That energy can come from somewhere that doesn’t produce more carbon than this sequesters. Solar, wind, nuclear. Obviously we need to stop burning fossil fuels, but also we need to turn the carbon we’ve already produced back into a form that won’t find its way back into the air.
Comment on Inspiring. Innovating.
porksnort@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
Direct air capture is a scam. It requires energy that comes from somewhere else. Capturing CO2 requires energy, it’s basic physics/chemistry.
Nothing about it makes sense excpet as an expensive boondoggle and a distraction for correcting the root causes of climate change.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
porksnort@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
It can, but it isn’t and it won’t. DAC is a scam and a distraction until fossil fuels are out of the equation. It is a false hope, a glamour, to keep us from addressing the root causes.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Once fossil fuels are out of the equation, we will still need to sequester carbon. And at point, it will actually be powered by renewables.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
When fossil fuels are out of the equation, civilization will have to learn to live on a roughly 3 to 1 EROEI as opposed to the 100:1 of the prewar period and the roughly 20:1 today.
Your surplus energy decides your civilizational metabolic rate and is a key pillar of what is possible. Are we building shit like this at 3:1? What are we giving up for it?
4am@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Cmon bro
They’re building nuclear plants for AI, you think they’re gonna build what, wind farms to run a DAC plant? They just basically made it unaffordable to put solar on your own home, do you think they won’t be like “lol build a natural gas power plant to run it”
Nothing gets done if the Saudis don’t win.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 5 days ago
Kind of stupid to say its all about the Saudis when the US produces more oil and gas products than most every other country
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
None of this addresses the comment I left. I never said the saudis are gonna be the pioneers of renewable powered DAC lmfao
4am@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Saudis are a stand-in for “big oil” as a whole. In other words, the oil barons of the world aren’t going to let renewables power anything; DAC will be fossil fuels; “clean” coal/nautural gas and they will release more CO2 than they can capture of course because that’s just thermodynamics.
treadful@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
That article’s only real point is that we shouldn’t pin our hopes entirely on sequestration. Nothing about it being invalid or “a scam.”
Basically summed up in these two paragraphs:
On the one hand, putting more money into carbon removal will help scale up—and drive down the cost of—technologies that will be needed in the future.
On the other hand, the growing excitement around these technologies could feed unrealistic expectations about how much we can rely on carbon removal, and thus how much nations and corporations can carry on emitting over the crucial coming decades. Market demands are also likely to steer attention toward cheaper solutions that are not as reliable or long-lasting.
Carbon sequestration is likely to play a part in becoming carbon negative, and deserves to be explored.
porksnort@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
Until fossil fuels are not a part of the energy equation, DAC is a band-aid where a tourniquet is required. Sure do research, but DAC will never work while we are burning fossil fuels for energy. It doesn’t even make economic sense.
regedit@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
We need a study to determine how much energy is released from burning billionaires. That’s the only way these things might be carbon-neutral!
porksnort@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
Finally, someone who gets it!
ronigami@lemmy.world 5 days ago
So what if it required 1 watt?
You have to do actual math to determine if it’s worth it, not just write it off because it requires energy.
porksnort@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
The more you spend, the more you save!
The math has been done to death. CO2 capture requires energy input and doesn’t yield any. This is basic stuff.
ronigami@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yes, but just because you are spending energy doesn’t mean you are emitting a lot of carbon. Especially if your power comes from nuclear.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
This will only ever make sense when we have carbon neutral energy that is “too cheap to meter.” So, like, nuclear fusion, or solar panels become cheaper than tar roofs. In other words, these systems will make sense after climate change is solved. lol.
porksnort@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
Exactly.