• @applebusch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    159 months ago

    It’s even simpler to see how stupid it is. It costs more energy to capture the carbon and store it than is gained by burning it in the first place. It’s literally more energy efficient to just not burn it at all.

    • @surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59 months ago

      If not burning it were an option, we’d be doing that. But we aren’t, so it isn’t.

      So we need to do something with the stuff in the air…

      • @SkyeStarfall
        link
        English
        99 months ago

        Not burning it is an option though.

        …it’s just cheaper not to. If you ignore the externalities for it. Which we do.

      • @serratur@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 months ago

        Yeah but when running carbon capture produces more CO2 than it can remove it is no point, its like running an air condition without exhausting the hot air.

    • @nexusband@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If it weren’t for the fact, that we put so much in the atmosphere already that it effects the climate, sure, it absolutely is. But since we’re already way past that point of no return, there is no alternative in doing carbon capture with renewables in areas where no one would use the available energy anyway.

      It’s expensive as fuck, but countless studies show, even if we just stop carbon emissions all together, it wouldn’t change much about the upcoming costs climate change brings, which will be absolutely biblical. Starting with more extreme weather and resulting insurance claims, over migration issues, food shortages and to a general collaps of the markets.

      Putting up carbon capture technology is more important than ever, not because we can just keep in going but because we have to go back and get that stuff out the air below 300 ppm.