I don't beleive in carbon capture like this, but I do hope it works. I'd rather be wrong here.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5246 readers
361 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I would too, but they have almost a 100% failure rate when it comes to actually going into operation:
Yea it's always had the air of bullshit to me
Im with ya there. I think the problem is we need a massive overabundance of clean energy to power them which can be intermittent but even then I have not seen any indication taht clean energy sources can be manufactured by 100% clean energy and feel to me like they are more akin to energy multipliers.
You're not wrong, it's a dumb thing to do, currently.
Once we have everything running on renewables then by all means, go nuts.
Until then, it's a waste or resources that literally will only make things worse. It's using renewable energy to bury CO2? Congratulations, someone else is spending 100 to let you capture 30. Use your renewable energy to stop someone from using carbon energy in the first place is about twice more efficient.
Sure, investigate to get ready to capture, but stop this bullshit to make money whilst again making it worse