For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate change, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology.
        • Korkki@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          5 days ago

          That is just not what the article means when it talks about carbon capture

          • monogram@feddit.nlEnglish
            11·
            5 days ago
            • Does timber contain carbon? Yes
            • Does concrete emit carbon? Yes
            • Where did the carbon in the timber come from? 🪿🪿🪿

            The article talks about how moving to renewables is better than staying with fossil, which is true. It is also true that we need fossil sources for things that don’t have an alternative (yet, like steel production) It is also true that to keep the price of more expensive cleaner option viable carbon credits help

      • cows_are_underrated@feddit.orgEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        To be fair you can use the captured carbon for building or for carbon rivers so its not completely useless. Just way to expensive.

        • psud@aussie.zoneEnglish
          2·
          5 days ago

          Problem the first: carbon capture is too expensive

          Problem the second: when you do carbon capture you get CO2 gas

          I’m starting to like the idea of growing forests, cutting down those forests, cooking the wood to charcoal activated carbon (in solar furnaces perhaps) and storing near pure solid carbon