Precisely. Jeff
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture OrionWorks wrote: > Jed sez: > > ... >> We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will >> probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which >> is a growing problem. > > Ok... time to ask a dumb question: > > How does one "burn" CO2? > > My mundane sense of logic would seem to suggest that "burning" CO2 > would only result in... well... more CO2 released into the atmosphere. > Obviously, that's not what is meant here. > > Clarify? It's not the CO2 which is being burned, of course! The antecedent of "it" was murky, but "it" actually referred to fossil fuels, not CO2. The original statement was from Jeff Fink, who stated that if you need to capture the CO2 from burning fossil fuels, then it's impossible to burn the fuels in the first place. Of course Jeff was overstating the case to try to make a point. His actual assertion here seems to be that carbon capture is impractical and demanding it will, in practical terms, block use of the fuels for which it's required, and by so doing, cause economic damage to the United States. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
