3 ms·
> Obviously it would be better to limit co2 emissions radically And to sequester hundreds of billion tonnes of co2, once humanity reaches carbon neutrality.
by red75prime 9mo ago
> Obviously it would be better to limit co2 emissions radically
And to sequester hundreds of billion tonnes of co2, once humanity reaches carbon neutrality.
- malfist 9mo agoThere was some promising research showing that you could recapture co2 and catalyze it into methane pretty efficiently. I wonder whatever happened to that. It'd be nice if we could continue burning "fossil" fuels by recapturing and reusing. With enough solar power, the efficiencies don't matter a lot. And with reuse we wouldn't have to change any of our chemical processes or equipment that we've already built in the modern plastic era.
- eimrine 9mo agoDon't lie. Converting burned fuel into unburned one is not as simple as oxidation-reduction reaction at all. But also the CO2 in atmosphere is spreaded. If you remind that we can mine the inert gasses from the atmosphere - the amount of energy is worth of consideration in that case.
- whimsicalism 9mo agocondensing the co2 to the necessary concentrations to drive these reactions is basically never economical - we will need widespread energy abundance before non-organic based removal becomes viable.