The problem is, that this technology is already being used to greenwash fossil fuels. There’s a gas power plant currently running that got subsidies and good press for building a CCS facility next to the power plant. Something like 1% of the emissions were actually sequestered, but millions were wasted.
If these subsidies are actually tied to reasonable requirements, I’m all in. History shows, though, that this is usually not the case.
RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Part of the problem with new technologies is that they’re inherently less efficient than the same technologies once they’ve been further developed. And the problem with that is that it takes millions of dollars develop and deploy new technologies.
This was once the biggest argument against solar and wind. It was expensive and markedly less efficient than coal. However, solar and wind are now pretty good and continuing to get better. All because people were willing to invest the many millions of dollars to develop those technologies.
This is almost always the argument with new technologies. But to make the argument that it’s a good reason to stop investing in a wide variety of technologies that could literally help save the world is shortsighted.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
But you cannot escape the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics. It will always be more efficient to not release the carbon in the first place.
RohanWillAnswer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
I agree. But we are not there yet. And there is already a lot of carbon in the air.