4 ms·
>how you would sequester the gaseous CO2 other than "put it underground." I wonder if there is a reason you couldn't just sequester the powder. Probably too e
by floxy 2y ago
>how you would sequester the gaseous CO2 other than "put it underground."
I wonder if there is a reason you couldn't just sequester the powder. Probably too expensive? Or not volume efficient?
>to leak out eventually due to plate techtonics
This might seem shortsighted, but I'm OK pushing the problem out by 50 million years or so.
- BizarroLand 2y agoSince the powder is reusable, it likely wouldn't make sense to sequester it with the CO2 either materially or financially.
- entropicdrifter 2y agoThis. The powder is more efficiently used as a way to move the CO2 around than as a means to keep it sequestered.
- Woodi 2y agoStill, tree produce oxygen from that CO_2. And do not need energy from grid for that :) Threating CO_2 like radioactive waste, putting it underground etc - that what I call not self-sustained :>