h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
| |
// my old proposal - grow lots of wood, burn it until
it turns to charcoal and bury that // |
|
| |
That might be a fine idea at some point in the
future, but as long as we're still mining coal and
burning it in power plants, it would probably be
better to burn the charcoal than to pay one crew to
bury the charcoal while another crew is being paid
to mine coal. |
|
| |
Each gallon of gasoline creates about a gallon of water so <shrug> |
|
| |
Re: the idea - if it could be done with any sort of efficiency, it'd be a good idea. Lasers aren't efficient, though. |
|
| |
//if it could be done with any sort of efficiency, it'd
be a good idea.// |
|
| |
Wrong. If it could be done with 100% efficiency it
would still be a bad idea. You would, as pointed out,
use as much energy as had been produced by burning
the coal. |
|
| |
[-] for the spectacular misunderhension of
thermodynamics. |
|
| |
Well, if it was solar powered...that'd be green-ish. Reminds me of those guys out in the desert with a huge solar array making H2O and CO2 back into petrol.. |
|
| |
A quick search brings up many doing that..link |
|
| |
coal phht, though there is some H in there; I meant methane or gasoline/diesel. |
|
| |
Yeah, the thermodynamics would suggest not so much a
laser as a *really* tall chimney, so that the sun could do the
work directly. I'm sure we could spread the costs by
thinking of other things to do with the chimney once it was
up. Maybe we could sell postcards at the top, have a
revolving restaurant, that sort of thing. |
|
| |