Scientists Just Pulled CO2 From Air And Turned It Into Coal

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.

This technique doesn't produce a lot more CO2, but it does require the use of toxic metals that must be replaced to continue the process to run.

Obtaining those metals, pumping the CO2, and removing the coal afterwards does require producing CO2 though.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, because it would cost more energy, produce more CO2, than if they hadn't bothered in the first place. But the more I read about 'The Green New Deal', and the 'Sunrise Movement', probably could be sold pretty easy. Who cares how much it costs, or how much resources are wasted, just as long as it give the appearance of saving the planet, from a fictional problem.

This technique doesn't produce a lot more CO2, but it does require the use of toxic metals that must be replaced to continue the process to run.

Obtaining those metals, pumping the CO2, and removing the coal afterwards does require producing CO2 though.

Figured they would have to move a lot of air, which will take energy, likely from burning coal or natural gas. I mean, 0.04 % CO2, scattered all over the world, couldn't really yield much coal from the process. Besides, what will they do with the coal produced, burn it? Seems a little foolish, unless they figure on adapting it to the exhaust pipes and chimneys of everything that burns carbon based fuels. Still, it could only reduce efficiency and economy. Still doesn't address the problem of all that coal still in the ground, can't just leave it there.