3 ms·
>All you need is napkin maths. We gain energy by turning carbon into carbon dioxide. Now, we need the same energy to reverse it, but with a loss factor. That's
by SilasX 2y ago
>All you need is napkin maths. We gain energy by turning carbon into carbon dioxide. Now, we need the same energy to reverse it, but with a loss factor.
That's just not true. While the conclusion may be correct (about it not being feasible), it's something that would depend on more that just this first-principles analysis. Remember, the goal is only that the output is "not atmospheric CO2". So that means it could be CO2 somewhere else, or some lower energy state of the carbon, or even a higher energy state that isn't as high as the fuel that was burned to produce it.
And while, again, those methods might not be feasible, it depends on much more than the (false) premise that the only way involves completely reversing whatever process was originally used to extract the energy.
- aDyslecticCrow 2y agoCarbon has a few other molecules it likes to bind to, but narrowing it down to what is actually abundant limits you to basically oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. of those, two of them are what we burned, and one of them is our problem. Someone else pointed out, though, that you can burn hydrocarbon (carbon and hydrogen chains, aka methane and oil) and turn it into coal (carbon-carbon).
- marcosdumay 2y agoThat's just not right. Carbon dioxide will bind with just about any reactive metal out there. Yes, there is oxygen involved, but Earth is full of rocks that could absorb it.
- SilasX 2y agoWhich, again, is still a different argument than the one you originally made.