• Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Its not cheap and not a solution.

    It will give us a temporary reprieve at best. We still need to solve the issue by lowering the CO2 in the environment. Chemically speaking, you’ll basically have to spend the same amount of energy to pull all the CO2 out as we got over the past 200 year by putting that CO2 in the atmosphere.

    That is if we have 100% efficient machines, however. In reality most combustion engines get 30% at best. Electrical system to pull it out will do some 70%? Let’s call it 50 on both, so you’ll have to double the amount of energy that this cost twice.

    Basically, to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels we’ll have to spend 4x the amount of ALL the energy we’ve spent over the past 200 years.

    You say it’s cheap? Basically double all energy prices (and with that, the prices of everything and destroy all economies) for, say, the next 50 years or so and generate twice the amount of electricity we do now, and we’ll be fine.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why comment if you don’t understand physics. I’m not saying turn the carbon into hydrocarbons, which is wat you are implying.

      Carbon sequestration takes way less energy than the energy released during burning.