Hacker News Reader

I don't see how that will economically make sense long term. Burn coal to yield co2 + water + electricity, then use electricity to convert the co2 + water into oil? I assume it's more efficient to directly convert coil to oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

What they're doing makes more sense to my intuition. "Mine" (excess) co2 from the atmosphere, using a cleaner source of electricity.

View on HN

That's what makes this so interesting!

I mean, if open-air capture is used, it's mostly just a higher cost -- switching to capture from point-sources should make it more efficient. But then it seems to demolish folks' evaluation of the proposal itself.

I suspect that it's that "mining CO2 from the atmosphere" concept that, when we talk about open-air capture, makes it feel like a closed-loop process. But when we talk about capture from point-sources, it seems to feel less like a closed-loop process, leading to a loss of that intuitive feeling you'd mentioned above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com