• theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Chains of hydrogen and carbon.

    Yes, hydrogen, the smaller possible molecule, and carbon, which is smaller and lighter then oxygen

    Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbon, aside from something like graphite.

    Who cares what it becomes when you burn it? CO2 is obviously not the optimal carbon sink, even before you start considering things like long term stability

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbo

      Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.

      Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Do you work for them or something? Holy shit

        Of course volumetric density is what matters. That and long term stability

        You know what is really good at storing carbon underground forever? Fossil fuels. And if they can pull it out of the ground, they should have no problem putting it back in… It’s a lot simpler