Woah there, wood? The stuff that blows over and not GLORIOUS STONE AND CONCRETE? I think you may be on yo something. Just don't tell Europe a lot of them get mad at the sight of wood houses
Carbon Capture is hardly anything other than an excuse to not lower emissions and potentially their profits, on par with the nonsense argument we don't need to lower emissions because unspecified magic technology will be invented to solve anything any day now.
I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
I've heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn't grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world
Even if it wasn't the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it'd be a 50+ year "solution" (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
Guys, hear me out. We take a gigantic carbon capture machine, and just pump as much electricity into it AS WE CAN. Because of the incredible energy consumption, we'll be using the wood from the amazon rainforest as fuel, BUT IT'S OKAY because we're just capturing that carbon. Oh also, governments gonna have to pay, it's a social project after all.
27 Comments
YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub · 59 pts · 311d
This is way overselling how effective it is in reality
TipRing@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 311d
Stupid 2nd law of thermodynamics always getting in the way.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 311d
We live in a democracy. We can change laws with a sufficient majority
prex@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 311d
Malcolm Turnbull vibes:
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 310d
Thorry@feddit.org · 5 pts · 311d
The courts will have a real hard time figuring out who actually created this universe so they can be sued.
prex@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 310d
Douglas Adams
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 310d
In this house, young lady, we observe the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Dragonstaff@leminal.space · 2 pts · 310d
I'm built different. Turns out if you stick your head far enough up your ass you turn into a Klein bottle.
18107@aussie.zone · 49 pts · 311d
We absolutely do need carbon capture research and development, along with gradually scaling up carbon capture projects.
Unfortunately, carbon capture is useless if we're still burning fossil fuels for power, heat, and transport.
Carbon capture is actively harmful when used as an excuse to build new fossil fuel power plants.
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub · 31 pts · 311d
Carbon capture is the best way to convert vague promises to subsidies.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 311d
If you can scale it up on renewables only to somewhere around a few million tons a year, then maybe.
lepinkainen@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 310d
Look into the finances of carbon capture companies
They spend 90% of their budget on marketing across the board because they’re just fossil fuel companies in disguise
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 311d
Yeah, it's a blank check to just produce more CO2.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 310d
Carbon capture is easy. Plant more trees.
village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 310d
And build more housing with them.
ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website · 2 pts · 310d
Woah there, wood? The stuff that blows over and not GLORIOUS STONE AND CONCRETE? I think you may be on yo something. Just don't tell Europe a lot of them get mad at the sight of wood houses
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 27 pts · 311d
Carbon Capture is hardly anything other than an excuse to not lower emissions and potentially their profits, on par with the nonsense argument we don't need to lower emissions because unspecified magic technology will be invented to solve anything any day now.
monogram@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 310d
McLarny@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 311d
I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 18 pts · 311d
I've heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn't grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry
metoosalem@feddit.org · 13 pts · 311d
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 310d
Meron35@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 310d
Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.
As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 310d
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 310d
ameancow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 311d
Don_alForno@feddit.org · 2 pts · 310d
Even if it wasn't the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it'd be a 50+ year "solution" (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 310d
ameancow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 310d
TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 310d
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub · 1 pts · 311d
Capturing is good for cleaning up the last percentages. All the rest is stop blowing the stuff in the air in the first place.
Part4@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 311d
TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 310d
The irony is that the pumpkin actually captured quite a bit of carbon
Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com · 13 pts · 310d
The further irony is that by decomposing it will release the carbon back in the atmosphere, plus the carbon it took to produce it and deliver it
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 4 pts · 310d
Dustin?
FreeBeard@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 311d
Photocatalytic splitting of CO2 on liquid Metal could one day be really really effective and it doesn't need an additional energy source.
Currently it's just play pretend.
Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 311d
Guys, hear me out. We take a gigantic carbon capture machine, and just pump as much electricity into it AS WE CAN. Because of the incredible energy consumption, we'll be using the wood from the amazon rainforest as fuel, BUT IT'S OKAY because we're just capturing that carbon. Oh also, governments gonna have to pay, it's a social project after all.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 310d