21–30 of 90 posts
I wonder how efficient it is. If a square meter of the material were to be placed in 1000w/m² sunlight, how many grams of carbon can it scrub per hour? Can the carbon be easily recovered? How many break/repair cycles can this material do without deforming or degrading?
Could you “clean the air” by creating many such breaks and having it pull co2 out of the air?
Technically yes, but practically no. It'd be a very inefficient and slow way to "clean the air. The materials still need to be invested with whatever energy (e.g. glucose) is going to be consumed by the process, and once it finishes you're stuck with some hardened inert lumps which may not be cheaply recycle-able. Pound of cure, ounce of prevention -- the cheapest and easiest way to clean the air is top stop putting…
As a bonus, you're helping out a future civilization by seeding their oil reserves. Talk about paying it forward...
That reaction also consumes water. So, would you need to regularly mist the material with a spray bottle to keep the self-healing going?
Could you “clean the air” by creating many such breaks and having it pull co2 out of the air?
Technically yes, but practically no. It'd be a very inefficient and slow way to "clean the air. The materials still need to be invested with whatever energy (e.g. glucose) is going to be consumed by the process, and once it finishes you're stuck with some hardened inert lumps which may not be cheaply recycle-able. Pound of cure, ounce of prevention -- the cheapest and easiest way to clean the air is top stop putting…
It’s conceivable a process could be created that pulls carbon from the atmosphere more efficiently while not hsving to deal with all the other mess biological live entails.
It’s also possible you’re right, this isn’t possible, and biological life is the best we’ve got.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically yes, but practically no. It'd be a very inefficient and slow way to "clean the air. The materials still need to be invested with whatever energy (e.g. glucose) is going to be consumed by the process, and once it finishes you're stuck with some hardened inert lumps which may not be cheaply recycle-able. Pound of cure, ounce of prevention -- the cheapest and easiest way to clean the air is top stop putting…
> probably the best approach involves reusing existing plant or algae species. and simply harvesting them to bury in such a way that they won't be uncovered for a couple hundred million years. As a bonus, you're helping out a future civilization by seeding their oil reserves. Talk about paying it forward...
I'm not a physicist though, would be glad to be proven wrong.
It does sound very much like a "solar freaking roadways" type effort though.
I wonder how efficient it is. If a square meter of the material were to be placed in 1000w/m² sunlight, how many grams of carbon can it scrub per hour? Can the carbon be easily recovered? How many break/repair cycles can this material do without deforming or degrading?
Where's all this energy coming from?
> The chloroplasts are not alive but catalyze the reaction of carbon dioxide to glucose. That reaction also consumes water. So, would you need to regularly mist the material with a spray bottle to keep the self-healing going?
So, the self filling water bottles don't work because of the energy required to extract H2O out of the air is excessive (think how much electricity is required for your dehumidifier) ... Extracting carbon from the CO2 in the air is going to need a heap more, I would have thought. I'm not a physicist though, would be glad to be proven wrong. It does sound very much like a "solar freaking roadways" type effort though.