Agreed, Patrik, burying fossil fuels sounds like a plan, I know a place right down the street that sells liquid fuel!
-- And yes, smokestack is way more energetically efficient than sucking it straight from the air, carbon dioxide at industrial smokestack "can be as much as 10−25 volume percent or more of the flue gas". The main limitation seems to be that the uses of concentrated carbon dioxide are limited.
Tito
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 10:39:38 PM UTC-7, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 10:39:38 PM UTC-7, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:
The biggest problem with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is that the efficiencies go down dramatically the more diluted the carbon is. So capturing CO2 at a smokestack is way more efficient than sucking it straight from the air.By extrapolation, by far the most efficient form of carbon capture and sequestration would be to capture the carbon in its purest form. That is, take coal and other fossil fuels, and bury them underground!Patrik
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/ea3c7efb-13c5-4f1c-ac62-be2633865ec7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment