5 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] thread
I prefer a simplified version:

Fossil fuel + O2 --> Money + Waste + CO2

Money + CO2 --> Fossil fuel + O2 + Waste

The problem is that each conversion is not 100% efficient, so the net reaction is

Fossil fuel + O2 --> Waste + CO2

In the thread there is a drawing that explain this more visually.

There are some chemical process to transform one fossil fuel into another, you can "steal" the hydrogen from oil and you get energy and coal, but I'm not sure if it's profitable if you are going to burry the coal.

A big reforestation may work, and then charcoal and bury it, but no country offers a lot of the surface for free. It's probably better to use the surface to get biodiesel and ethanol, and replace the fossil fuel with carbon neutral fuels.

There's no way around the fact that we simply have to reduce our activity and convert to solar power? Color me surprised.

I'm sure that humanity will pull through the energy and emissions crisis, but we are really making this more costly than it should be, just because we want to be comfortable in the short term.

A brilliant derivation of the thermodynamic realities of CO2 scrubbing. So much magical thinking exists about this!

Of course, it takes millions of years for plants to do it, bit by bit but because humans can't think in such scales, the difficulties even plants face can't be easily imagined.

> it takes millions of years for plants to do it

Silicate minerals can do it in thousands of years, and much faster with some human assistance.