Hacker News
points by __MatrixMan__ 2 days ago | 0 comments
Because we'd be making them out of CO2 pulled from the atmosphere in the first place. We wouldn't be putting any new carbon into the atmosphere, just recycling carbon that's already there. And the larger our fuel stockpiles get, the more carbon we've sequestered. I think it has better economic incentives than pumping CO2 down into the earth or something like that.
[–] zahlman 2 days ago
Cycling carbon between CO2 and synthetic hydrocarbons, and presumably using clean energy for the recovery step, seems like basically just a complex solar+battery scheme (and I can't really see it being more efficient, although it produces denser storage). Sequestering the CO2 in carbonate rock makes more sense to me (and that has actual chemical uses too).
[–] defrost 2 days ago
Alternatively, sequestering in ultramafic rock to transform to carbonate rock and make a bit of orange hydrogen on the side to power the scheme.

* https://research.csiro.au/carbonlock/geological-properties-o...

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031992...