaps it makes some sense for methane, etc which has a lot of hydrogen?

CoastalCoder 3y ago
It's just a jobs program for carbon atoms, to distract people from Big Oxygen! (Apologies, I'm new to chemistry-related humor.)
- jacknews 3y ago
  Well, it is underappreciated I think, that an increase in co2 levels is actually also a decrease in o2 levels - and animals can be quite sensitive to o2 levels.
  - Retric 3y ago
    The drop in O2 levels is a long way from being noticeable by animals. 280 > 420 PPM for CO2 is just 209,640 ppm > 209,500 ppm PPM O2 a drop of under 0.007%.
datascienced 3y ago
Maybe because you can keep your coal fired base load (and associated sunk cost/asset value) and then have renewable powered CO removal. If you are going to do this why put up with a puny 400ppm when you just go to a rich source of CO2, cut out the middle man (the atmosphere and entropy!). You can also make a different thing out of the captured CO2, maybe a building material instead of a fuel.
- jacknews 3y ago
  just feed the renewable to the grid? I suppose it could make some sense at peak solar hours to 'waste' the solar power to scrub co2 from coal plants that can't be shut down easily, but it still seems incredibly wasteful.
dotnet00 3y ago
Could be something like spinning up the power plant to meet demand, storing the co2 and treating it when there is excess renewable energy available. Sure you could build more renewables instead, but if it can be retrofitted onto existing power plants for less cost than replacing the plant with renewables, it could make financial sense.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

CoastalCoder 3y ago

It's just a jobs program for carbon atoms, to distract people from Big Oxygen! (Apologies, I'm new to chemistry-related humor.)

jacknews 3y ago
Well, it is underappreciated I think, that an increase in co2 levels is actually also a decrease in o2 levels - and animals can be quite sensitive to o2 levels.
- Retric 3y ago
  The drop in O2 levels is a long way from being noticeable by animals. 280 > 420 PPM for CO2 is just 209,640 ppm > 209,500 ppm PPM O2 a drop of under 0.007%.

datascienced 3y ago

Maybe because you can keep your coal fired base load (and associated sunk cost/asset value) and then have renewable powered CO removal. If you are going to do this why put up with a puny 400ppm when you just go to a rich source of CO2, cut out the middle man (the atmosphere and entropy!). You can also make a different thing out of the captured CO2, maybe a building material instead of a fuel.

jacknews 3y ago
just feed the renewable to the grid? I suppose it could make some sense at peak solar hours to 'waste' the solar power to scrub co2 from coal plants that can't be shut down easily, but it still seems incredibly wasteful.

dotnet00 3y ago

Could be something like spinning up the power plant to meet demand, storing the co2 and treating it when there is excess renewable energy available. Sure you could build more renewables instead, but if it can be retrofitted onto existing power plants for less cost than replacing the plant with renewables, it could make financial sense.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]