undefined | Better HN

0 pointsWJW4y ago0 comments

That depends on what you are trying to achieve? Sure, the captured CO2 is still CO2, but you can put it in an empty gas field somewhere and the net effect on atmospheric CO2 (which is what we are concerned about with regards to climate change) is the same as if you had split apart the molecules.

0 comments

adrian_b4y ago

The process described in the paper can be used only after CO2 is separated from the air, not instead of it.

Nevertheless converting CO2 into a solid reduces the volume one thousand times and makes its storage very simple.

I doubt that there could be found enough subterranean spaces that can be sealed well enough, in which to pump as much CO2 as it would be needed to reduce the concentration in the air.

marcosdumay4y ago

Yes, and as long as you can store it somewhere, all the power to you. Just ignore the chemical option and do that.

But anybody wanting to use the carbon or store it on any way that is not the limited amount of underground space will use both.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse