Whart1984 - 1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
The problem is, the magnesite soaked with carbon dioxide couldn't be used for anything without risk of its release into atmosphere again. In addition this process would be energy hungry and it would actually increase the fossil fuel consumption instead of decrease. And until large consumerists of fossil fuels like Russia or China will not be willing to sequester carbon dioxide in this way, then every effort would have marginal results.
Résumé : il y a risque de relargage du co2 dans l'atmosphère, le procédé est avide en énergie donc pas sobre, il accroit la consommation d'énergie fossile (le pourquoi pas donné), tant que les pays très consommateurs d'énergies fossiles comme la Russie ou la Chine ne s'y seront pas mis, les résultats seront marginaux (tout progrès n'est-il pas bon à prendre ?)
Not to say, that carbon dioxide levels rise MUCH FASTER than the consumption of fossil fuels and they ignore its trends, so that they apparently originate from another source independent on human activity.
catrov - 5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
For a reality check, let's calculate how much magnesite would be needed to absorb all the CO2 produced by energy generation just in the US in one year. The reference year is 2010; emissions have undoubtedly risen since then. But it will give us a good ballpark figure.
We need 2 tons of magnesite to absorb 1 ton of CO2, we emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 per year, and magnesite has a density of 3. Thus we would need about 1 billion cubic meters of magnesite, which is enough to cover the city of Los Angeles to a depth of nearly a meter
That's a big waste disposal problem. If it has to be shipped to a disposal site, that's 100 million dump truck loads, or 200 dump trucks unloading every minute, 24/7, 365 days a year. This is not likely to be a practical solution.
l'article anglais a déjà un titre racoleur.
Terminer l'analyse des commentaires