| Oxidizing carbon fuels is a irreversible process, meaning an increase in entropy. Dispersion of CO2 in the atmosphere also increases entropy. We will always, 100% of the times, expend more energy to reverse a irreversible process than we could possible extract from this irreversible process. This statement is valid regardless of the path chosen. Which naturally spawns the argument 'let's not reverse it, let's do CH to CO to Cx, all we have to do is find x'. The problem is this is not valid because we burn a lot of fuel. Even if we found x, it would not be enough to sustain our rate of carbon emissions. In 2022 the world consumed 5.8*10^12 liters of crude oil. So it would be necessary to include y. And z. Etc until n. Inevitably including a regeneration step Cn + H to CH + n. Now the path looks like: CH -> CO -> Cx -> Cy -> (...) -> Cn -> CH Which is a closed loop, meaning net power loss. With 100% confidence. Maybe the one who oxidizes CH pays the bill to remove the CO2 emitted. Is it even possible to put such measure worldwide? Logistics would suddenly be prohibitively expensive for all but the most valuable products per weight/volume. Globalization is addicted to fossil fuels. Well, that is literally all we did and build and invest in the last century or so. The very power grid of the world is based on carbon fuels. We can't run our carbon removal machinery on dirty power or we would be emitting more than we could possible remove. It becomes 100% clear the winning strategy is not removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is replacing all machines and appliances that burn carbon. Worldwide. Not all are possible, ofc. But a stove ayy. |
One still does not imply the other. The question was about what makes sense. That's economically, socially, politically, regionally, etc. Amount of energy extracted via some processes is not the same as benefit. However, benefit is what matters. I guess this discussion isn't moving forward from here.