127
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
127 points (91.5% liked)
Technology
58150 readers
4372 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What's the catch?
When they say it's efficient, they mean at not letting CO2 go, not in energy cost. Looks like step one is capturing it which is already energy intensive, and step 2 is reacting it with a strong base. So it takes a lot of stuff as input.
And they did this on a lab bench, not at scale in a plant.
This and fusion, neck and neck.
Burning it creates enormous clouds of Trioxin 2-4-5.
Does trioxin perchance give one superpowers?
You have lymphoma.
You'll be able to feel yourself rot.
That it burns the shit back into the atmosphere.
Yes, but if it could provide as an alternative to digging up oil and gass, and get the energy needed to make the transformation from sun, wind or other sustainable sources. It could lower the amount of new CO2 being put into the atmosphere as well as work as a way to store excess energy from wind and sun.
Yeah, it would basically act as a battery except much better energy and power density, and faster 'charging'.
The downside is invariably that round trip energy efficiency (electricity in vs electricity out) is somewhere between 'much worse' and 'terrible'.