[haneefmubarak]

> he imagines [the necessary CO2] would come from power stations and other industrial processes, such as cement-making, that produce the gas in large quantities as exhaust.

IANAC, but it seems like that just exchanges one problem for another. I imagine that most, if not all, of the industrial processes that produce CO2 exhaust gases also result in other gases and particles getting into the exhaust stream, meaning that you'd have to refine/filter the exhaust from those processes to get just the CO2.

[grizzles]

IANACE, but there are good reasons to sequester carbon emissions, and this scrubbing can be achieved with renewables (eg. solar thermal) for processes that involve heating the flue gas. The problem of course is that there isn't really an economic case for industry to do it, because the costs of implementing sequestration are quite capital intensive to polluters.

[ams6110]

You would, but more and more, CO2 is being regulated as a pollutant and there is going to have to be recovery from such waste gasses anyway.

[allannienhuis]

I doubt they're suggesting they use the untreated flue gases as the gas in the apparatus. I think they're just pointing out that there are industrial sources of co2, n and that finding a use for the co2 helps with another pollution/waste issue

[clort]

I don't think that this helps really with the pollution issue, since the CO2 is in effect being used as a catalyst and will be emitted afterwards just as it was before. What the article is saying though, is that a large consumer of cement (a high CO2 producing process) is also likely to be a large consumer of clean water.. so that leaves the process of cleaning the water CO2 neutral except for the small amount of power consumed