[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Keith and his team showed they could capture CO2 directly from the air with >> less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon dioxide. > > As alluded to in the article, it's well known that the energy > requirements for CO2 capture from air are low. It still needs to be > stored though, and that means reacting it with minerals or pumping it > underground. So, that 10:1 ratio they give is a bit of a red herring.
As I pointed out in the comments to Roger Pielke' blog, I think the energy costs didn't even include the necessary separation from the chemical substrate (which seems to be about $50/t from Keith's own presentation, although I may be misinterpreting that). http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/air-cature-technology-quickly-advances-4608#comment-11017 James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
