If it's less effective than simply planting more plants, then it would be pointless. It'll take a massive amount of renewable energy to have any impact. That renewable energy might be better used to help burn less fossil fuels.
This is a nice sentiment that I agree with as a sentiment, but it's not realistic.
If it takes the equivalent of 1ton of carbon emissions to capture 1ton of carbon emissions, you are literally going nowhere compared to just replacing fossil fuels.
So this technology needs to be extremely efficient, otherwise the amount of extra energy generation we need - on top of what we already have, renewable or not - becomes astronomical. So far it does not look anywhere close to being sufficiently efficient.
Literally all ideas about carbon capture are quickly revealed to be cynical greenwashing if you think about one simple thing: how much CO2 do we need to store to offset global emissions?
The answer is that we need to store almost 40B tonnes of CO2, or around 10B tonnes of C if we break that down, every year. That's something on the order of 1500 great pyramids of Giza (which weighs 6M tonnes) worth of carbon every year.
14 replies
There's no way this will ever be economical at the scale we need to fix what we've done.
Obviously there's more to it than just saying go, but honestly the economics of it should not matter whatsoever.
It could cost every penny on the planet and still be worth it, the alternative is the end.
If it's less effective than simply planting more plants, then it would be pointless. It'll take a massive amount of renewable energy to have any impact. That renewable energy might be better used to help burn less fossil fuels.
Oh don't get me wrong, we should be doing all that too.
Unfortunately though, it will not be enough. As of the past year or so, all remaining models to avoid hitting a climate breaking point require carbon removal and we're nowhere close to what is required (including natural capture methods).
We need to be throwing everything at this problem starting yesterday. All possible approaches should be put into play.
This is a nice sentiment that I agree with as a sentiment, but it's not realistic.
If it takes the equivalent of 1ton of carbon emissions to capture 1ton of carbon emissions, you are literally going nowhere compared to just replacing fossil fuels.
So this technology needs to be extremely efficient, otherwise the amount of extra energy generation we need - on top of what we already have, renewable or not - becomes astronomical. So far it does not look anywhere close to being sufficiently efficient.
It doesn't need to be
Word of the day of, Green-washing.
Wouldn't it be more efficient to just grow algae, bamboo, hemp, sugarcane etc. and throw it in a hole somewhere?
Invest in future oil, good thinking
This sums it up pretty well
We already have that, it's called trees 🤦♂️
sounds like orc mischief to me
pretty sure this is touched on here, fracking does damage to the place you want to store this CO2. I’m not totally sure this is going to work, at least, as proposed.