A team of scientists has figured out how to convert planet-warming carbon dioxide into a harmless powdery fuel that could be converted into clean electricity
This only ignores a tiny issue with the CO2 capturing part (that is why we’re doing this, right?)
The CO2 in our atmosphere is there because we took energy out of a system, with CO2 as a by product. If we want to convert that CO2 back again to carbon, plastics, you name it, we will have to put back that energy we took as well.
We’ve been doing this CO2 dumping for a good two centuries now, and we’re still at it. The atmosphere has a huge amount of extra CO2 because of that, and if we want to air out all that CO2, well basically have to spent give-or-take the same amount of energy that we’ve been taking for the past two centuries.
If, starting tomorrow, we magically use only solar, wind and nuclear, and we magically double our energy output, we would have to spend about 50% of our entire energy budget for the next century to pull out all the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This is ignoring the storage problem (where to safely store it, stable, how, and conversion to anything that can be stored will require energy too) and ignoring things like energy conversion efficiency and losses that typically is around the 30% or so for most engines, meaning that in reality we might actually have to spend multiple centuries on this.
No matter what we do, this is not a problem that anyone alive today will see fixed. This problem is humongous, if not humanity ending, and yet somehow most people think it’s something science will solve within the next few years.
No matter what we do, this is not a problem that anyone alive today will see fixed.
I’ll be fucked sideways with a three pronged dildo if I don’t do whatever I can to leave this place better than how it was left to me, no matter how small the outcome of my efforts may be.
The mentality of “whoever comes next can deal with it” is what took us here.
This problem is humongous, if not humanity ending, and yet somehow most people think it’s something science will solve within the next few years.
If there is one thing we are good at is finding solutions for problems. Unfortunatelty, we often create new problems for ourselves, which is a nasty habit we should look into solving as well. Not doing anything, at all, is not what we are.
Isn’t the whole point of better technology to create newer and more efficient ways of doing things? Thus wouldn’t it be feasible to push that energy back in or back out using methods that may use the same amount of energy, though yield far greater results? I don’t know enough about this field, though it makes sense to me that modern tech, and developing tech, must be better than their counterparts two centuries past, and even 10 years ago.
I understand any system requires energy to be used. It’s the amount of energy per X unit that makes the difference.
Thus wouldn’t it be feasible to push that energy back in or back out using methods that may use the same amount of energy, though yield far greater results?
Yes, it’s possible to improve efficiency, up to a limit set by thermodynamics. In this video, a scientist (granted, astrophysicist) talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
Even if we built a 100% efficiency direct air capture system (which is impossible) to get down to 450 PPM CO2 levels by 2050, which is frankly too much already, and even in the more optimistic emission scenario – all of that still demands roughly 5% of the planet’s entire electricity production to be diverted to these machines.
While capture is necessary, it will physically not suffice. We have to stop emitting more; keep fossil fuels in the ground.
Sweet
This only ignores a tiny issue with the CO2 capturing part (that is why we’re doing this, right?)
The CO2 in our atmosphere is there because we took energy out of a system, with CO2 as a by product. If we want to convert that CO2 back again to carbon, plastics, you name it, we will have to put back that energy we took as well.
We’ve been doing this CO2 dumping for a good two centuries now, and we’re still at it. The atmosphere has a huge amount of extra CO2 because of that, and if we want to air out all that CO2, well basically have to spent give-or-take the same amount of energy that we’ve been taking for the past two centuries.
If, starting tomorrow, we magically use only solar, wind and nuclear, and we magically double our energy output, we would have to spend about 50% of our entire energy budget for the next century to pull out all the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This is ignoring the storage problem (where to safely store it, stable, how, and conversion to anything that can be stored will require energy too) and ignoring things like energy conversion efficiency and losses that typically is around the 30% or so for most engines, meaning that in reality we might actually have to spend multiple centuries on this.
No matter what we do, this is not a problem that anyone alive today will see fixed. This problem is humongous, if not humanity ending, and yet somehow most people think it’s something science will solve within the next few years.
I’ll be fucked sideways with a three pronged dildo if I don’t do whatever I can to leave this place better than how it was left to me, no matter how small the outcome of my efforts may be.
The mentality of “whoever comes next can deal with it” is what took us here.
If there is one thing we are good at is finding solutions for problems. Unfortunatelty, we often create new problems for ourselves, which is a nasty habit we should look into solving as well. Not doing anything, at all, is not what we are.
Ok and?
Are you saying not to try?
We have far more carbon free power sources to use now, and they keep getting better every year.
Isn’t the whole point of better technology to create newer and more efficient ways of doing things? Thus wouldn’t it be feasible to push that energy back in or back out using methods that may use the same amount of energy, though yield far greater results? I don’t know enough about this field, though it makes sense to me that modern tech, and developing tech, must be better than their counterparts two centuries past, and even 10 years ago.
I understand any system requires energy to be used. It’s the amount of energy per X unit that makes the difference.
Or am I wrong? Legitimately curious.
Yes, it’s possible to improve efficiency, up to a limit set by thermodynamics. In this video, a scientist (granted, astrophysicist) talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
While capture is necessary, it will physically not suffice. We have to stop emitting more; keep fossil fuels in the ground.
Preventative medicine for the Earth basically
Are you saying to just give up?