Re: Sequestering CO2
Posted by Skywise on November 09, 2008 at 23:01:40:

Because it requires too much energy? A quick google search seems to confirm that. I didn't follow any of the links, but one of the hit summary's said "up to 5x as much as H2O electrolysis".

Brian

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Steve  19:57:13 - 11/11/2008  (74455)  (1)
        ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande  08:55:08 - 11/12/2008  (74456)  (1)
           ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Steve  23:56:54 - 11/12/2008  (74458)  (1)
              ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande  07:33:38 - 11/13/2008  (74460)  (1)
                 ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Steve  19:45:59 - 11/14/2008  (74472)  (1)
                    ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Skywise   21:02:27 - 11/14/2008  (74473)  (1)
                       ● Re: Sequestering CO2 - Syeve  09:13:29 - 11/15/2008  (74476)  (1)
                          ● Free Energy Devices - Skywise  14:19:26 - 11/16/2008  (74480)  (1)
                             ● Re: Free Energy Devices - Steve  07:05:49 - 11/17/2008  (74490)  (1)
                                ● Re: Free Energy Devices - Skywise  13:20:56 - 11/17/2008  (74501)  (1)
                                   ● Re: Free Energy Devices - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande  21:30:11 - 11/17/2008  (74503)  (1)
                                      ● Re: Free Energy Devices - Steve  22:37:11 - 11/17/2008  (74505)  (1)
                                         ● Re: Free Energy Devices - Skywise  22:53:16 - 11/17/2008  (74506)  (0)