The Solar System formed
from the collapse of a molecular cloud
consisting mostly of hydrogen, but also
containing heavier elements. As the cloud
collapsed, its central region began to heat
up until eventually the hot ‘proto-Sun’ was
formed. The planets formed by the
accretion of material from within this cloud.
Due to their high boiling points, only metals
and silicates could exist in solid form in the
hot, inner regions of the early Solar System.
More volatile elements either remained
gaseous or were blown away by the Sun’s
energy. Since this heavy material existed
mainly in the inner regions of the Solar
System, the planets that formed there are
small and rocky. In the cold outer reaches
of the Solar System, compounds with low
melting points could remain in solid form.
These ices were also much more abundant
than the heavier elements. The outer
planets were therefore able to grow much
larger, and held onto large atmospheres of
hydrogen and helium gas.
Could direct air capture prevent climate change?
Direct Air Capture (DAC) is an appealing
way to tackle climate change: just pass
ambient air over chemicals that absorb the
CO2 driving global warming, and then use or
store the CO2. DAC differs from the
better-known carbon capture and storage
(CCS) in that it can be done anywhere, not
just at big sources of CO2 such as power
stations. It’s more effective than natural CO2
‘scrubbing’ using trees and plants, and can
be performed where the CO2 is most easily
stored or re-used.
Like CCS, however, DAC faces the
problem of ensuring the CO2 never escapes.
Unlike CCS at power stations, DAC must
be effective at removing the far more dilute
CO2 in ambient air. This demands special
equipment and chemicals, plus renewable
energy sources producing zero CO2. That
has led to grave doubts about the
economic viability of DAC. For now, it
remains an intriguing but impractical
remedy for global warming.
way to tackle climate change: just pass
ambient air over chemicals that absorb the
CO2 driving global warming, and then use or
store the CO2. DAC differs from the
better-known carbon capture and storage
(CCS) in that it can be done anywhere, not
just at big sources of CO2 such as power
stations. It’s more effective than natural CO2
‘scrubbing’ using trees and plants, and can
be performed where the CO2 is most easily
stored or re-used.
Like CCS, however, DAC faces the
problem of ensuring the CO2 never escapes.
Unlike CCS at power stations, DAC must
be effective at removing the far more dilute
CO2 in ambient air. This demands special
equipment and chemicals, plus renewable
energy sources producing zero CO2. That
has led to grave doubts about the
economic viability of DAC. For now, it
remains an intriguing but impractical
remedy for global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



































