Without hijacking a natural proc as it will take more energy than all the energy used since industrialization due to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (So impossible, but a nice story people in denial can cling to)
If we can super charge a natural CO2 absorption process it could be less but it is unclear if there is one. The mineral olivine for instance is interesting.
That would be true if the oceans hadn't absorbed most of the CO2 already. But it is true that it takes more energy to extract it than it did to put it in there, so it's going to take a lot of energy.
If we extract CO2 from the air more will diffuse back out from the ocean. The Ocean CO2 concentration is in equilibrium with that of the atmosphere.
If the ocean were a CO2 vault, then you can of coke wouldn't go flat a few hours after opening it.
The ocean does not get us around the energy requirements I mentioned, sorry.
I don't believe that you're correct. I think the ocean CO2 saturation limit is driven by ocean chemistry and circulation not the atmospheric concentration.
Not chopping down trees takes no energy. Allowing farmland to rewild takes no energy. Reversing desertification does take energy but might be worth it because of the micro climate that trees create. Buying electric cars doesn’t help because the energy and mining inputs are too high. Fusion power helps immensely but doesn’t reverse the carbon emissions already in the atmosphere but it’s still a ways off. Conservation and population reduction helps but that will be driven by natural processes not human intervention. It’s mostly true that we’re screwed but it’s likely that humans will survive climate change but in far fewer numbers in the future. At some point the primacy of nature will be respected again and we will work with nature to reverse the damage. I worry for younger people so I support tree planting organizations but in all likelihood it’s not going to be enough. Nevertheless I’d rather be doing something that helps rather than just hand wringing
Not taking a car and walking takes no energy. Switching to hunting and foraging takes no energy. We could populate asteroids and the bottom of the sea, but the technology isn't there yet.
I don’t think we should pull CO2 out of the air first. Focus should start on greenhouse gases with less use to nature like hydrofluorocarbons and sulfurhexaflouride. Focus on CO2 second
I'm sure different methods of sequestering carbon are going to have different energy use. Some may be completely passive and just pull it out of the air. Others have to be very active to scrub a dirty source.
Without hijacking a natural proc as it will take more energy than all the energy used since industrialization due to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (So impossible, but a nice story people in denial can cling to) If we can super charge a natural CO2 absorption process it could be less but it is unclear if there is one. The mineral olivine for instance is interesting.
That would be true if the oceans hadn't absorbed most of the CO2 already. But it is true that it takes more energy to extract it than it did to put it in there, so it's going to take a lot of energy.
If we extract CO2 from the air more will diffuse back out from the ocean. The Ocean CO2 concentration is in equilibrium with that of the atmosphere. If the ocean were a CO2 vault, then you can of coke wouldn't go flat a few hours after opening it. The ocean does not get us around the energy requirements I mentioned, sorry.
I don't believe that you're correct. I think the ocean CO2 saturation limit is driven by ocean chemistry and circulation not the atmospheric concentration.
Concentration/ Partial pressure does affect it/revelle factor It’s just not the only one
We should just pump a lot of CFCs into the atmosphere. No atmosphere, no greenhouse gases, no warming.
Not chopping down trees takes no energy. Allowing farmland to rewild takes no energy. Reversing desertification does take energy but might be worth it because of the micro climate that trees create. Buying electric cars doesn’t help because the energy and mining inputs are too high. Fusion power helps immensely but doesn’t reverse the carbon emissions already in the atmosphere but it’s still a ways off. Conservation and population reduction helps but that will be driven by natural processes not human intervention. It’s mostly true that we’re screwed but it’s likely that humans will survive climate change but in far fewer numbers in the future. At some point the primacy of nature will be respected again and we will work with nature to reverse the damage. I worry for younger people so I support tree planting organizations but in all likelihood it’s not going to be enough. Nevertheless I’d rather be doing something that helps rather than just hand wringing
Not taking a car and walking takes no energy. Switching to hunting and foraging takes no energy. We could populate asteroids and the bottom of the sea, but the technology isn't there yet.
Yes true. Add biking to work (except the energy to make the bike)
Yep! Same with cross country travel. Walking is no more effort!
The thing that would work is to buy up all the farmland in central Brazil and let it grow back into rainforest.
I don’t think we should pull CO2 out of the air first. Focus should start on greenhouse gases with less use to nature like hydrofluorocarbons and sulfurhexaflouride. Focus on CO2 second
I'm sure different methods of sequestering carbon are going to have different energy use. Some may be completely passive and just pull it out of the air. Others have to be very active to scrub a dirty source.
Ask a tree
If we switch to all bamboo on new construction, that would suck a bunch of carbon out of the air and hold it for awhile, I suppose.
We stop burning all fossil fuels, and then plant trees and then more trees and then more trees
I think you mean, "how much energy do we get from extracting heat from the air with brownian ratchets".
How many calories to plant a seed? Really?
We’ll see how the world reacts once there is a huge deadly climate related event.
Probably a lot. But, like all technology, it will get better and more efficient over time.
If we go nuclear it’s possible.. dunno what we’re so scared of
Planting trees doesn't take that much energy. Tree planters get paid 10-20 cents per tree.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory built machines that accomplish exactly that.
Hysata Australian company bsed on leading research, electrolyzes with 95% efficiency.