Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (68241)	8/28/2005 10:38:04 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Burning carbon at a power plant and using a large portion of the generated electricity to separate the carbon dioxide from the other gases is a desperate scheme. Although theoretically energy positive, it would be enormously costly. Some suggest the costly process of extracting oxygen to burn with the carbon, while others suggest extracting the the carbon dioxide after it is combusted. In practical terms, geothermal looks like a financial godsend by comparison to burning carbon and sequestering carbon dioxide. If such a wacky scheme proceeded on a large scale basis, it produces a longer term problem of depleting the atmosphere of oxygen over time. A more practical scheme uses some sort of intensive bacterial bio-farm to convert the carbon dioxide back into oxygen using sunlight. The bottom line is that plant and bacterial conversion of sunlight is far more efficient than current photo-voltaic cells. Improving photo-voltaic cells would eliminate any consideration of the Rube Goldberg carbon dioxide sequestration scheme. .