cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5180379
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/technology by /u/nimicdoareu on 2025-02-15 16:52:57+00:00.
I’m confused why this is even a question that needs to be answered.
We need renewables and carbon capture to even have a slight chance of having a barely livable planet.
There’s no single solution out there that fixes things
Yeah but stupid people are plentiful and overly confident that they can spitball a better idea for solving the problem than literal experts with decades of expertise can because “they’re too close to the problem” or “they’re paid off by big [fill in the blank] to gum up any progress” or whatever. They just don’t believe in complicated solutions or complicated problems because most people aren’t doing anything particularly complicated with their lives. Incurious people aren’t interested in any explanations or nuance.
True, though, we do need a quicker solution with a lower barrier to adoption ASAP. Carbon capture could be a good long-term approach to augment CO2 management, provided we figure out the details of CO2 solution “loads”/proportions, costs, maintenance, and capture locations.
No shit it’s more expensive. The point isn’t to save money, it’s to save the planet.
The point is ALWAYS to save money. That’s what got us here in the first place
Even if you’re capturing carbon - the average American is producing ~14 tons of CO2 per year. That is quite a lot to store if you have captured it.
There are industrial uses for it, so it doesn’t have to be stored forever.
New tech is always more expensive. So this is a dumb headline. Keep advancing it, selling it, and using it, and it will get better and cheaper over time. Removing carbon and the slew of chemicals that are too heavy to float off the earth is a requirement because they don’t just go away…
But those rich fucks (causing most of it) who don’t think climate change is made up, all think, it’s not their problem.
In this
houseplanet we obey the laws of thermodynamics!but then oil tycoons wouldnt make mo money
Water is wet, researchers find
Like basic thermodynamics can tell you that carbon capture sucks efficiency wise. It’s more work to pour water on the floor and then mopping it up and putting a back into the bottle, than just not not spilling the water in the first place.
And even more basic: renewables are consistently cheaper.
It’s not really rocket science that adding a costly postprocessing to an already more expensive solution makes that solution even morer expensiver.
The problem is, spilling water on the floor is how the richest entities in the world keep their power, so that’s kind of out of the question. I don’t see a way to overthrow all the oil money. So either we sit there and hurumpf that the world is shit and unfair, or do something to make it ever so slightly better.
This makes sense. The cost of carbon capture would have to be less than the difference of installing new renewables and operating them, and operating existing fossil fuels.
