3 ms·
It's remarkably stupid to burn coal in a power plant and then in the neighboring lot trying to take the carbon from very diluted (less than one part per thousan
by Gravityloss 13y ago
It's remarkably stupid to burn coal in a power plant and then in the neighboring lot trying to take the carbon from very diluted (less than one part per thousand) carbon dioxide in the air.
If these solar plants just fed the electricity into a well built power grid, the coal plants could be turned off and a huge amount of CO2 would be left unemitted.
Coal is unbeatable as a carbon storage method, and what's best, it's free as it already is in the ground, we just have to leave it there!
I'm sorry to say, but most of these energy schemes just make many people who understand anything about power generation cry.
It's like to an IT guy, some client suggested you ran their enterprise databases on an Arduino over Bluetooth, because they heard it's a cool new thing.
- icegreentea 13y agoThe point is to make more super energy dense liquid fuel for mobile applications that require that density. IE, airplanes. Thats the reason why the are seeking to make jet fuel specifically. The energy density requirements for flying makes the current headaches over EV cars look like a joke. The scientists and engineers have no illusions that this method will be used for general energy generation. This is for a niche application. And the 'sequester carbon from the air' part? All they care about is that its carbon neutral. And honestly, it's pretty smart. Pretty much a guarantee way to get defense funding all around the world.
- Gravityloss 13y agoYou would have a better climate impact by just creating coal replacing grid electricity with the panels, and flying the airplanes on normal kerosene.
- dredmorbius 13y ago"Normal kerosene" is a nonrenewable resource which will be running out by and by. Hence the interest in synthesis.