• ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The energy required to take carbon out of the atmosphere is at best, double what it took to put it in the atmosphere in the first place. There’s seriously strong economic reasons that this is a bad idea.

    • Niello@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s perfectly normal for technology to advance and become more effective and efficient over time.

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are hard limits on recapture efficiency. The only way to make it remove more than it creates is to use energy like geothermal. Even then, the production of a carbon capture facility generates enough emissions that it would take years of constantly running, and you’d only ever reach it if you’re using 100% clean energy to power it.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Grind up basalt slightly more than we normally do. Spread it out.

          It’s exothermic.

          Rate limited, but more than enough to undo the damage if we stop digging up 95% of fossil fuels.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re at the point where we can’t prevent the consequences of climate change. We can only prevent it from getting worse and mitigating the effects. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions this second, we’d still be suffering for years.

      It’s worthwhile for us to look at technologies which can reverse our existing impact to some degree. Finding a way to safely and intelligently remove carbon from the atmosphere may be more expensive, but it has the possibility of fixing our climate much sooner than otherwise, and that’s worth it.

      It’s important though that we don’t use it as an excuse to stay the same. The cost of doing this “cleaning” needs to be factored into fossil fuel price so transitioning away from it accelerates. Creating some additional cushion while we continue to do that would be very beneficial.

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve already accepted we’re fucked. There’s some really good ideas out there, and we know exactly where the majority of the carbon is coming from (I posted a graph in here, the biggest contributor is industry) but legislation isn’t being put in place to target the biggest emitters. Instead, we’re supposed to buy our way out of it by buying electric cars and building more things ie making more industry, when we should be doing the opposite.

        You should check out some of Nick Johnson’s videos. There are so many empty, decaying houses in the US. And yet, more houses are being built. It’s astonishing.