The concentration of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is so low I can't imagine any form of mechanism for removing it that wouldn't require an enormous amount of energy. Even just pumping it underground would require lots of power. Concentrating for processing it would require much more. And chemically separating CO2 into C and O2 would require as much energy per mole as we get out of burning 1 mole of carbon fuel in the first place. The first law of Thermodynamics tells us you don't get something for nothing..
The only reason plants can do it is they use sunlight as an energy source. But if we could use sunlight that efficiently, we wouldn't need to burn fossil fuel in the first place. I have no idea how this "solution" was ever proposed, but it is totally bogus.
There is only one way out of this mess. Stop burning fossil fuels and let the natural carbon sinks take care of the excess. The sinks are solution in sea water, incorporating carbon in mollusc shells as carbonates (and eventually in limestone), and trapping carbon in plant tissue.
I suspect all this "removing carbon from the atmosphere" is a right wing plot to give them an excuse to continue burning more coal and oil. I just ain't gonna work.
Space/Science » in reply to What about carbon capture?
400+ ppm?
The whole thread (33 posts)
- So tell me, what do you guys think?
- We are far past the tipping point...
- What about carbon capture?
- 400+ ppm?
- I am all for it- but the scale of the problem makes it questionable
- I can't say I believe entirely in your assessment
- What about carbon capture?
- Something else to worry about.
- I think we'll need to wait and see. n/t
- We are far past the tipping point...