Lemmy.ca
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
bot@lemmy.smeargle.fansMB to Hacker News@lemmy.smeargle.fans · 2 years ago

Sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky is moving from science fiction to reality

www.npr.org

external-link
message-square
14
link
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
21
external-link

Sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky is moving from science fiction to reality

www.npr.org

bot@lemmy.smeargle.fansMB to Hacker News@lemmy.smeargle.fans · 2 years ago
message-square
14
link
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]

HN Discussion

alert-triangle
You must log in or register to comment.
  • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    There’s no way this will ever be economical at the scale we need to fix what we’ve done.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • 9point6@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

      • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      We pretty much have no choice. Stopping to put more CO into the atmosphere wont stop climate change unless we can also remove the excess we’ve already put there.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It doesn’t need to be

  • Amilo159@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Word of the day of, Green-washing.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    This sums it up pretty well

    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.

  • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to just grow algae, bamboo, hemp, sugarcane etc. and throw it in a hole somewhere?

  • Smite6645@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

  • habys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    sounds like orc mischief to me

  • funkpandemic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    We already have that, it’s called trees 🤦‍♂️

  • Hathaway@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

Hacker News@lemmy.smeargle.fans

hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans

Subscribe from Remote Instance

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
lock
Community locked: only moderators can create posts. You can still comment on posts.

A mirror of Hacker News’ best submissions.

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 1 user / day
  • 1 user / week
  • 1 user / month
  • 1 user / 6 months
  • 66 local subscribers
  • 2.17K subscribers
  • 17.6K Posts
  • 4.33K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • bot@lemmy.smeargle.fans
  • UI: 0.19.11
  • BE: 0.19.11-n.1
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org