Re:Turning CO2 to Stone
by dpark on Sunday January 22, 2017 @10:19PM
(#13459480)
Reducing trees to charcoal is not cost effective. It releases a ton of carbon dioxide by itself anyway. But it also doesn't make sense that we would plant trees, turn them into charcoal, and then bury that. This is insanely expensive and by the time you've got charcoal, you might as well burn that, too, rather than burying it and then digging up more coal to burn.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
The whole reason we had the second stage of the Industrial Revolution is that if you use trees instead of mining then you're limited in energy by the acreage you can devote to trees and that goes down with extra farming as the population increases. To simplify horribly that's why the Ming iron industry with it's chain suspension bridges and so forth collapsed.
If you're removing carbon from the air by burying trees then you'll only be able to sustain the energy intensity of civilization in the Britain of 1800, plus what we can get with renewables. What this new form of capture gives us is the ability to get rid of excess carbon without using huge amounts of arable land to do it.
Re:Turning CO2 to Stone
by dragontamer on Monday January 23, 2017 @10:19AM
(#13462722)
I mean, we have nukes / nuclear power plants.
There are plenty of high-power ways to make energy without carbon. The question is if enough of the population can accept it.