current state
No state will be efficient. Burning shit in reverse takes more energy than you got out of it in the first place. It’s a physical impossibility to make an energy efficient direct carbon capture plant.
Comment on Inspiring. Innovating.
Zacryon@feddit.org 1 month ago
Current state of the art DAC plants are incredibly inefficient. Also, even if they would come with efficiency that is comparable to trees, they would still lack other positive ecological functions of trees.
markovs_gun@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Zacryon@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Of course. But it’s the scale of inefficiency (also in terms of a financial perspective) that becomes quite significant.
icelimit@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
It was always going to be inefficient trying to capture something that’s 400ppm.
Zacryon@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Yes, of course there is a physical limit. But I’m not sure we’ve leveraged all that’s possible yet. And currently the scale of inefficiency - also from a financial perspective - is quite significant. Especially when comparing to other methods like planting trees.
Inucune@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Currently running an algae farm. First step is water, which holds 8x the gasous CO2 as the air it is exposed to.
icelimit@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Algae make our oxygen. Biomimicry is the way to go
Justas@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Genetically modifying algae to be more efficient at photosynthesis would be the way to go. However, I think it was attempted many times in the last 30 years and I have not seen any breakthroughs.