|
|
|
|
|
by ascar
2607 days ago
|
|
>I also think this innovation has a larger impact if it were used to bring existing generators of emissions closer to being carbon neutral. It also reduces the burden of being cost efficient on Day 1 since the carbon intensity of large emission generators is already a cost they'd be glad to mitigate or get rid of I can't follow this argument. What exactly are you proposing? His process still has a ~50% efficiency-loss, so even using all energy generated from fossil generators would only mitigate a maximum of 50% emissions (even ignoring all other efficiency losses here). And that obviously would be stupid. That energy is generated for a purpose. The whole point of his process is to use solar/renewable/carbonfree energy to reverse carbon emissions. It would always be more efficient to just use less electricity/energy in other situations. |
|
Maybe i should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting using the energy from a fossil plant to power this, but co-locating it to areas where there might be more environmental and cost incentives to do so.
As i said in my earlier post, arguments on cost/efficiency are beside the point. The huge deal here is the use of electricity (of any form including all the advances to come in the future...solar cells in space, nuclear fusion etc), to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. One can now envision a future (regardless of cost or efficiency today) where we can sustainably keep the earth whole.