Also, I don't think entropy has anything to do with carbon in the atmosphere. I thought it had to do with the size of the energy packets.

Its that using an extra step in the process (producing energy + CO2, then using energy to remove CO2) is going to increase entropy more than not producing CO2 in the first place.

Economic viability is separate and sometimes related to things like this.

Its irrelevant to the economy (in the short term at least) whether a process is efficient in terms of energy or resources. What is relevant is whether or not something can be done for either small sums of money, or sold for profits. More likely both in a capitalist style economy.

Note that it does happen in some cases that using less energy/resources is more profitable, but the driving force, again in a capitalist style economy, is the profit.

I mean, we already have carbon sequestration machines that are even self replicating, and require minimal, if any maitenance....

Trees and algae.

Most pollution comes from shipping, agriculture, and other large industries. Poor countries/people cannot contribute because they are barely getting by as is. Even if the entire middle class in wealthy countries magically switched to electric/public/bicycling, started recycling, stopped watering grass, etc. it would make no noticeable difference.

The idea that social changes at individual level can help with pollution comes directly from propaganda pushed by cunts who are actually killing our planet for profit. Fuck them. Don't spread their lies.

Babe wake up, new copypasta just dropped !

Agree, carbon capture process is quite efficient now. I'm working on (pretty big) company doing Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to use empty oil&gaz reservoir to inject back carbon where it comes from. So there are several advantage:

• The land is already messed up by former drilling platerform. No need to shave another forest to create a facility
• No waste to handle, as the captured carbon is injected in the underground. We also study the possibility to inject other kind of waste, like domestic ones.
• Simplified process as we can keep Co2 in gaz state to inject back in former natural gaz reservoir. Not even needed to extract carbon to solodify it.
• Yes, trees are much more efficient and eco-friendly, but sometime we cannot just plant billions of trees. Whereas a CCS facility is relatively small compared to a whole forest.

Density of CO2 produced vs what trees capture is massively unequal. Yes trees can, but not on any tangible scale that would ever keep up with what we are doing to the planet.

Ok, but how about we do more than trees? Why are you on the internet when pre-linguistic grunting works just fine?

Who says you power that thing with fossil fuels? The real way to do that is via giant nuclear reactors or reactor complexes.

Fission power can be made cheaper per MW by just making the reactors bigger. Economies of scale, the square cube law and all that. The problem with doing this in the commercial power sector is that line losses kill you on distribution. There just aren't enough customers within a reasonable distance to make monster 10 GW or 100 GW reactors viable, regardless of how cheap they might make energy.

But DACC is one of the few applications this might not be a problem for. Just build your monster reactors right next door to your monster DACC plants.

It's also way easier to just stop digging up coal instead of inefficiently trying to get the exhaust from burning it partially back underground.

You would presumably capture the carbon using excess solar and wind power, which is also the cheapest power there is, sometimes going negative

Is your capture number including the cost of liquifying the CO2 for storage?

Would be a sad day if we no longer could reduce entropy locally under the invest of energy.

I don't think there'd be anyone left alive to be sad in that case...

This is a joke.

While physically possible DAC is a waste of money and energy compared to effective measures such as constructing solar farms, batteries and power lines. Even hydrolysis may look attractive.

TLDR: carbon capture is a technology we should use after we stopped polluting to fix the earth.

Yeah, it would just give people a blank check to use more fossil fuels. It is kinda like a diabetic person who acquired the disease later in life, and still not adjusting their lifestyle because drugs mitigate the effects anyhow. And the person will keep eating unhealthy food or not exercising.

Yes that’s the point but why take the extra steps. Use the low carbon energy directly and stop using the high carbon sources.

I've heard that's why the carbon capture is best done directly out of the machinery that creates the carbon dioxide.