but the tech is hugely expensive to develop and even more expensive to run, iirc the co2 capture plant uses up to 25% of the plants total power output.
And? Have you seen the cost of a wind turbine/solar pannel?
and what does that have to do with carbon capture?
james lovelock(sp)suggested the great idea
That’s been costed out, and is long way from the cheepest option! Bessides, do you really think we’re not going to burn the wood at the end then claim carbon neutraility rather than positive?
Think about it, the cost of a bag of charcoal is about the same as a bag of coal, the cost of which is largely driven by energy (oil) prices. If it realyw as economicaly feasible, why dont we grow willow comercialy now and burn it rather than mining coal????
what is the cheapest option and why arent we using that then?
what are the development/running costs of tree planting/harvesting. any figures about anywhere.
the charcoal produced is removing carbon from the air, this is neither carbon +ve or neutral. removing something from somewhere generally results in a negative.
thought about it, not sure if you are making any sense.
we are not trying to make willow/charcoal into a cash crop, it has no end value other than its carbon content. it is being grown for the purpose of carbon removal.
coal is far more energy dense than willow/charcoal, easier to handle and process and is relatively easy to get a hold of in large quantities.