[JumpCrisscross]

> Direct air capture of carbon is rather energy intensive

How does it compare to letting plants do the capture?

[anonuser123456]

So like… grow switch grass, harvest it and burn it to harvest the flu gas co2?

[JumpCrisscross]

> grow switch grass, harvest it and burn it to harvest the flu gas co2

Idk if you burn it. Digest it, maybe, into a fuel or whatnot. My point is biomass is a more-familiar industrial input than whatever comes out of direct-air capture .

[anonuser123456]

co2 is pretty valuable as feedstock. If you burn it , you can recover the potassium and phosphorus to reseed the next batch.

[anon84873628]

Well once you have the grass you could just ferment it into ethanol... An option that has been available to us this entire time...

[ebiester]

That works for things like E85, but does not for airplane fuel or diesel or natural gas or...

The density of ethanol is the issue, no?

[pfdietz]

Photosynthesis is ruinously inefficient. Beyond that, turning CO2 into reduced carbon uses even more energy than just concentrating CO2 does.