3 ms·
I'm somewhat curious how this compares energy-wise to other carbon capture technologies. When the byproduct is food, you could justify using it for that purpose
by stubish 3y ago
I'm somewhat curious how this compares energy-wise to other carbon capture technologies. When the byproduct is food, you could justify using it for that purpose even if quite inefficient, as you can save the energy that would otherwise be used to produce that food.
- dools 3y agoYeah that's what I was thinking: 2 birds with one stone. However much CO2 removal is taking place, it's gotta be better than not having it taking place. My question would be: if we were to produce enough of this stuff to replace, say, Soy protein then would we need additionl CCS or CDR?
- throwup238 3y ago> My question would be: if we were to produce enough of this stuff to replace, say, Soy protein then would we need additionl CCS or CDR? The global per capita CO2 production is under 5 tons per year [1] so assuming people ate 5 kg of the stuff a day and it was pure carbon by mass, it'd be a bit more than third of the CO2 emitted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- dexwiz 3y agoCO2 is mostly oxygen, so I think your math is a bit off.
- foobar1962 3y agoThe carbon isn't captured if it's released somewhere else in the cycle: in this case it will be released after it's eaten. Nothing in the article mentioned the nutrition of the product. It seems only to have been used in snack bars and chocolate blocks which is "sometimes food".