It’s always seemed nonsensical to me. Now I studied the computer stuff, not physics but… it seems like you’d need a gigafuckton (SI unit right there) of energy to get the CO2 levels down in an appreciable way when the levels were talking about here are in the hundreds of parts per million… just seems like it’d be incredibly inefficient at best
It’s even simpler to see how stupid it is. It costs more energy to capture the carbon and store it than is gained by burning it in the first place. It’s literally more energy efficient to just not burn it at all.
I’m with you. Also, it seems like it would be much more efficient to do carbon capture at the source, where the fuel is being used, like a power plant, where the concentrations are relatively high, compared to atmospheric capture where CO2 is less than 0.1%.
It’s always seemed nonsensical to me. Now I studied the computer stuff, not physics but… it seems like you’d need a gigafuckton (SI unit right there) of energy to get the CO2 levels down in an appreciable way when the levels were talking about here are in the hundreds of parts per million… just seems like it’d be incredibly inefficient at best
It’s even simpler to see how stupid it is. It costs more energy to capture the carbon and store it than is gained by burning it in the first place. It’s literally more energy efficient to just not burn it at all.
If not burning it were an option, we’d be doing that. But we aren’t, so it isn’t.
So we need to do something with the stuff in the air…
Not burning it is an option though.
…it's just cheaper not to. If you ignore the externalities for it. Which we do.
I’m with you. Also, it seems like it would be much more efficient to do carbon capture at the source, where the fuel is being used, like a power plant, where the concentrations are relatively high, compared to atmospheric capture where CO2 is less than 0.1%.
Yeah. Carbon capture of flue gas would be much more efficient… but we're also not really doing that so…