Ben,
With all good intentions, I don't buy your arguments. Here's why.
First, using CO2 multiple times is not an improvement unless it is
replaces CO2 that would have been otherwise generated. For example,
using CO2 from power plant emissions in fracking doesn't help unless
fracking has to use CO2 and the only other way would be to produce CO2
specifically for fracking. Otherwise, at the end of the process, more
CO2 has been added to the atmosphere. This is very different from
biofuels, where CO2 is captured by the biomass and then rereleased - net
zero CO2 added to atmosphere.
Second, CO2 can't be converted into fuel (liquid or not) without using
energy. If you use energy to do so, one case would be biofuels.
Anecdotally, regarding converting CO2 to diesel or other liquid fuel, it
seems that would be less efficient than simply generating electricity to
offset some other use of carbon based fuel for generating electricity.
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com>
To: "Peri Hartman" <pe...@kotatko.com>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion
List" <ev@lists.evdl.org>
Sent: 21-Dec-14 11:12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] PNAS report cites study that EV's pollute more than
gascars.
On Dec 21, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Peri Hartman via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org>
wrote:
Of course, if the CO2 is ultimately added to oil, then doesn't the
CO2 eventually return to the atmosphere during refining or usage?
Unless the CO2 is pumped back into the ground to stay, it's going to
wind up in the atmosphere.
However, if the CO2 can be used multiple times before it winds up in
the atmosphere, that's definitely an improvement.
One rather reasonable way to transition to an electrically-powered
transportation system would be to generate electricity with coal to
power EVs, capture the CO2 released from the coal at the smokestack,
and then use solar and wind power to turn that CO2 into hydrocarbon
fuels for vehicles with internal combustion engines. The overall result
is to significantly extend the number of road miles per ton of CO2 we
currently get. And, in the process, it builds out the carbon-free
generating infrastructure that will eventually replace fossil fuels
entirely.
Also, if you have a plant that can turn compressed CO2 into liquid
fuels...if you have surplus energy, as one would have after building
enough solar generating capacity, you can extract the CO2 from the
atmosphere and pump the liquid fuels you make back under ground. It's
not unreasonable to suggest that, a couple centuries from now, if we
were serious about it, we could thereby have returned atmospheric CO2
levels to those before the Industrial Revolution.
I don't like coal...but I'm careful to not let the perfect be the enemy
of the good. If significant progress is made in the right direction,
it's a good idea to at least not object excessively vigorously.
b&
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
