(If you quietly disregard the fact that you have to get
the C from somewhere and put the CO2 somewhere else.)
Give it to our plant friends, the perfect symbiotic relationship.
K
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 5:02 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Troy Prideaux wrote:
I was under the impression that electrolysis was >80% efficient now.
I've heard some numbers >85%
My understanding is that electrolysis could still stand some improving,
but its efficiency is not really the problem. Even 100%-efficient
electrolysis would still be hideously energy-intensive. There are just an
almighty shipload :-) of electrons in each kilogram of matter, and
rearranging them by electrical brute force is inherently costly. Chemical
fuels store tremendous amounts of energy by electrical standards.
It's *much* easier to do such rearrangements if pushing one set of atoms
up the energy hill, e.g. prying electrons off oxygen and putting them back
onto hydrogen where they came from, can be paid for by letting another
bunch slide downhill, e.g. by having C donate electrons to oxygens and
turn into CO2. (If you quietly disregard the fact that you have to get
the C from somewhere and put the CO2 somewhere else.)
Henry