I'm puzzled by the focus lately on what seem to me to be energy-demanding ways to remove air's CO2. Isn't the reaction from CO2 to graphite, carbon fiber or diamond energetically unfavorable? As evidence, these all can burn, releasing CO2. Furthermore, since it takes energy to release CO2 and, say, CaO from kilned CaCO3, isn't the opposite reaction energetically favorable? Granting these, isn't then the only energetically favorable way to remove CO2 from air to ultimately enhance weathering of CaO and MgO, etc. containing rock? Aren't we realistically restricted by thermodynamic principles from any but energetically favorable ways of removing air's CO2? How would we otherwise get the energy for CDR? Aren't fossil fuels, nuclear, wind and solar PV all carbon-releasing in deployment? Wouldn't that carbon expense bring us yet closer to any methane release climate brink?
Brian > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
