I thought ages ago about a passive technology to use solar power to capture carbon dioxide and turn it into solid form.
I realised that I was trying to invent trees.
This article has waaayyy too much “if this actually worked it could be used for…” and “instead of other methods that don’t work…”. But waaayy to little about the actual validity of the process.
This is a general trend every fucking time an article claims to have something on CO2 or batteries or global warming. IMO this is probably because the actual idea is bullshit.
Sorry but my ADD prevented me from reading all that non content crap to see if there were actually anything real to read.What if, instead of pumping the carbon dioxide underground, we made something useful from it?
WOW you’d have to be at least 4 years old to see how brilliant that could be.
What if instead of having your head up your ass, you at this point had already written at least a teaser about how this actually works?
99% sure by now, that this is a fucking waste of time.Please someone who bothered reading this, inform me if there’s any actual content beneath that load of obvious bullshit.
Edit: Ah OK there came some almost right after what I quoted, but why the fuck do they think they need to lead with all that meaningless babble?
I skimmed most of it, but I’m still not sure what the fuel is. CO2 isn’t particularly useful unless you change it to something else. What’s that something else?
Stopping pollution at the source is much more thermodynamically efficient.
I have several of these around me. I call them trees, and plants. They use solar power to convert carbon, water, and minerals, into a solid form, which I call wood.
This reminded me of that video when the covid lockdown caused the air to be so much cleaner that a mountain range could be seen from ~200km away:
We have this literally every winter in my area, but instead of 200km, it’s more like 20. We get what’s called an inversion where particulates get trapped in our valley, and they don’t leave until the weather changes and all that crap can escape. When it gets rally bad, I can’t see the mountains on the other side of the valley at all, whereas when it’s clear, I can make out specific features on the mountain.
During COVID, we had far fewer bad air days, because we weren’t producing nearly as many particulates.
you can see it’s peak around 350 km away
“Sustainable fuel”
Put that shit deep under ground, not back in the air!!
Lol, how is this different then hydrogen for example? Its renewable if just carbon dioxide is consumed during generation
Hydrogen fuel isn’t really renewable, even if the PR agents of companies creating it tell so.
Edit: at fact check, I found this, maybe there is a way after all:
To your comparison: Hydrogen only releases water if burned.
And getting CO2 out of air is very resource intensive and we need to pull a lot CO2 out, if the air to get back to “normal” levels. We can not afford to put any CO2 back into the atmosphere, after the hard work getting it out.
