|
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|
|
More green lies.
On 04/01/17 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]
Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...
How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW
Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.
This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon. It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.
I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.
Tim W
|