Why comment when you’re just randomly going to claim that ther person you disagree with must not know the subject because they disagree with you?
Sure, don’t convert back to hydro carbons. Where are you going to store all that CO2 in a way that you know it guaranteed won’t escape?
Do you have any idea how much CO2 you’re talking about? Are you going to store it in high pressure tanks? Are you going to freeze it maybe and put it in caves? Pump the gas underground and pray it won’t sleep out?
The reason that I’m talking about converting it back to hydrocarbons is exactly that: you need to store it somewhere stable and reliable. For the incredible amounts that we have to store, there aren’t that many options beyond making hydro carbons and storing those
Perhaps read an introductory article on carbon storage, or ask ChatGPT:
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): This involves capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial sources, transporting it, and storing it underground in geological formations.
Direct Air Capture (DAC): This technology captures CO₂ directly from the air and stores it underground or uses it in industrial processes
It’s a sad state of affairs that a fellow human being is more insufferable to talk to than an AI.
The amount of CO2 to store, depending on how far you want to go with removing all the CO2 humans have put in the atmosphere goes in the order of cubic kilometers. Humans have been, and continue to be busy beavers. Good luck with storing that in tanks.
Storing it in geological formations may be possible in a limited fashion but since it would be in gas form there is a litany of problems with that if you want to be absolutely sure it won’t escape.
Instead of bitching and moaning it may be more productive to just, you know, stay on subject.
Why comment if you don’t understand physics. I’m not saying turn the carbon into hydrocarbons, which is wat you are implying.
Carbon sequestration takes way less energy than the energy released during burning.
Why comment when you’re just randomly going to claim that ther person you disagree with must not know the subject because they disagree with you?
Sure, don’t convert back to hydro carbons. Where are you going to store all that CO2 in a way that you know it guaranteed won’t escape?
Do you have any idea how much CO2 you’re talking about? Are you going to store it in high pressure tanks? Are you going to freeze it maybe and put it in caves? Pump the gas underground and pray it won’t sleep out?
The reason that I’m talking about converting it back to hydrocarbons is exactly that: you need to store it somewhere stable and reliable. For the incredible amounts that we have to store, there aren’t that many options beyond making hydro carbons and storing those
Perhaps read an introductory article on carbon storage, or ask ChatGPT:
It’s a sad state of affairs that a fellow human being is more insufferable to talk to than an AI.
Yeah, you’re right, you are insufferable and sad.
Having said that:
The amount of CO2 to store, depending on how far you want to go with removing all the CO2 humans have put in the atmosphere goes in the order of cubic kilometers. Humans have been, and continue to be busy beavers. Good luck with storing that in tanks.
Storing it in geological formations may be possible in a limited fashion but since it would be in gas form there is a litany of problems with that if you want to be absolutely sure it won’t escape.
Instead of bitching and moaning it may be more productive to just, you know, stay on subject.