Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On 10/21/2024 9:13 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/21/24 13:32, quadibloc wrote:

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 22:42:46 +0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>

The problem is that if you want to turn CO2 into solid carbon that can
be readily stored, it takes as much energy as you got from burning the
carbon into CO2 in the first place.  Assuming 100% efficiency, which you
don't even come close to.

>
That's true. But cars burn gasoline because it's a very efficient
portable
source of energy. Carbon capture plants don't have to be portable. So
they can use nuclear power from the grid. Only if the carbon capture
plants had to run on fossil fuels would this make things worse
instead of better.
>
John Savard

 Why not power from less dangerous sources, Such as Solar Power or Wind
or Tidal power plants. Of course you may be a nuclear power promoter
careless of the storage of fuel and the radioactive contamination that
may lead from such devices. Or maybe because you have not experience
adverse effects from such you may have forgotten the possibility.
      Solar power with suitable batteries in isolated areas
could handle the conversion to another form of carbon releasing
oxygen hopefully in the process.
      Gasoline was very useful due to it high energy content
but batteries are approaching the same energy density.

Batteries are not a power source - they are a power store.
When you burn hydrocarbons, you are exploiting energy trapped
millions of years ago, and have that available to use.
A battery can only supply the energy you put into it recently.
I get annoyed when I see people advertising battery systems as
'generators'.
pt