Nigger thats tree

It takes a lot of energy, because burning C into CO2 releases a lot of energy. But the real difficulty with this scheme isn't the energy cost, it's the infrastructure density. Only a very small proportion of the atmosphere is CO2. You can't just have a big machine somewhere that sucks CO2 out of the air and then converts it to C and use it to clean the atmosphere, because only a very very small fraction of the atmosphere is within reach of that machine. You need a very large globe-spanning network of small machines, which is what a forest is. But this is very cost-ineffective to build.

>>16926865
>But the real difficulty with this scheme isn't the energy cost, it's the infrastructure density
This is entirely wrong. Air is pretty well mixed and a single machine placed anywhere has essentially the entire atmospheres worth of CO2 at it's grasp. Obviously you can't put your machine down in a cave or something but in any open location the energy cost of running couple fans to push the air around and the ambient mixing thanks to wind ensures steady CO2 availability and is much cheaper in energy than the energy cost of pulling CO2 out and transforming it into anything useful.

>>16926813
>>16926865
what about tree made of metal?
also i just want to take the o2 away from the c, they both have c in the name, so what's so difficult???

>>16927261
>also i just want to take the o2 away from the c, they both have c in the name, so what's so difficult???
For transforming 44 grams of CO2 into C and O2 you need about as much energy as boiling a full 2l kettle of water. A lot of energy.

>>16927298
>For transforming 44 grams of CO2 into C and O2 you need about as much energy as boiling a full 2l kettle of water.
How dumb are you? You can’t “lose” energy, we will get it back using the C and the 2 oxygens.

>>16926202
Oh, that's easy. You just take the 2 off the O and put it on the C, and the O just falls right off.

>>16927298
so making 44 grams of c into co2 produces the energy to boil a 2l kettle of water?

>>16927351
Well it kinda depends what the carbon is bonded to because chemical energy comes from bonds between molecules o=c=o is about as stable and inert as it gets.
But you need about 35g of carbon (a mix of various c-c bonds) and 45g of o=o to create as much heat to boil a 2l kettle, so a little bit more of the mixture.

>>16927448
why dont you just use o=o because it's o2 aka the thing that's right next to co2 and also super plentiful
you wouldnt wanna use carbon because that's what you're trying to get

>>16926813
Ackchually...
The O2 is extracted from water. The CO2 is used to make carbohydrates with the hydrogen extracted from the water.

>>16927449
Ok but after you seperate o from o where do you put it, if you put it onto another o nothing changes and no energy is released.

>>16927456
is there anything that likes bonding to o more than o?

>>16927457
Our options (there is a lot of it on earth) are Sillicon (already bonded to O, almost all of the silicon on earth is SiO), iron (same thing), and C.

>>16927459
that's kind of annoying isnt it
cant we just drill a big hole down to the mantle, put a big water boiler in it, and then take the c away from the o2? assuming that you cant make any energy by taking awway oxygen from silicon or iron

>>16927460
Well if we did the mantle thing it still would be better to have a wire coming out and carrying electricity to use for things instead of using coal to burn making CO2 to make elextricity on the ground.
If you want to turn CO2 into C and O2 trees reign supreme, the only issue is that if the tree dies the coal will be turned into co2 again by creatures that will eat the dead wood and breath oxygen. But the neat thing is trees make more trees with time.

>>16927462
but that takes like a million years and shit, so anything is better than trees
the wire idea is good, then at the top of the wire you put the c and o separating facility

>>16927463
But a guy on the other side of town will burn C to boil water for his tea, it's more effective to have a wire go to his house and use the electricity for that.

>>16927464
we already have electricity for that, im talking about electricity to take c out of the air instead of just preventing more of it from being added

>>16927465
What's the point if someone puts more co2 into the air for marginally less energy that you used to seperate them.

Theres a process that can do methane->graphene. Can synth methane from atmosphere. Waste c02 from industry could be directed to sabatier and output graphene. Newer catalysts enhance the efficiency of that process.
Eventually graphene-perovskite solar panels->methane->graphene creates a circular industrial loop thats also a carbon sink.

>>16927765
waow, idk what those words mean but it will probably never be (((economically viable)))
that does sound like the sort of op infinite power exploit id use in my autistic colony games though

>>16926865
What if we just put the machine right where the co2 is produced