• psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 days ago

    You would presumably capture the carbon using excess solar and wind power, which is also the cheapest power there is, sometimes going negative

    Is your capture number including the cost of liquifying the CO2 for storage?

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      We already have solar powered carbon sequestration systems, that require almost no maintenance over a period of a couple of hundred of years of operational life…

      Trees.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Until they burn or rot and release the carbon back into the air

        Also trees only grow where trees grew in the past, so growing new forests will only capture the carbon that was released when the old forest there was burnt or cut

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Decomp still sequesters carbon.

          Sure, burning them releases a portion back, but not most of it…

          What do you think comprises ash?

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            If you want to capture the most of the carbon, you cook the wood in an oxygen free environment turning it to charcoal and liberating volatile components (which could be used as carbon neutral fuel to run the furnaces)

            Nothing can eat charcoal, so it could be stored cheaply