I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
It can’t even look cool. God this timeline sucks.
Inspiring. Innovating.
Submitted 3 days ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/761e4fd7-a210-4495-a98e-61276396d3d8.jpeg
Comments
karashta@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
sefra1@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Nice, now the techbros can finally achieve their lifelong dream of paving all the forests and selling tickets for the tree museums.
After that they can plant trees on Mars.
TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today 3 days ago
everyone seems to be jumping on how shit of an idea this is and that we just need more trees, but the point of this is that they can directly sequester the carbon back into the ground. Yes you can plant a lot of trees but when those trees die and rot away the carbon just ends up straight back in the atmosphere, you need to actually bury it to stop it re-entering the atmosphere again.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Go look up how much CO2 is actually in the air. Then look up how much air exists in the atmosphere. Then, finally, look up how much air these things are capable of filtering out.
Then you will see why this is a scam.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Some of the carbon might return to the atmosphere via rot, but far more of it would be put into the soil or trapped in lumber. Besides, the solution is extremely cheap and effectively self replacing, just let new trees grow as old ones die.
newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Some trees can continue to grow for hundreds to thousands of years before just dying and rotting away. I don’t see the carbon capture machines lasting that long without steady power and maintenance.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
And when they rot away, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Hundreds or thousands of years isn’t nearly enough, we need to take it out of the carbon cycle permanently. These particular machines will last maybe a couple of years, and will probably generate hundreds of times more carbon in their construction and maintainence than they’ll sequester, but it’s a necessary first step. It’s not possible to put the carbon back in the ground where it belongs at a viable cost and energy expenditure without building these machines first.
AA5B@lemmy.world 3 days ago
One of the many problems is at least in the US, it tends to be used for fracking …… storing it under ground to pump more oil
Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Now reunite Mythbusters and stack like 30 seconds of freeway traffic worth of cars facing it. Go.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 days ago
My first act as president would be to create a cabinet-level Department of Myth Busting, headed by Adam savage and headquartered at the James Randi Laboratories.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 3 days ago
They put all the trees in a tree museum.
Unlearned9545@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Greenwashing is an issue, but so is avoiding complicated nuance by simply laughing at an idea without understanding it.
The country I live in is mostly powered by renewables, they focus on reducing emissions, then capture at source, but they are currently having a healthy nuanced debate on whether to implement something like this.
The original set of these were built without reguard to their specific carbon offset as they were built to be exerpimental and to experiment with the technology. As with almost anything on engineering.
Modern ones have to go through a Life Cycle Assement (LCA) where they figure out when the break-even point will be before they are built and they are typically built where there is renewable energy sources. They must be net carbon negative for government subsidy.
Arizona and Texas are mostly desert where trees may not be a viable option but they have solar and wind farms. Deforestation is awful and reforestation can be a great option but these two climates in particular have not had forrests for thousands of years.
The largest one in Texas is owned and operated by an oil company, likely powered by oil, and the CO2 is used to frack more oil. For them it needs to be net profit rather then net carbon negative. Protest and ridicule away.
Iceland has the most successful powered by geothermal and is over 90% net carbon negative already and likely to increase the longer it runs.
Other places inject the CO2 into concrete building blocks making them stronger and a viable non destructive form of storage.
Others turn them into burnable fuels effectively “recycling” the CO2.
Others use them for industrial production of urea, methanol, fire exstinguishers, or even for drink carbonation or food preservation. Scrubbing the air for CO2 instead of the traditional method of capturing off-gases.
Black@lemmy.today 3 days ago
If they can make like the size of 100-floor building, maybe there will be some differences rather than using trees that only occupied horizontal plane.
SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
Moron
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
What would work better… Trees? Or a machine consisting of rare earth metals which need to be mined and processed and are only partially recyclable… A tree outlives a machine. Replacing old machines with new ones is good for the economy, so yeah, let’s do that! Wait, what was our goal exactly?
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If trees did their god damned jobs, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Those lazy ass trees just standing thur.
rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Seriously, after we cleared out so much room for them, too
buzz86us@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The easier way would be to fully legalize Hemp
LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 days ago
How so?
buzz86us@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It absorbs a ton of C02, and grows in 90 days. Plus it can replace plastics, make fabrics, building materials, insulation etc
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 days ago
what would be really funny is if they cut down some trees to place these lol
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Why spend energy to make energy when you could make solar. Or capture at source tech for non energy producing carbon sources?
AlexCory21@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Who’s gonna pay for the build cost and maintenance? Just curious.
Cattail@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I was thinking how much CO2 it would take to build it and maintain it
Decq@lemmy.world 3 days ago
That was the whole point of the Kyoto agreement no? Make it costly to produce co2, so solution could be made to offset it and get paid for it. But yeah the US of course didn’t sign it so yeah…
omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Powered by diesel engines
Chivera@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Mechanical forest, because organic forest are too darn archaic
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 3 days ago
Non plainer slicing(3d printer) would actually make something like this feasible.
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 days ago
I remember seeing something about fitting ACs for carbon capture. What ever happened with that?
zbyte64@awful.systems 2 days ago
Nowhere because it makes no sense. ACs aren’t directly burning fuel, nor would capturing carbon help in their operation. It’s like selling an extra unrelated device on top of an already expensive appliance. Sounds like a marketing scheme to shift responsibility to individual consumers.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 days ago
What we really need are ACs that utilise AI by cloud computing on the Blockchain
jj4211@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Sorry guys, that’s just the cooler for my new Nvidia card.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
Fun fact: it isn’t nearly enough and is prohibitively expensive making it never feasible to be enough
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
It’s prohibitively expensive and inefficient, but also it’s a necessary early step in making a way to take carbon out if the carbon cycle that isn’t prohibitively expensive and inefficient.
MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Forests: are we a joke to you?
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Forests are a reservoir, they do not remove carbon from the carbon cycle. The only actual solution is to stop bringing carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle, while also removing the carbon we’ve already added. Natural phenomena cannot permanently sequester carbon, this is something humans will have to construct
Ioughttamow@fedia.io 3 days ago
Trees are socialist scum, I’ve heard they can even share resources via root and mycelium systems. Clearly false, because science can’t help but lie, but DISGUSTING nonetheless
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
I like that the headline calls them DAC plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Just fucking plant plants holy shit