back
2 comments
If anyone is suggesting that this would help with the climate crisis, then it's worth noting that it would require other sources of energy (solar, wind, nuclear) to produce substantially more energy than the total amount consumed by humanity. So it's viability is very dependent on just how efficient the process is -- is there 10% waste energy or 90%?

This article did not say.

It only is a net positive if you use carbon-neutral energy to power it. You could use that source energy to power things directly, and not do this conversion at all.

To the degree that methane is a useful fuel, perhaps a more direct approach is to substitute other processes for those needing methane. Instead of 'wasting' clean energy on this, which is essentially creating methane so you can burn it, which doesn't help at all. Sure, it doesn't add more CO2 but it doesn't get rid of any either - it's carbon-neutral, which means, doesn't improve the CO2 situation.