61–70 of 291 posts
The end state of the atmosphere is, at best, the same as the starting state, but you've expended a load more energy for nothing. If the energy to run this process isn't zero-carbon, then this is going to be a big net emitter when done at scale.
This is just creating green-washed gasoline.
So, you spend a load of energy to reform atmospheric CO2 back into hydrocarbon fuel - and then just burn it again, turning it back into CO2 and putting it back into the atmosphere? The end state of the atmosphere is, at best, the same as the starting state, but you've expended a load more energy for nothing. If the energy to run this process isn't zero-carbon, then this is going to be a big net emitter when done at s…
Now, I dont see the point over just using electric cars, but i guess this has a limited shelf life for those existing cars, or those who refuse to change?
I strongly suspect that manufacturing hydrocarbon fuel out of air, water, and electricity is going to be a pretty significant part of the fight against climate change. The reason is fundamentally political. Newly industrialized countries have a lot of vital economic activity dependent on internal combustion engines, and cannot afford the luxury of replacing them with alternatives. The West does not have the political…
>I strongly suspect that manufacturing hydrocarbon fuel out of air, water, and electricity If you already have electricity, that is all the energy you need. There is no need to use it to produce a toxic, polluting fuel that is used in highly inefficient internal combustion engines. Simply use electric motors, which are way more efficient.
This is really, fundamentally important technology. Emissions reduction will not work: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nations-are-not-r... > The authors of the report stated in a press release that the kind of drastic, large-scale action the planet desperately needs has yet to be seen, even though global emissions have reached record levels at 53.5 billion metric tons in 2017, with no signs of peaking. >…
How much do today's "carbon recapture" methods need to grow? What's the timeline on them looking like? P.S. The first Google result for carbon recapture is titled "“Direct air capture” of carbon dioxide won't solve climate change" P.P.S From Wikipedia with a cited source: capturing and compressing CO2 and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost per watt-hour energy produced by 21–91% for fossil fuel pow…
that entire article can be reduced to "nanotubes" since its a YC company though maybe we could get the underlying story?
After reading this article, all I can say is ... ugh. What I really wanted to know was "Where does the energy come from?", and the article didn't answer that at all. The world doesn't really have a "carbon" problem, it has an energy problem, and right now carbon fuels are the cheapest, most abundant source of energy. Even if you somehow got carbon capture to work, you're still going to have to power it - with solar,…
I’m sure a lot of places have excess energy production that batteries can’t store. Gas is relatively easy to transport long distances. Seems like a variety of ways to decrease fossil fuel outputs seem likely. Then, at a future state, you could just do this as a way to terraform the planet (if that’s the right term?) back to a pre industrial state, as much as possible
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would bet photovoltaic. Lowest cost per watt, the process can likely be designed to tolerate day/night variations, and the plant can be located where the sun shines.
Or nuclear. A big nuclear plant could be built somewhere with cheap land, no earthquakes, and minimal weather. You don’t even need electric transmission infrastructure. If the capital costs are low enough, cheap or free spot electricity could be used, too. California regularly has excess production.
We would gradually go from coal and (natural gas) powered electric cars, to nuclear powered ICE cars.
(1) Crude oil.
(2) Coal, water, and electric power.
(3) Some biological reactions.
To address the hidden agenda here, see
There is a water plant called Azolla that actually captured so much co2 long ago that many think it triggered an ice age. Why not incentivize natural carbon sequestration and just produce huge fields of this stuff everywhere? I would hope we find a fish that likes eating it, or find a way to convert it into other animal feed, if nothing else. I don't think carbon tax credits or whatever they are called are enough for…
IMO it's analogous to solar panels in Canada where the sun is 1/2 the strength of other parts of the planet [2]
[1]: https://www.co2.earth/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#/media/File:G...
