3 ms·
Not without a significant energy expenditure. But most of our energy sources of course produce CO2 and other products.
by na85 13y ago
Not without a significant energy expenditure.
But most of our energy sources of course produce CO2 and other products.
- protomyth 13y agoI guess the Scifi question is can you build a nuclear ship with some apparatus that pulls the CO2 out of the ocean and breaks it into C (stored on ship) and O (released into atmosphere)?
- na85 13y agoI don't see why you couldn't. Most large navies run nuclear reactors on board their ships. IIRC, nuclear submarines pull water and use a portion of reactor power to get fresh oxygen. But I'm also not sure that the reaction is as easy as it sounds. First of all, manufacturing such a ship would likely cause a great deal of greenhouse emissions. Would the ship's benefit offset the pollution it implicitly creates as it is built? How about the pollution generated by its operation? No engine emissions, but when the reactor gets decommissioned it'll have to be buried, likely by diesel-powered equipment and covered in concrete which is manufactured in a dirty process. Tugboats aren't nuclear powered. Re-fuelling apparatuses aren't nuclear-powered. Crew will produce waste, reactor needs to be cooled which introduces unwanted heat to the water, etc etc etc. Would it even be economically possible to build/operate? How many ships would be required to make a measurable impact?
- pygy_ 13y agoYou could build one ship, but you'd need to build and power millions of them to have any impact. You'd have to reduce the CO2 resulting from the combustion of coal and oil during the whole industrial era, or maybe a bit less, but it gives you an idea of the magnitude of the task at hand.
- coryrc 13y agoIt'd be far more efficient to replace coal power with nuclear power plants.
- memracom 13y agoWhat's wrong with solar powered floaties to do that job? We could make them in the shape of yellow rubber duckies!